The "Read My Book Debate" Review

The Debate Review and Upcoming Apologetics Events

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 and welcome to the dividing line on this Tuesday afternoon the 23rd of December. Yes, that probably means that since we normally do another program two days later. We probably won't be doing one on Christmas.

We used to a couple years ago and we had a radio program we used to Record something and play stuff and all the rest that kind of stuff. I don't think we'll be doing that this year particularly. And that means this will be the only Opportunity for you to participate in the program this week and you can do so at eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one that's eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number to you for you to participate Today here on the dividing line.

We had a number of callers last week. Obviously many people who wished to vent their spleens on the subjects of the debates that we had done as well as the Debate that took place on the Bible answer man broadcast.

I was listening yesterday and and heard a number of repeated assertions about the necessity of human autonomy and things like that. So I think there was a a little bit of a picking up from what had taken place the week before I did want to play a just a section from one of those hours make a little bit of a comment on it and we can also discuss the subject of the Stafford debate if any of you have started downloading I know people have begun downloading the mp3s the ordering CDs of that particular debate.

And there are some things you'd like to discuss we can that we can do that and we can look forward to the future. We have a number of things coming up next year. We already have the debate on Long Island set up.

I think we have the date too, but you know. Probably best not to mention. I think well. You know what I've got my high-powered DePalm tungsten t3 sitting right here and therefore I can take a look at this thing very quickly and Take a look at May of next year.

We'll be in May on Long Island as it normally is. And I believe it will be the 20th of May 20th of May and I know that Gary Machuta will be my opponent and The subject in fact I think this is on the website or if it's not it's supposed to be because I know it was sent to us the subject will be the apocrypha and Yes, we did debate that once before long long ago.

And again, I see far far away against the geriatrics at Boston College that was 1993 we'd be 11 years down the road from there and I know a lot more about that subject today than I did in 1993 let me tell you that and So that's what we're gonna be looking at that'll be the ninth Debate on Long Island well not the ninth debate on the ninth in the series of great debates.

The Chris Arnzen puts together we've done a lot more than that in fact just today. I I was watching a little bit of Fox News somebody else's TV since I don't have the cable stuff, but and Upon whom did my eyes fall, but good old Barry Lynn and Barry was was being interviewed briefly for a little soundbite in the section on Religion and public life and all that that kind of stuff and so it was it was interesting to see Barry we did that one on Long Island and and a number of other debates on Islam and one this Pentecostal ism and all the rest that kind of stuff.

So we've done a lot of stuff on Long Island, but as far as the great debates go this will be year number nine and hence the 2005 edition will mark year number ten. Wait a minute doesn't make any well.

No yes, it does because we started in 1996 that makes sense so anyway. That's going to be the subject of the debate so we know that one's coming up, and I don't Don't really know what else we have as far as debates those things normally don't develop Completely until a number of months before him.

We do have some other other Brands in the fire shall we say so things coming up we can discuss all that eight seven seven Seven five three thirty three forty one people are always saying well you know we'd love to you know get you to debate in our area debate at our church, whatever and I'd say one out of every twenty of everyone who said oh We want to do something actually ends up panning out and actually happening and Just because people find out Well first of all how many how few people there are in their churches that actually believe apologetics is important.

Or are not absolutely scared to death at the idea of a debate Taking place in a context like that, and I'm you know I understand that I Understand the the concerns about things like that, but it's also a lot of work.

It is just a lot of work to to put those things together. It truly truly is well I did want to play just one clip and then start taking your phone calls before I got one. One caller on line. Just wanted to play one clip.

This is right at the end of the second hour of the Bible answer man broadcast and It was interesting first of all the caller Was pressing the issue that I tried to press in the first hour had never gotten a decent answer to in the first hour to two things illustrate here a There seemed to be a concern that mr.. Bryson would not be able to Answer his own questions, and so there is the the tag-team effect that takes place here.

But then I want you to hear the assertion and we discussed this briefly last time the assertion is made that without the potentiality of evil there can be no love and That assertion is going to be made right the end of this clip.

