The "Read My Book Debate" Review

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 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 we had a radio program and we used to record something and play stuff and all the rest of 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 877 -753 -3341 that's 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number 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 debate that we had done as well as the debate that took place on the

Bible Answer Man broadcast I was listening yesterday 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 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 started downloading I know people have begun downloading the

MP3s, ordering CDs of that particular debate and there's some things you'd like to discuss 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 G3 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 Michuta 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 in a galaxy far far away against Jerry Matitix 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 going to be looking at, that'll be the ninth debate on Long Island, well not the ninth debate on Long Island, the ninth in the series of great debates that Chris Arnzen puts together we've done a lot more than that in fact just today

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 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 interesting to see

Barry, we did that one on Long Island and a number of other debates on Islam and Oneness, Pentecostalism and all the rest of 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 10, wait a minute that doesn't make any sense, 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 really know what else we have as far as debates those things normally don't develop completely until a number of months beforehand we do have some other other brands in the fire shall we say so things coming up we can discuss all that 877 -753 -3341 people are always saying well you know we'd love to 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 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 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 online just want 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 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 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 sixteen seconds long let's go ahead and listen to just a little section from last week's

Bible Answer Man broadcast debate issues he himself says he hates but Mr. Bryson if if God has exhaustive 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 he created a person knowing they would be a specific way

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 been logically necessary but my my my question that I maybe might help to cover some 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 to 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 gonna have this unfulfilled desire to save these individuals that he tried to save he he the

Father Son and Spirit did everything they could to save them but they're 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 I would simply say this that God knows everything that's gonna happen but what happens that is simple cannot be traced to him in a direct sense as a decree traces send 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 got it

God could do all kinds of we we do of course George does not believe that I am in part of the problem here is 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 and that last line there is love would not be meaningful and I I found it interesting it is 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 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 he should be glorified or something

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 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 it was pretty clear what I was saying when I talked about creating evil in other words if 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 that was really interesting right at the end was the assertion concerning concerning God and the idea 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 is we're speaking past each other George does not believe that God created evil.

Well could he have created so there was no evil? George believes that 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... I'm not quite sure I follow the argumentation here it sounded like what was being said and that will 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 took my headset off and I'm like what?

Because the immediate thing that crossed 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 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 that 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 is 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! The person whom it has found is destroyed, is wiped out. 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 point out it absolutely makes no sense at all concerning the well, someone just left channel and demonstrated that they probably started the spiked eggnog a little early this year.

Anyway, 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 ask where in the world did that come from in Scripture?

We never got around to things like that unfortunately but 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 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 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 if I'm a hypercalvinist that kind of thing and then

George going well no he's not actually well then what is this quote in your book mean and he was looking at a loose leaf 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 to the second hour today first time

I've actually listened to the programs other than when 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 listened to the second hour because I was looking for that particular quote and 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 I would very much like to know what is said about Genesis chapter 50 verse 20

Isaiah chapter 10 and Acts 4 27 -28 in The Dark Side of Calvinism I would like to know specifically 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 I just have to wonder if I responded to multiple questions by saying read the book read the book read the book something tells me that eventually someone would have said come on we didn't invite you on this program just sit here and say read the book summarize what you said in the book don't don't do this and so I would like to know so if there's anybody out there 877 -753 -3341

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 them we are running we normally 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 sending the thing out to the internet the way it's supposed to so I don't know what's gonna happen the first time we bring a caller on it may cause the computer to explode my earphones

I'm just gonna 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 percent 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. Hello 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 so I guess this is where Genesis 3 the land is cursed because of it.

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 it that way at least in the eastern part of your state.

Well we do know that the world is flat and if you go too far you will fall 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 that you're speaking of because I'm I don't know if you heard the

Bible Answer Man program with William Lane Craig William Lane Craig that was on it. 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 Synergist but I am aware of the fact that as a

Molinist, as the leading Molinist as far as I can tell that he definitely has a problem with the concept of election well

Molinism is middle knowledge right? To be honest I've never understood what that's supposed to be.

I know people have tried to explain it to me but I don't really get it but he does he did a debate book with an

Atheist and that's what the show is about it would've been nice if you had the same opportunity he had to make a defense of the problem of evil that he had.

