Michael Brown's Calvinist Call

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 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, hopefully one that will go without too many difficulties via Skype coming to you from the beautiful downtown area of Santa Fe, New Mexico.

I did a GPS fix and I'm exactly 7 ,012 feet above sea level right now.

And so enjoying my time here. I may have to take a few extra deep breaths to get through all of it.

But speaking at the Gospel Light Community Church, Pastor Paul Skazafava is the pastor there and spoke

Sunday morning. Last evening, we had a Q &A session and tonight and tomorrow night,

I'll be speaking as well at 7 o 'clock. So if you're in the area, I would very much invite you to come on out and join with us.

We will be looking at a number of articles today. I've got some clips to play, we were just testing and in point of fact,

I will be able to play some clips. And in fact, what I've been told is that the clips are clearer to understand than I am.

I'm having to use both my iPad and my MacBook Pro at the same time to make this work.

Some update a few months ago killed both Google Earth and Skype. And I just haven't had the time to try to do all the work it takes to fix all of that and may not even have the capacity to do it.

We'll find out. But anyway, so I'm using my iPad for the Skype connection and then my

MacBook for playing the clips. So we'll see how that ends up working out. And plan is,

Lord willing, to do a program live from Evergreen, Colorado on Friday.

And hopefully that will work out as well. We will see. I want to start off with an article that I was pointed to,

I think, last evening. And I've got to admit, it's somewhat frustrating, but I felt like I needed to respond to it.

I was directed to an article posted yesterday. Unfortunately, this website, there's no name on the actual article itself.

When you do some digging around to try to find out who is who, all you end up with is a single name,

Dr. James Ack, A -C -H, has a doctorate in theology, master's degree in Christian counseling, paralegal degree, and a former special forces intelligence agent.

Okay. It also says that he has committed the entire New Testament to memory. Well, that would be wonderful.

He's also described elsewhere as a King James only separated independent fundamentalist

Baptist, I believe is what I saw elsewhere. So this is definitely a

King James only site, though, ironically, there was actually no reference, enough to make me faint, no reference to the

King James only controversy in this article. So that may be the first time on a King James only website that no one made reference to the

King James only controversy. Anyways, it is entitled, Where Was James White?

Now, assuming that Dr. Ack is the, what, Doc Ack, I hadn't even thought about that till just now.

Anyways, assuming that Dr. Ack is the author here, it does not say, and that's the only name, the end of the article actually asks the question, can anyone explain this?

And so I'm going to explain what is asked here, and we'll go from there.

It says, the following may be total speculation on my part. I stop immediately and say, you're exactly right, it was, and may be refuted at some later time.

Yes, the second day after it was posted, well, actually the first day after it was posted, it will be refuted by yours truly, of which

I will gladly retract when I'm about to write. Well, we'll find out. I will certainly let

Mr. or Dr. Ack know of my response here, and we'll see how quickly it's retracted.

But a pattern I have noticed from James White, popularly apologeticist and debater, not good

English there, has become quite disturbing. That would be an apologist,

Dr. Ack, and that would be popular, and I wouldn't say that's actually overly true. But anyway,

James White debated Ergin Kanner. No, I never have debated Ergin Kanner. There was a scheduled debate in 2006, which was canceled by the actions of Ergin and Ymir Kanner.

They went back on their word against their own signed documents, and there was no debate. And so I'm a little bit concerned that you would think we debated when anyone who really wanted to look would know the facts of this, especially since he will later on talk about having spent hours researching things on the internet.

James White debated Ergin Kanner, a teacher and president at Liberty University, over the issue of Calvinism. As I point out, no, did not.

In 2010, James White later went on a personal witch hunt to dig up dirt on Kanner, which led to a large controversy over the veracity of Kanner's testimony that he was actually raised in Turkey as a

Muslim, as he has claimed for several years, a matter of which three years later, White is still addressing.