It's two minutes 16 seconds long. Let's go ahead and listen to just a little section from last week's Bible answer man broadcast debate issues.

But mr. Bryson if if God has exhausted foreknowledges of the things that are going to happen And he creates the people who are going to do them even in your system That still points the finger back at God by your logic.

Not at all not at all.

Knowledge is not prescriptive. The fact that God created a person.

Because he's a person knowing they would be a specific way. Dr. Mr.. Bryson, okay, but we already covered that.

Territory. Quite exhaustively there's no necessity to believe that because God knew What those people would do that he is the cause of what they would do that is not.

Logically necessary, but my question that I maybe might help to cover something. We didn't cover. Could God not have created those individuals so they did not go to hell or was he under some obligation to create them.

Could he just simply have not? The point the caller is making is that if he created knowing what evil would exist and knowing how many people that he Loves and that he's going to I guess continue to love and hence God's always going to have this Unfulfilled desire to save these individuals that he tried to save he the father son and spirit did everything they could to save Them, but they are going to be in hell for eternity hence his desires are never to be fulfilled.

How can we say that it's better to say that that that he did not have a decree that involved a purpose in them. What?

You've just done is what Wilson would call putting a lot of extra eggs in the pudding. But I would simply say this that God knows Everything that's going to happen, but what happens that is sinful Cannot be traced to him in a direct sense as a decree traces sin to God.

So God cannot be blamed for evil that he can be credited for good because he is Absolutely good. Could he have not created could he have not created evil God if God could do all kinds of we do of course.

George does not believe and I mean part of the problem here as we're speaking past each other. George does not believe that God created Evil. What could he have created? God created the potential for evil if God had not created the potential for evil.

Then in fact you get a problem because then love would not be meaningful. If love was not volitional love would not be meaningful.

That last line there is love would not be meaningful, and I found it interesting. It was it seemed obvious to me what I was saying we had discussed in the previous hour to call it an exhaustive discussion.

You know it seems that the assertion that God can know Without giving an answer as to the basis of his knowledge, but that God can know with certainty Without the object of his knowledge being a result of his own creative decree in other words.

Seemingly the only way I can understand this though. No one would ever get around to actually answering the question seemingly the shape of the future is determined by Libertarian free will and when God created though he knew what all the libertarian acts would result in.

He was not the one who? Decreed that they would be that way it just turned out that way it was it was a fortuitous thing it was a it was Fate it was luck it was whatever you want to call it. And it just so happens that it turns out the way God wanted to turn out.

But but you know and this had come up before why then should God be glorified for that. When he brings this into existence and of course you've got the middle knowledge stuff and and people say well You know God had all these possibilities.

And he could go down any one of these lines and he chose to create this one to actualize this one filled with all these free choices. And I guess because he chose that one. That's why you should be glorified or something I I really don't know that you can make a whole lot of sense out of any of that stuff.

But it hadn't been covered exhaustively it had been discussed we had tried to discuss it, but we had this maxim to throw out thrown out that says well God can know without being the cause and When I challenge that and when the caller challenges that we don't really get any answer other than don't question our maxim.

But then I thought was pretty clear what I was saying when I talked about creating evil in other words if if You know could God have created in such a way that there was not this evil. And of course then we had the jumping in there, but the other thing it was really interesting right the end.

Was the assertion concerning? Concerning God and the idea that that he has to have this potentiality of evil. Let me replay that last just last few seconds of the of the clip here.

I mean part of the problem here as you're speaking past each other. George does not believe that God created evil. What could he have created. So there was no evil. God created the potential for evil if God had not created the potential for evil.

Then in fact you get a problem. Because then love would not be meaningful. If love was not volitional love would not be meaningful.

So if love is that so I'm not quite sure I follow the argumentation here. It sounded like what was being said and that'll be the last thing we play out of the clip so we can go ahead and bring That down.