He actually had a caller call in and I was amazed at the Atheist that would call in and how clear they seem to understand the problem that you were just discussing a little bit ago about the problem of evil and the

Atheist caller basically at one point asked why did God make Adam knowing he would fall why couldn't he have just brought forth

Christ and that we would all be in him of course I think the caller misunderstood their position on free will which is a part of the problem that I think a lot of people have with you started to talk about in your program last

Thursday about double predestination and how the Bible uses different language for being predestined by God's grace and does the

Bible actually teach that all men are predestined whether by God's grace you start to say that those who are predestined to hell are so on a different basis.

I wonder if you could flesh that out well you know biblically to use the term in a biblical sense when we look at predestination it is used positively that is in Romans chapter 8 we have the golden chain of redemption 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 don't start with a biblical exegesis of text then you can utilize terms in a broader sense.

This always happens for example the term foreknowledge. Foreknowledge 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, the verb to foreknow and you have to understand when it's obviously different when

God foreknows than when men foreknow because they have a different basis of knowledge so on and so forth. Generally 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 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 by the text itself in light of the discussion of Jacob and Esau, in light of Romans chapter 9, in light of Pharaoh to recognize that God is not just simply he's predestining one group by grace and then somehow there's nothing that God does about the others it's not 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 point 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 foundations are different and then the term itself predestined which is an 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 to 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 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 922 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 him 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 eternal perspective the demonstration of all of these aspects of of God's being in creation and God up it may not be proper to say

God predestined these things but it would might be better to say God has created everything for a purpose whether it's for his demonstration of like you're saying to proclaim his name he raised

Pharaoh. Pharaoh was made with a purpose and the intention of that but we wouldn't necessarily say he was predestined even though that might be a proper word in philosophical terms 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, maybe this is something that you can't do in 10 seconds but I'm kinda wondering the whole idea of middle knowledge what is it what are they trying to actually say as compared with a a person who takes a libertarian free will 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 power of the proclamation of the reformers you had to come up with a way where you could say yes

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 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 of those creatures.

Now that of course 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 becomes part of the criticism but the idea is since given this knowledge which we don't really know where it comes from or how it's formed or how it functions given this knowledge then

God chose 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 like open theists and process theologians have of Molinism is it actually when you think about it 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's still guiding it to 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 and so that's 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.

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 would be 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 useful to you there.

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

I could see you doing the same thing and yet here's a middle knowledge guy and here is yourself who actually takes the position of the reformers and you get no time whatsoever really.

Well no one you know we have discussed on this program before we've played calls we've played people who've been guests on the

Bible Answering 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 Hank took the position he's taken for a year and a half two years the only thing that surprised me especially was that was the fact that I would start pressing

George and all 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 in 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 Miles coming up after this break 877 -753 -3341 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 almend .org

millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul the second 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 almend .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 930 a .m. and the worship service is at 1045 evening services are at 630 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 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 sorry how you doing sir?

Hi, I didn't hear you for a second so I'm actually a member of John Piper's church and have recently become familiar with your work and actually a fan of it great and and I bet you it's cold up there right now yeah actually it kind of is

I think it's in like the 20s. Oh 20s yes okay but I had a question regarding devil predestination and I know

A .W. Pink has used the verse Proverbs 16 4 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 interpretation of that could be made that I mean

I've used this or that verse for one at my school which I'm actually 17 and I go to a

Christian school and the reform doctrines aren't really embraced too much there and so I was wondering just first of all what your comments on that would be and I had another question after that but well some of the

Proverbs are a little bit difficult to to become too expansive on given the fact that in in most sections 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 in 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 lot 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 certainly

Proverbs 16 is making a statement concerning the fact that that God God's actions are not purposeless the fact that he is the creator of all things it does demonstrate that everything has a purpose and that given the constant bent of man to say well you know good things yes but evil no no even the wicked for the day of evil there is a purpose that they have now

I don't know that you can expand a whole lot beyond that but I think you could shall we say parallel that with discussions in Isaiah chapter 45 and Isaiah chapter 10 and passages where you do have a fuller context to point out that that God does everything for a purpose and therefore there is a purpose for the evil that exists and if and of course what

I tried to point out in the Bible Answer Man broadcast was if there is no purpose and yet God knew evil was going to exist then you have the monstrous idea that God created knowing that evil would be the result of his creative activity and yet he had no purpose in it that it was simply purposeless evil he brought into existence he's accountable for it but it has no final purpose or no final use in the demonstration of his power the demonstration of his holiness etc etc so I'm not sure why people opt for that but evidently they they do so I think

I'd be about as far as I would be able to to push the text bring it into line with others as a basis for those passages that are a little bit clearer and fuller in what they say.