I have watched, should be watched, White's videos on this. I have also read

Dr. Norman Geisler's exhaustive response. Both sides have compelling arguments.

Well, let me stop right there and say, no, sir, that is not true. If you consider the excuse sheets posted on Dr.

Geisler's website to be compelling, well, that would explain why you're a King James only -ist, I think. Because if you think that saying that Bible 316 is a proper way of saying the

Bible, or the other amazing, I mean, there is not an excuse on Dr.

Geisler's website that we have not thoroughly, thoroughly, fully refuted as soon as it was posted.

I mean, there's just not one. It's just that bad. So, to say both sides have compelling arguments,

I think, says a lot about Dr. Ock's ability to discern argumentation.

Anyway, as it continues on, by the way, I should go back. It was not a personal witch hunt.

The essence of this article is that I should be involved in every other controversy that comes down the line.

As I have documented many, many times, and I'm not sure how Dr. Ock missed this documentation, the reason that I became involved in the

Erwin Kanner scandal and continue to be involved in it, it's quite simple, Dr. Kanner pretends to do what

I actually do. He mentions by name people that I actually debate. You can go online and watch my debates with these people.

You can't do that with Erwin Kanner, because he has never done the things that he pretends to have done.

And so, it's very simple. If I'm going to be debating Shabir Ali, or at the moment, writing a book with Shabir Ali, then

I have to be honest in regards to people on, quote -unquote, my side of the aisle when they lie about Shabir Ali, as Erwin Kanner did.

Even one saying that Shabir Ali was dead, which is quite interesting. But I became involved with this when it became very clear that Erwin Kanner was pretending to be an expert on something he is not an expert on, and had made up an entire persona that is completely fraudulent in its outlook and in its factuality.

And so, that is why I became involved with this. Now, there are other people who have questionable claims in regards to the area of Islam, but I've never become involved with them, because they're not claiming to do what

I do. I am an apologist. I am not a private investigator. I am not a muckraker.

I am not going around trying to find controversies to get involved with. I had to be involved with the

Erwin Kanner situation, because I'm actually on the front lines. I am one of the few people, and I can count on one hand the number of people speaking in English, and truly, really worldwide, who have stood in the places

I have stood and engaged in debates I've engaged in. And so, what am I supposed to do?

If there's someone running around making false claims in that specific area, pretending to do what

I actually do, am I supposed to ignore that? Of course not. I had to address it, and of course, it's grown to a much greater illustration and example of the degradation of the apologetics community, that so many are willing to keep their mouths shut simply for political power, getting to speak at the big conference, or whatever else it might be.

It's a shame. So, this was not a personal witch hunt in any way, shape, or form.

I reject such libelous descriptions. It's false. Dr. Ock doesn't know what he's talking about at this point.

It continues on. But what concerns me most is James White's motive for searching out this information, question mark.

That's not an interrogative, Dr. Ock, so that would actually have to be a period. James White has an extensive history debating

Muslims, and thus should have been, and likely was, aware for quite some time that Kanner was also among the noted scholars that debated

Muslims, yet White's attack on Kanner seems to have come only after his debate with White on Calvinism.

Again, we've had no debate with Ergin Kanner on Calvinism. Dr. Ock is confused.

And as I have documented and explained, after 2006, starting early 2007, Dr. Kanner was not even on my radar screen.

One of the reasons that would be is that he wasn't debating any Muslims. He wasn't doing what he was pretending to do.

And so I would have had no reason to have encountered him. I would have had no reason to have any, you know, interaction with him or anyone else because of the fact that the entirety of his presentation was fallacious.

It was fantasy. And so when he says, I have an extensive history of debating

Muslims, well, there's something you need to recognize, Dr. Ock, that your extensive research did not seem to point out to you.

My first debate on Islam, I debated one Muslim in 1999, but I was simply debating,

I was defending the deity of Christ. I was not, at that time, a student of Islam. I began studying

Islam in 2005. The Kanner debacle took place in 2006, and my first debate with a

Muslim was with Shabir Ali in 2006, May of 2006 at Biola.