It sounded to me As if what was being said was that without the potentiality for evil love could not exist. Now as soon as the the mics went off. I turned I took my headset off, and I'm like what? Because the immediate thing to cross my mind.

It didn't just cross my mind. A number of people have written about this and and there was even a call in the last hour concerning this. How how can you say that the potentiality for evil Must exist for love to exist that means there had to have been a potentiality for evil in Eternity past so at the father son and spirit in the triune relationship that is theirs could love in perfection.

Indeed the very statement. God is love would then require that there be a potentiality for evil in the nature of God since to be loving in that sense as a part of his very nature and I also pointed out that that would also mean that we could not possibly love God in eternity because without that concept of Potentiality for evil which I suppose maybe the assertion is being made that there will be a Potentiality for evil in the future.

I don't know. Maybe the eternal state is like the Jehovah's Witnesses think it is and if there's any evil it just crops up boom. That that the person in whom it is found is the destroyed is wiped out.

I I don't know I didn't get answers to questions like that. There wasn't any opportunity to get into those things, but I just pointed out it absolutely makes no sense at all. Concerning the does someone just left left channel and and demonstrated that they're Probably started the spiked eggnog a little early this year anyway.

That that this whole concept this whole assertion that the potentiality of evil must exist for love to exist simply has no basis. Logically factually and I'd like to go I'd like to ask where in the world.

Did that come from in Scripture? We we never gotten around to things like that, unfortunately. But it was it was one of the more interesting things and really For those who are interested in behind-the-scenes stuff.

I thought one of the most interesting things to me anyways. Was that even though I had written to CRI earlier and had asked for a copy of? George's book I never got one and When when mr. Bryson showed up he only came with two copies at least two copies into the studio one for himself and one for mr. Hanegraaff who already had his book in loose-leaf format and in fact was quoting from that that you heard sort of a little bit of a debacle at the beginning with quotes where You know you quote something to me then turn to George and ask him.

I'm a hyper Calvinist that kind of thing and then George going well no he's not actually well then what is this quote in your book means mean and he was looking at a loose-leaf of notebook at that particular point and so I Never got a chance to look at it.

I wanted to look at it and I listened. I listened to the second hour today first time I've actually listened to the programs other than when they they aired. I mean once I got back I've only heard the first hour actually.

From participating I've never actually listened to the program. I I listened to the second hour day because I was looking for that particular quote. And there's in the second hour when I asked about Genesis 50 yet again.

I get this response from mr. Bryson read the book. If anyone has that book out there if there's anyone who by some amazing coincidence your shipment has arrived. Maybe you ordered it from CRI or something if there's anyone who has George Bryson's book the dark side of Calvinism.

Which you would think I would have been one of the first ones to be given a copy of one of those. But uh, I would very much like to know What what is said about Genesis chapter 50 verse 20? Isaiah chapter 10 and acts 4 27 to 28 in the dark side of Calvinism.

I would like to know specific was that I would like to have the opportunity of Interacting with the exegesis that is offered By mr. Bryson who evidently could not summarize that exegesis on the program.

I had to summarize all the exegesis in my book on the program, but He I just have to wonder if I responded to multiple questions by saying yeah. Read the book. Yeah, read the book. Yeah, read the book.

Something tells me that eventually someone who has said come on. We didn't invite you on this program to just sit here and say read the book. Summarize what you said in the book. Don't don't don't do this and.

So I would like to know so if there's anybody out there eight seven seven seven five three three three four one I would like to know What George Bryson says about those three verses? He said he deals with it in the book.

I'd like to see what the exegesis is. So maybe you give us a call let us know. Because I would like to know well, we have lots of phone calls. We need to try to get to them. We are running we normally a function on the basis of bailing wire and chewing gum and A few other things just holding together the rickety ship that is the dividing line, but it's even worse today.

Only two hours ago The motherboard and CPU of the computer through which this gets all shipped out into the internet. Was a smoldering mess. I guess it was fried and so we pulled the motherboard and CPU out of another box another system threw it in there, you know what that can result in and So we're running on one computer that won't talk to any other computers, but at least for the moment anyways.