Does that make sense? Yeah, so when it says for the day of doom you wouldn't take that to mean for the very purpose like for this very reason

I raised Pharaoh up that I might show his power or my power in him or would that not be?

Well I will I will admit that I have not done a specific study of the phrase in fact

I'll just do a, that's the only place where the phrase day of evil appears at least in translation I'm looking at I have not done a specific study of the phrase day of evil that probably would be something that would be that would be good to do but I have not done that I just checked the

Hebrew and that's the only place where the Hebrew appears in that particular form as well so I don't know just how far we could we could push that.

I'm one of those folks that says well you know that's a good question I'm not really certain might want to take a look at that sometime but it doesn't look right now like you could really build a whole lot on it because it seems to be a hopox phlegomena a singular occurrence in the text alright and also

Hank Hanegraaff's argument for Romans 9 I've heard it many times, he just basically goes away from the immediate context to the broader context of like Jeremiah 18 and so forth yes and I wasn't,

I haven't heard any I mean I've read, I mean our past John Piper just recently did you know a whole thing on Romans 9, he wrote a book justification of God which you mentioned in the debate and I'm halfway through that I don't know if he has, at least in his sermons he hasn't gone back to Jeremiah 18 and exegetically interpreted that, so just wondering how you could directly state to Hank Hanegraaff, well exegetically in Romans 9 of course we see that that would just totally contradict what you're basing your arguments on but can we go to Jeremiah 18 and do you have like any arguments against that one exegetically from Jeremiah?

Well I think what you need to and I'm 99 % certain, I mean I can't reach the book from here but given the fact that Dr.

Piper was working on a was doing if I recall correctly his doctoral dissertation on that subject you would,

I would expect and I seem to recall a fairly lengthy discussion of all of the background passages exegetically which would include

Jeremiah 18 and all those issues but in a brief way I would basically just make the statement when you're reading

Paul this is very parallel to what Roman Catholic apologists do with the citation from the

Psalms in Romans 4 I'm sorry Romans 4 verses 4 through 9 they try to go back to Psalm 32 and say well actually what's going on here is this and therefore

Paul couldn't mean that rather than recognizing that what they're reading is a apostolic interpretation of the text that are being cited now the

Apostle isn't going to just simply rip that that passage apart but the same time if the

Apostle gives us a specific interpretation of the text we cannot close our ears to his interpretation simply because it doesn't fit our theologies and so Roman Catholics do that when

Paul introduces Psalm 32 by saying David also spoke the blessedness the man to whom

God imputes righteousness apart from works well that's how you have to interpret that passage and if you're going to say well that's not what the original context is about then your argument is actually with Paul not with the

Protestants who follow Paul the same thing is true here each time and this seemingly was missed and Mr.

Bryson was was being cued in essence to okay start talking about what you're supposed to talk about here in regards to authorial intent and things like that each time that the

Apostle makes reference to one of those Old Testament passages he does so in the context of making a comment on each one he either introduces the citation with an interpretation or he provides an interpretation upon citing it and so you've got to allow the

Apostle to first give you his interpretation before you can even begin to argue against it but what's going on is well it can't mean this because I understand

Jeremiah 18 to mean that and therefore Paul could not possibly have been utilizing it in the form that he did and so I would just I'd stay in Romans 9 and say look here's how

Paul understood it therefore how do you say that Paul's interpretation is wrong in essence that's sort of what

I did because Mr. Bryson said well who are you old man who answers back to God as a rebuke of Calvinism it's like wow that's about as opposite the actuality as you could you could possibly get so I would

I would allow Paul to interpret that point okay you know what you mentioned also on the broadcast

I forgot which verse it was but so then it does not depend on human will or running but on God who shows mercy and the whole argument

I guess that Hank Anagrast points out then it does depend on human will or running if we are the one that ultimately determine and that's why we never