So the vast majority of my debates with Muslims, and I've done many of them and have many more coming up, Lord willing, took place after that debacle.

And so you're just wrong again. Of course, my quote -unquote attack on Kanner seems to come only after his debate with White and Calvinism.

No, I forgot about Erdogan -Kanner, and my blog demonstrates that for a number of years.

It was not until late 2009 that I saw something on Twitter where he was attacking Calvinism that I even mentioned something about it.

And that's when a Muslim contacted me and said, have you seen my videos on Erdogan -Kanner? And that's when

I started getting some sense that there was something not right. But it still took until February of 2010 before I became convinced that Erdogan -Kanner was lying.

It never crossed my mind. In fact, as I've said many times, I assumed his anti -Calvinism was because he was a former

Muslim and just not a well -educated one. But the reality turned out to be something different than that.

So as you can see so far, Dr. Ock, a massive number of simple factual errors piled up here.

And he's going to just build upon this fallacious foundation in this article.

White published a book titled The Potter's Freedom Response from Geisler's book Chosen but Free, Geisler's Refutation of Calvinism.

Interesting enough, that's what Geisler describes it as. But we move on. Geisler then published a video response to White's book titled

Why I'm Not a Five -Point Calvinist. I don't think that, I think he actually presented that before that.

But anyway, White is now accusing Norman Geisler of covering up for Erdogan -Kanner. Well, not just accusing, documenting.

And demanding that Geisler remove Kanner from his position in Geisler's ministry. I think what he means by that is that in light of Kanner's refusal to repent of his lies, it would be best not to have him teaching for Veritas Theological Seminary, I would assume.

That's what he means by Geisler's ministry. White also had a debate with Dave Hunt over Calvinism.

No, actually we wrote a book together on that subject. And White later accuses, actually would be accused,

Dave Hunt of misrepresenting Calvinism. Actually, I had done that before he wrote our book. And being dishonest about his knowledge of the

Reformers. Well, yeah, that's a fact. Because within six months to say,

I don't know anything about the Reformers, then turn around and say, I know more about Calvinism than most Calvinists do. You don't learn things that fast.

Sorry. And Dave didn't either as his book demonstrated. I love this. One James White supporter,

I think it means supporter, even goes so far as to accuse Dave Hunt, now deceased, of refuting

Calvinism due to a Jesuit conspiracy. And then there's this link to an article by someone named

Michael Bunker. Now, that name rings a really faint bell with me. But I really don't know who it is.

And evidently, if you're a Calvinist and you write something on the

Internet, I am responsible for it. So this, again, connects to the

King James -only -ism. I mean, anyone who's a King James -only -ist really struggles in recognizing category differences.

They commit category errors all the time. And here's a good example.

So you've got somebody who writes an article. My name's not in the article. It's below the article in references.

But other things to read. But one James White supporter even goes so far as to accuse

Dave Hunt of refuting Calvinism due to a Jesuit conspiracy. Well, that thought never crossed my mind.

And so to even raise the issue or to make the connection, again, demonstrates the standard

King James -only incapacity to make proper category distinctions, which is a sad thing to observe.

But anyway. Now, here's my question for James White. With all the controversy that he stirred over Eric Cantor.

Well, Eric Cantor is the one who made up the controversy, by the way, by lying for almost an entire decade, starting after 9 -11.

So nine years of lies. With all the controversy stirred over Eric Cantor and the amount of evidence he amassed to argue his case.

By the way, I have been very, very, very clear and open in recognizing that other people did the vast majority of the research into these things.

So I did some. But other people did the vast majority of these things. Jason Smathers, the

Muslims themselves who provided the initial video evidences,

Turreton Fan and Channel, other people like that were very much involved in doing these things.

So I did not, I do not in any way, shape or form take that credit for myself to argue his case enough to demand that he resign his position.