It's it's sending this thing out to the internet the way. It's supposed to so I don't know What's going to happen the first time we bring a collar on? It may cause the computer to explode. My earphones heard up their loins.

I'm just going to make sure not to be touching anything metal. When when this happens if you hear a scream from the other room you'll know that we are down 50 on the employees of the ministry, so You have your life insurance paid up over there, that's what I'd like to know okay.

Let's go ahead and try to try to make this work. Let's talk to Howard over there in in the place where tornadoes come along and Suck you up into places where people wear red shoes and there are witches and people hiding behind curtains and things like that hi Howard.

Dr.. White, how are you sir? It is good to talk to you again. And this is the land that has lots of stickers and things on the ground like ah ah well.

You know we could use that form of exegesis if we wanted to. It's very flat where you live. Let's put that way at least in the eastern part of your state.

Well, we do know what the world all off from here somewhere. Yeah folks in Kansas don't tend to leave, Kansas. Maybe they really do believe that. Well at the edge of the state. There's a cliff, and we don't want to go too far.

I'm glad you're talking about the topic.

I have heard him on before I know he was on recently and I did not hear that. Someone did send me a URL recently to a debate that he did against a former Anglican in which he makes and amazingly enough George Bryson.

Esque. Type of comments concerning 2nd Peter 3 9 1st Timothy 2 4. I'm still waiting for the the meaningful exegesis of those texts by By synergist, but I I am aware of the fact that as a mullinist as the leading mullinist As far as I can tell that he definitely has a problem with the concept of election.

Well.

Mullinism or middle knowledge. Right right. Uh-huh I? Don't answer me, but I don't really get he does he. It would have been nice if you had the same opportunity. He had to make a defense of you know the problem of evil that he had he actually out of the atheists that would clear they seem to understand the problem that you were just discussing and The atheist caller basically at one point asked why did God make but why couldn't he in him?

Well, which is talk about in your program Bible uses different language for right being predestined by God's grace and and Does the better predestined whether you know by God's grace, and you started to say that the basis?

Well, yeah, if you could flesh that out well.

We you know biblically if to you to use the term in a biblical sense when we look at predestination is used Positively that is in in Romans chapter 8 we have the golden chain of redemption. And and those who are predestined you follow the chain down.

They are glorified, so it's used in the positive sense in Ephesians 1 and Romans chapter 8 what normally happens is When you start discussing theology? And you you don't start with a biblical exegesis of text.

Then you can utilize terms in a broader sense as always happens for example the term for knowledge for knowledge is a word that has Philosophical meanings, but since it's found in Scripture It has a noun meaning and it has a verbal meaning there are verb the verb to foreknow, and you have to understand when it's Obviously different when God foreknows and when men foreknow because they have a different basis of knowledge so on and so forth so we Generally one of the one of the problems. We have is that we will use terms in somewhat of a sloppy fashion.

We all do I'm sure that I do as well. Because we will we will Equivocate we will switch switch meanings and so when mr.. Bryson talks about men being predestined to hell he Tries to place it on an equal footing with predestination To life and it's not.

Now I do believe that you are you are forced by Simple logic and and by the text itself in light of the discussion of Jacob and Esau in light of Romans chapter 9 in light of of Pharaoh to recognize that God is not just simply he's he's predestining one group by grace.

And then somehow there's there's nothing that God does about the others. It's not like like it's somehow a surprise on God's part that they don't get themselves saved or something like that. But to use the same terminology and to make it parallel is to completely miss the point the the point of of The others is that they are used by God as a demonstration of his justice and a demonstration of his power and in fact a Demonstration of his long-suffering in the fact that he puts up with these vessels prepared for destruction for such a long period of time.

So the the basis is different. It's not based upon grace. You have the issue of justice over against mercy all the the foundations are different and then the term itself predestined which is an action action on God's part is not used Of anything but those who are saved.