I think got into the text itself is because once you really start walking through it I I stand by my statement you cannot walk through Romans 9 you can't walk through John 6 and not come to those conclusions hey

Andrew we've got two other folks in line need to get to real quick thank you very much stay warm up there in the Burnsville Minnesota I was born in Robbinsdale actually so but didn't stay there long enough to have my blood freeze so I'd like to get back there more often it would help me to cool off after these long hot summers in Phoenix let's talk with Miles back where I moved to from Minnesota when

I was five years old that's Pennsylvania hi Miles hi Dr. White how are you doing? doing good I had a great time on the cruise a week and a half ago well great

I hopefully had a better time than I did I hope you're feeling better you know

I am but I am I'm still sort of trying to get rid of the last vestiges of that asthma that it kicks on when it starts hey

I heard that cough so be careful I hope you didn't get it from me I hope not either when we came back I think

I live Pennsylvania was cold and it was snow the next day I wonder if the radical weather changed that was a little bit different than the half -moon key yes it took me like three days to get my land legs back too oh yes yes hey did you feel that wave going by actually that for the folks in California it wasn't a wave going by anyway yeah

I I listen to the the Bible Answer Man broadcast with you and George Bryson I attend the

Calvary Chapel and one thing I think my pastor you know definitely believes in is teaching on the whole counsel of God and I guess other you know other

Calvary Chapel pastors hearts cry too but what disappointed me really seriously was that Mr.

Bryson never you know respond to your exegesis with other exegesis he just you know like you said earlier you know well read my book

I just you know I hear you know quote passage and and they just kinda just kinda danced around it and like you know

Hank even double teamed on it usually I've heard many times when you're on with Hank and Hank tries to you know either just moderate it or just kinda keep it going but he was really jumping on you too yeah well it was you know

Mr. Bryson was supposed to be defending Hank's position and when Mr. Bryson showed himself to be slow in doing so I was not at all surprised whatsoever that there would be a desire on the

Hank's part to get involved I think it should have been clear in that sense so that I could have asked questions directly of Hank as well

I mean I personally I think it would have been better if it had just been Hank and myself I think it would have been much more clear there would have been more time

I would certainly be open to doing something like that but I had always been a little bit concerned about the way it was going to go the way it did

I mean Mr. Bryson was Hank's hired gun I don't know about that but I do know that like I said earlier in the program only

Hank and George had the book and which seems a little bit strange you would think that maybe that would be something that I would need to have a hold of as well but it didn't work out you know

I was on Calvary's website earlier and I'm looking I'm looking for it myself I can't find it anywhere well

I imagine it will show up eventually right now the only source I know has it is CRI and so that's he obviously he mentioned that it had just come off the presses well like I said it's an eight and a half by eleven velo -bound self -published work and so that means you know they're ordering them as as need be to put them together and that takes time to do and so evidently it was something that was you know still in the works right right toward the end so alrighty

Miles yeah again the cruise was wonderful physically spiritually it was a was a good shot in the arm and great music too right

Steve Camp was wonderful I met some really neat people some really good Christian fellowship it was it was a real blessing

I pray you and your family have a great Christmas alright thank you very much Miles God bless God bless alright okay well let's it's been quite a while we thought maybe

Pierre had fallen off of the the the face of the earth because last

I had heard Pierre was going to be calling back on this very subject and then didn't hear any more from so we're glad to know

Pierre back in Virginia is still doing well and even had a chance to listen to the Bible Antiman broadcast last week right

Pierre yeah I did I hadn't heard the last part the third part I did listen to the first two hours but my question and this goes back to my last comment on our last discussion and that has to do with certain moral issues regarding the the concept of Calvinism and that is you know people who are condemned to an eternity of hell to suffer for something really which they have no opportunity to to do otherwise and this was discussed in your second

I believe it was the second hour and you know George I think was trying to answer it and you kind of deflected the argument by just trying to say well you know

I'm just I'm just amazed that God would be willing to save any of us no actually what happened there that justifies him sending all these billions of people to an eternity of hell without any opportunity for anything otherwise no as I pointed out

I did answer that a number of times first of all that objection is based upon the idea first of all of a rejection of federalism and the concept of men being in Adam and being in Christ which