Well, actually, he lost his position. How is it that James White remains silent about the lawsuit and allegations against C .J.

Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries involving the cover -ups of dozens of sex crimes and abuse cases?

With two question marks. SGM is undoubtedly one of the most popular Calvinist movements in the United States, and several

C .J. Mahaney's cohorts are also colleagues, misspelled, of James White, Mark Dever, Albert Mueller, Ligon Duncan.

Some of SGM's own staff published accusations against C .J. Mahaney. With such a high -profile lawsuit and accusation against one of the most popular

Calvinist groups, Exxon, it would be foolish to think James White was, slash is, not privy to these matters.

And yet, from what I have been able to find, or rather unable to find, is any response from James White whatsoever about the abuse of Sovereign Grace Ministries.

I have spent hours upon hours scouring the internet for a response from White and have found none.

James White was eager, three years in the running now, to oust Ergon Cantor for being dishonest about where he was born and demanding that those whom he serves with in ministry denounce him.

But when it comes to his own camp about sexual abuse, James White is silent. Can anyone explain this?

Well, Dr. Rock, I am glad to take the opportunity of explaining your error to you.

First of all, I am an apologist. This is not an apologetic issue. The first time I even heard about it was in a

Gospel Coalition position paper that was published, what was that, about four months ago?

I don't remember now. Secondly, you assume many things that are simply false.

For example, you say several of C .J. Mahaney's cohorts are also colleagues of James White.

First of all, sir, I've never met C .J. Mahaney. I've never spoken in a conference to C .J. Mahaney. To my knowledge, I've never spoken to the

Sovereign Grace Church. I could be wrong about that. But I don't remember that. I've never been invited to any

Sovereign Grace functions. To my knowledge, again, I could be wrong about that. But I don't think that I have. I don't have any recollection of it.

I've never met Mark Dever. I've never met Albert Mueller. I've never met Ligon Duncan. I have had correspondence with Dr.

Mueller and with Ligon Duncan. And I've talked to Ligon Duncan on the phone. But I am not a networker.

Have you ever seen me, Dr. Rock, at any of the big conferences where these folks speak?

No, you haven't. I'm not a part of that group. And so, to say it would be foolish to think

James White was or is not privy to these matters is absurd. Prove it, sir. Prove it.

I know exactly as much about this as anybody else does. And in fact, much less, because to be perfectly honest with you, as I said, the first time

I heard about this was in, I'm pretty sure it was Gospel Coalition. It may have been one of the other major websites,

I don't know. But that was, and I didn't even read the entire response.

I just scanned it over and said, oh, that's a shame. I'm sorry, something's going on there. But not my calling to be involved in anything like that.

And I did not in any way, shape, or form pursue it. We have had a number of people contact us citing the

Cantor situation saying, why aren't you in the middle of this? And I just, I am amazed that people cannot understand category errors.

Why should I be involved in this? I don't know the principles involved.

I'm not a part of the churches. It's not a part of my church. I'm not an elder in those situations.

So, yeah, well, you went after Erkin Cantor. Yes, he was pretending to do what I actually do. He was pretending to debate the very people

I actually debate. So I had no choice. But what makes me an expert in dealing with sexual abuse accusations against C .J.

Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries? What gives me any standing for even talking about it?

Absolutely, positively, nothing. I mean, if I was some bud of C .J. Mahaney, if I had been speaking at conferences for ten years, well, okay, then

I might have some standing to at least comment on it. But that's not me.

I've never been in those places. So it is absurd on a level that's difficult to even understand.

Why anyone would think, well, I think your job should be, you should just be out there looking for scandals everywhere because you went after Erkin Cantor.

I just stutter at, well, I'm going to use a strong term here, but the stupidity of that thought.

And it's not just Dr. Ock that has expressed this. But Rich will tell you, every time he's gotten an email from somebody,

I've just looked at him like, you've got to be kidding me. Who do these people think I am? What do they think this ministry is about?