So we tend to just throw that word out there and say well if he predestined to save then he predestined lost without using the biblical differentiation between the two and the Purposes that God has. And while I didn't get a chance to expand upon this at all in In the discussion I mentioned it I'm trying to remember exactly where it was I mentioned it but I Mentioned at some point during the discussion that there is this issue of Romans 9 22 what if God although willing to Demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known now just stop for a moment and and ask yourself a question how many?

Solid well-read Christians would say that the demonstration of God's wrath and The making known of his power is a high priority and should be a high priority in God's actions in this world and the answer to that is I Can't think of hardly any.

We don't think in that way. We're very man-centered I'm afraid and so this idea of The demonstration of his wrath the making of his power known Obviously does not fit anywhere Into the the systems that I was attempting to do battle with shall we say? in in the debate that that was aired last week instead that that whole issue was was laid aside and You know God couldn't be just well, well, how could God? Demonstrate his wrath and make his power known.

Unless he did so in the way that he does this sort of coincides a little bit with Jonathan Edwards speculation that God in creating intended to demonstrate all of his attributes. That is that while we focus upon quite rightfully because it is the primary focus of Scripture we focus upon the Demonstration of his Mercy and his love and his grace and his long-suffering there is also the need for the demonstration of his holiness and his justice and his wrath and his power against sin and so this is the reason Edwards speculated that you have all of this existing in one creation is so that you can see all of the Demonstration or we will be able to see from a heavenly perspective an eternal perspective the demonstration of all of these aspects of of God's being in.

Creation and God. It may not be proper to say God predestined these things, but it would might be better to say God's created his demonstration of. Like you're saying to proclaim this and the intention of that fairly he would say he was predestined even though that might be a.

It's a proper philosophical term, but we need to make sure that we you can see what happens when we Do not make the proper biblical differentiation in the person's mind. They are hearing Predestination of one predestination of another on the same basis for the same purpose, and that's not that's not the biblical point at all.

So we do need to make a differentiation. I think the way you put it was was very very good, okay? Um.

Maybe this is something that you can't do it in 10 seconds, but I'm full idea of middle it with a a.

Person who takes a Libertarian freewill position well what they're trying to do what what Louis de Molina was doing in direct? Command from the founder of the Jesuits Ignatius Loyola was to find a way to confess Some element of God's sovereignty while maintaining the Libertarian freedom of man you have to have Libertarian freedom for the Roman Catholic system to exist because without Libertarian freedom sacraments become irrelevant and the sacraments are the means by which the Roman Catholic Church Controls the grace of God.

Without those sacraments the entire structure of the Roman Church is irrelevant. And so to combat the The power of the proclamation of the reformers you had to come up with a way where you could say yes A God was sovereign, but we are still free in the sense of autonomous.

We have Libertarian freedom and so the concept of middle knowledge is this idea that well since God knows Every how every single free creature will act given certain circumstances. Then he knew this multitude this infinite number of possible creations.

Based upon the starting premises and the free actions those creatures now that of course is the is the problem Most of the attacks upon Molinism and its philosophical foundations aside from pointing out that none of this comes from scripture like duh.

Is that the question is well on this basis? How does God know? What a a free creature is going to do in a given a set of circumstances. And if he does are they really free that it becomes part of the criticism.

But the idea is since given this knowledge Which we don't really know where it comes from or or how it's how it's formed or how it functions given this knowledge. Then God chose the the one path with these millions and millions of free choices That got him where he wanted to go and yet everyone involved with it was still free and One of the criticisms that like open theists and process theologians have of Molinism is it actually when you think about involves?

Massive micromanagement of every single event in the sense that God has to take into account All the possibilities of every free creature in every single situation and what that free creature is going to do and so he has to He has to he's still guiding it to one one point.

But it's all meant to say that because of this middle knowledge because of this True category of knowledge that God would have of what a free creature is going to do. He's still keeping them free, but still getting it where he wants to go in essence, okay?