I asked them about and never got any answers to as to whether in point of fact they believed in that which

I would believe they would have to believe in but seemingly didn't want to follow it where it went and then I pointed out that their objection is based on the idea that somehow

God's grace is to be deserved or must be given to each person on an equal basis because what you're really saying is is that while you might recognize that God has to set a prisoner free that these are individuals who love their sin they are never seeking to do anything about their sin but only to increase their sin in fact

God is having to restrain them from from even doing more sin he is actually expending power to with withhold their sin and keeping them from sinning as much as they could that despite all this then

God is under some obligation to extend his saving grace so as to bring each person out of slavery to sin and God is not under any obligation to do so because the judgment that he hands out to individuals is based upon the intentions of their hearts the intention of their heart is to continue in their sin in fact when they have any positive activity when they have any positive desire it's because God for his own purpose by his common grace has placed it there within their hearts that's the desperate situation of man and so that's why

I was trying to get them to explain Genesis 50 Isaiah 10 Acts 4 because in each one you have the bringing out this idea very clearly especially in Genesis 50 and Isaiah 10 this idea that when

God judges us he judges based upon the intentions of our hearts and that is the issue it's not

God's judgment is not based upon this this this assertion that well I have to be a libertarian free creature for God to be just in judging me because Isaiah 10 wipes that out

I have never heard Pierre maybe you can maybe you can do this for me but I've never heard anyone explain to me how

God could judge the Assyrians when he himself said that he used them as his his rod his staff in his hands to bring punishment against people of Israel let me read it to you verse 6

I send it against a godless nation and commission it against the people of my fury to capture booty and to seize plunder and to trample them down like mud in the streets

God says I'm the one sending Assyria this is what Assyria is supposed to do but then it says yet it does not so intend nor does it plan so in its heart but rather it is its purpose to destroy and to cut off many nations so here you have here's

God's purpose on one hand here's the the Assyrians purpose on the other hand and God says my purpose is going to be done even though they do not intend to fulfill my purpose and then he goes on to say and when

I'm done punishing Israel I'm gonna punish the Assyrians because of the arrogance of their hearts now there you have it there you have the basis of judgment you have clearly

God saying I'm doing this my intention is good and righteous their intention is evil they will be judged

I will be glorified how do you answer that in Isaiah 10 and in Genesis chapter 50 well

I don't question the fact that those who do evil need to be judged the issue however is that within the

Calvinistic theology or soteriology is that actually man was already judged before he was even created that's what

John Calvin said I even have that I have his book and I have that page marked where he specifically states that God decided before he even created them that you know these people this group was going to create for hell and you yourself have made that statement there's a difference there's a vast difference between saying someone is judged and saying that God in the fact that he is eternal and in his creation does recognize and in fact as a part of his creation determine those who are going to receive his grace based solely upon his own mercy and will not upon anything within the creature and those who are not that is not the same thing as judgment and I don't think that the

Calvin used that exact terminology you may be assuming that judgment means the same thing but it's not at least on his theology what do you mean by judgment then?

the judgment found in scripture is in the remember Romans 9 the demonstration of his wrath and the demonstration of his justice that takes place at the end of time not the beginning of time you're confusing his his predestination with the judgment that is the demonstration of his righteousness and everything he's done in creation itself those are two very different things but the

I think you're missing the point is that God already predetermined that this group was going to hell and this other group was going to be saved

I mean before they were even created I mean the judgment is simply a almost a facade that God puts on I guess perhaps to justify his action.

Interestingly you just quoted Romans 9 14 because right after the scriptures said for though the twins were not yet born and not done anything good or bad so that God's purpose according to his choice would stand not because of works because of him whose calls it was said to her the older will serve the younger just as written

Jacob I love but Esau I hated what shall we say then there is no injustice with God is there may it never be think about here you're providing the same objection to the apostle that he himself answered in Romans chapter 9

I direct you back that passage take a look at it thanks a lot folks for listening to the vying line today

I hope it's been useful to you I can see in the channel lots of folks are talking that's what we want to have people doing we will see you next week on Tuesday God bless content for the faith we need new this appeal box 37106

Phoenix Arizona 85069 you can also find us on the world wide web at AOMIN .org

that's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks join us again next