We're involved in defending the faith, giving a reason for the Christian faith. And the only reason that I've been involved with Cantor is because he is continually, and to this point, continually, continuing to give a black eye to the very movement that we are a part of.

So, Dr. Ock, you need to retract, apologize, and delete as soon as is humanly possible.

And I will leave a note on your website directing you to this discussion because it is just absolutely ridiculous, this kind of stuff that is out there.

Now, shifting gears, because I do want to get back to the Calvinist call -in stuff before the end of the hour,

I think we would be amiss to not note the release of a very interesting papal encyclical.

What makes it particularly interesting is that it is a co -authored papal encyclical.

And what I mean by that is it was started by Benedict and finished by Francis.

Now, I really wonder, is Benedict still infallible?

Are there two infallible people? I would assume dogmatically, no. But what's it like to be infallible one day and not infallible the next?

Do you start dialing wrong numbers, bringing up the wrong URL all the time? I don't know.

Of course, we recognize that neither one of them has ever been infallible at all. And we also recognize that infallibility is this wonderful chimera, this wonderful fuzzy concept that you can never disprove.

Because if you find any place where the pope actually makes a mistake, then what he said wasn't infallible at that point.

Just listen to the various debates we've done over the years on that particular subject. But anyways, this new delight of faith,

Lumen Fidei, is co -authored. And so I was looking through it, and it's dated the 29th of June.

I noticed the gentleman at a call to Confusion called this,

Lumen Fidei, a forum for ecumenical dialogue. Now, think for just a moment. It's a nice picture of Benedict and Francis there.

But listen to what they said. The letter is intended to supplement Pope Benedict's encyclicals on the other two supernatural virtues, in particular his two encyclicals on love and the one encyclical on hope.

Here I'm opening a forum to discuss this latest encyclical on faith, especially with a view to its ecumenical implications for Protestants and Catholics.

Because one critical element of the Protestant -Catholic separation in the 16th century centered around faith and its role in salvation, it might be worthwhile to discuss together how

Pope Francis' encyclical on faith illumines also the ecumenical path by which the separation may be healed.

Keep in mind something, folks. This kind of ecumenical dialogue can only, from Rome's perspective, have one outcome.

In the minds of the folks at Call to Confusion, it can only have one outcome. The only proper outcome of any and all ecumenical dialogue is to return to Mother Church.

The only true church. That's the only proper result of ecumenical dialogue, which is why

I don't do ecumenical dialogue. Of course, I think real ecumenical dialogue is actually debate, which

I guess we do do in that sense, but not from these guys' perspective. Anyways, it says,

In what ways does this encyclical on faith help Protestants and Catholics find common ground regarding Christian faith?

Again, I just stop and go, what do you mean common ground? The only true common ground from Roman Catholics' perspective is what

Rome itself teaches. There can be no movement from Rome's definitions. There can be no correction, because there can be no

Roman error. Because Rome is infallible, right? So what do you mean common ground?

Or at least find more common ground than we may have seen before. In what ways does it show us a way forward in areas remaining divided?

What's forward? Again, from Rome's position, if you're infallible, the only forward direction is to Rome, right?

What climbs within the encyclical remain points of disagreement between Protestants and Catholics, and what are the underlying reasons for these remaining disagreements?

So I scan through it, and the final section

I found very, very interesting. Of course, there's a bunch of stuff about Mary and all that kind of stuff.

But I found the last section very interesting, because you've probably heard me read the incredible prayer that I read to Jerry Mattis six years ago on WEZE in Boston, which

I'm sure Algo has memorized and quoted in the channel for us, verbatim, without making a single error, as soon as he hears this.

It was a prayer from a booklet I found in the hospital chapel where I worked at that time, many moons ago, 24 years ago now.

And it was a prayer to Mary, where the petitioner entrusts himself to Mary, entrusts his salvation into Mary's hands, and then prays for Mary to save him from three things.