So that's that's in in a broad spectrum what they're trying to attempt to accomplish. It was interesting we received an email this past week. And I haven't had a chance to look into it, and I'm hoping to get the exact references.

But someone mentioned a discussion by Muller who is a well-known historian of theology that he mentions the fact that Jacob Arminius had Molina's works in his library and Hence may have been very much Influenced by the middle knowledge theory now.

I haven't had a chance to look up the reference that maybe somebody would be so kind as do that and send it along but That was very interesting. If that in fact were the case because it would make the make the connection Rather clearly there at that particular point in time, but hopefully that's that's useful to you there.

Well you know I was just impressed with you know when William Lane Craig was on the program. And you know he's on by himself, and he's able to take you know callers from from people on these questions.

And you know I could see you doing the same thing and yet. You know here's a middle-knowledge guy, and you know here is yourself who actually takes the you get no time whatsoever really well.

No one you know we have we've we have discussed on this program before we've played calls. We've played People who've been guests on on the Bible answer, and we have responded to the promotion of a synergistic Non-reformed perspective and we've answered questions especially when the assertion has been made that Reform scholars can't answer these questions.

We have answered these questions, so I wasn't surprised at all That that Hank took the position. He's taken for a year and a half two years. The only thing that surprised me especially was was the fact that I would start pressing George and all of a sudden I was no longer debating George.

I was debating someone else and Two on one I sort of expected that too. But when one of the two that you're debating also controls all the time and the questions That's when it can become just a little bit a little bit difficult to handle so Howard.

Thank you very much for your call. We appreciate getting started on the right foot here. We've got Andrew and Myles coming up after this break eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. We'll be right back.

Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior in Their book.

The same-sex controversy. James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject. Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including Genesis Leviticus and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner. They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.

The same-sex controversy defending and clarifying the Bible's message about Homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at al min or millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co-redeemer with Christ.

Elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion. In his book Mary another Redeemer James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic.

He traces how Mary of the Bible esteemed mother of the Lord obedient servant and chosen vessel of God has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed Queen of Heaven. Viewed as co-mediator with Christ and now recognized as co-redeemer by many in the Roman Catholic Church.

Mary another Redeemer is fresh insight into the woman. The Bible calls blessed among women and an invitation to single-minded devotion to God's truth. You can order your copy of James White's book. Mary another Redeemer at a omen org.

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45. Evening services are at 6 30 p .m.

On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org.

Where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Proverbs 16 and the Limits of Double Predestination

It's a journey. And we'll go back to the dividing line. Time is moving quickly. We have three folks on lines. Let's get started with Andrew in Burnsville Minnesota. Hello, Andrew. Hello, Andrew. Going once for Andrew going twice for Andrew.

We're even going to be talking about Proverbs 16. Hey, there he is.

Hi, you don't sir. Hi. Um, I didn't hear for a second. So, um I'm actually a member of John Piper's church and has recently become familiar with your work and actually fan of it great and. And I bet you it's cold up there right now.

Actually, it kind of 20s 20s. Yes. Okay. Um, but I had a question. Regarding double predestination. Mm-hmm. And I know a W pink has used diverse Proverbs 16 for as an argument.

To point to it. The Lord has made everything for its own purpose. Even the wicked for the day of evil.

Yes, and I was wondering if exegetically an interpretation of that could be. I've used this art that verse. You know, I go to a Christian school. The reform doctrines that really embraced too much there and.

Comments on that would be. Well, some of the Proverbs are a little bit difficult to to become too expansive on Given the fact that in in most sections of the book of Proverbs you don't have a large amount of context in which to place The statements and hence you have just a pithy proverbial statement That I think you have to be a little bit careful.

I think there are some passages and Proverbs that that reflect a recognition of the absolute sovereignty of God and for example in regards to the fact that The casting of the law in the lap of the Lord who directs the ways and and The turning the heart of the king wherever he God wills and and those at least contain enough context within themselves To make that kind of a statement and it's certainly Proverbs 16 is making a statement concerning the fact that that God God's actions are not purposeless.