His sins, the devils, and Jesus. And then asks that she support him so that at the hour of his death, the petitioner's death, that the petitioner would have recourse to Mary for salvation.

At the end of this particular text, there is a prayer.

And it's the last section. And here's the prayer.

Notice the difference between the older form of Romanism and the new form of Romanism.

What's changed and what has stayed the same? Algo is in channel quoting from Alphonsus Liguri now.

I knew that was going to happen. Let us turn in prayer to Mary, mother of the church and mother of our faith.

Mother, help our faith. Open our ears to hear God's word and recognize his voice and call.

Awaken in us a desire to follow in his footsteps, to go forth from our own land and receive his promise.

Help us to be touched by his love that we may touch him in faith. Help us to entrust ourselves fully to him and to believe in his love, especially at times of trial, beneath the shadow of the cross, when our faith is called to mature.

So in our faith, the joy of the risen one, remind us that those who believe are never alone. Teach us to see all things with the eyes of Jesus, that he may be light for our path.

And may this light of faith always increase in us until the dawn of that undying day, which is Christ himself, your son, our

Lord. Now, of course, we have to ask the question, how could

Mary do any of this? How could Mary awaken in us a desire to follow in the footsteps of Christ?

Isn't that the role of the Holy Spirit? Yes, yes, of course it is. How can

Mary help us to entrust ourselves fully to Jesus? Again, Mary here is seen taking divine roles, just as in Mediatrix and Advocate for the

People of God and all these other things where you have that kind of a parallelism.

But there is a real softening, not in the sense of change, but a softening in the language.

Because you do not have here, you know, protect me from my sins, the devils, and Jesus, because by one prayer from you, he will be appeased.

But you still have this compromising centrality of Mary without those other aspects being included in this particular prayer.

That doesn't mean that the prayer that we've read many times before does not continue to have a, shall we say, impact upon people.

I believe, did I, did he, no, is it the one up here?

No, but there are, Algo posted a link to the April 6th, 2005 article that I posted which provides a number of citations from Liguri in regards to Marian devotion and things like that that you might want to take a look at if you'd like to see it.

Anyways, it was interesting to see that, and I sort of doubt that that's going to end up having a whole lot of part in the conversation, but that's just something that I noticed in regards to this particular

Lumen Fide, the Light of Faith encyclical that has been released, co -authored between Benedict and Francis.

All right, let's get to the clips here. We've got, looks like, a little less than half an hour left on the program today.

Maybe on Friday we'll try to take some phone calls. Sometimes hard to hear, to be perfectly honest with you, going both directions, actually.

But we took the time to get some of the articles transferred over to me so that I would be able to play them.

And as I said, I think you will probably find the material from Michael Brown easier to understand than my own voice, because the little speaker is a very loud speaker.

I'm sure that whoever's in the hotel room next to me is finding all this very, very interesting. And probably very, very strange, actually.

But I want to continue on responding to the Calvinist call -in show, because I think it is important to do so.

And we're talking about the issue of evangelism. I don't know if I played this.

It sounds very familiar, but I'm going to go ahead and play it just in case. I don't want to skip over something if I repeat it.

Oh, well, you've heard it all before. But here's a comment that Michael made.

That was an incredible burden on me, and so it's actually helped free me up. Not that I can be

Calvinist. I think too many Calvinists who do evangelize say, well, that means I can be as abrasive as humanly possible.

And I think that's unwise as well. But it has freed me up saying, I'm not the spirit.

He's doing the work. All right, so let me just jump in. Let me just jump in. I do understand that point.

And I have talked to others who've had the same experience. So I've seen it both ways. I've seen a belief in Calvinism take off the cutting edge of a burden to fast, to pray, to go for the lost, the sense of urgency to bring the message.

And I've seen on the flip side, others say, hey, I just have a greater confidence that God's going to save. So we should certainly have that mentality, that it's

God's word, God's power that saves. Okay, we should have that mentality, that it's

God's word and God's power that saves. But again, if God is trying to save every single individual equally, then how can you say that it's

God's word and God's power that saves? The best you can say is it is God's word and God's power that makes salvation possible and that is being extended to each and every individual equally.

But in the final analysis, it is the individual's choice, which is outside of God's sovereignty.

It is outside of God's decree. It is the individual's choice that determines whether God's attempt is going to be successful, then that is going to materially impact your methodology and attitude of evangelism.

It's certainly going to impact your prayers, and that's going to come up a little bit later on, so I'll just hold off on that because it will come up a little bit later on.

But here's a question for you, Jason. Sure. Are you willing, and then I know you had a question for me, but I want to ask you this.

Are you willing to say that even if you don't evangelize, that God is still going to save who he's going to save?

Now, that is a false dichotomy from a reformed perspective. It's a false dichotomy because it puts on one side

God's decree of election and then puts on another side

God's decree of whatever happens in time, as if they can be separated from one another. It's a false dichotomy.

Obviously, it's meant to appeal to the person, the human being, in saying, well, you know, if you think that God's going to save, then whether you evangelize or not doesn't really matter.

That is what a hyper -Calvinist does believe. But the reality is God ordains the ends as well as the means, and the means by which he accomplishes his ends is he has chosen to use his people, and so that is why we are commanded out of obedience to Christ to engage in evangelism.

Now, if you're just talking about a theoretical question, if I am rebellious against God, can

God's eternal decree be overthrown, the salvation of his people? That's a different thing than asking this question.

It really is. I'm sure that Michael would see that's a different category, and it's different questions we're being asked, and the question we're being asked there is, can

God's eternal decree be overthrown by human action? And I don't think that Michael believes that there is an eternal decree.

He's dismissed the concept of an eternal decree already. So from a Calvinist perspective, that would be a different response.

So we continue on. God says that there's going to be people from all over. It doesn't mean that he predestined them.

It simply means he foreknows that. He sees those ready to receive. He sees those that his spirit has been working on that are receptive.

But even if you put that— No, no, no, wait a minute. Again, this is where we've really got to ask serious questions of where Michael's coming from.

He sees those who are ready to receive. Why are they ready to receive?

Well, his spirit's been working on them. Well, I thought his spirit was working on everybody. Again, it seems like one of the real questions here— we have to ask

Dr. Brown to be consistent in his theology here and say, okay, is

God working equally upon each human heart, and has he always done so?

It seems unquestionable to me, historically, that that is not the case in regards to the people of Israel.

It seems unquestionable that in the history of the people of Israel you have the remnant and that they are different from those who end up under God's destruction, and that God is the one who reserves those 7 ,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal.

It's not because he just happened to look down the corridors of time and go, whew, wow, there's 7 ,000. They were better than the others.

They were more sensitive. They were more willing. I would like to have had 8 ,000, but they just weren't there.

There was nothing I could do about it. That's not in any way, shape, or form the conclusion one would come to from reading the

Old Testament text. And so we need to know, because sometimes it seems that Michael's going back and forth between two different positions.

If it's necessary for God to soften the heart, can

God do so effectively? Or is it that he's just trying to soften everybody, and some hearts are more pliable than other hearts, and then again the issue comes back to, okay, then the reason some people are saved is because they're better than somebody else.

And I know that Michael goes, I've never heard anyone say that. But that's because I don't think Michael's hearing what we're saying. What we're saying, what

Brian was trying to say, and what we're trying to say very consistently, is if you boil it down to God's trying to save everyone equally, but your heart is different than someone else's heart, and hence is more susceptible to the wooing of the spirit, then it is that difference in your heart versus someone else's heart that determines whether there is going to be salvation, whether God's going to be glorified in that salvation or not.

And that comes down to basically saying, well, the better people get saved. Because if your heart's more pliable, isn't it more pleasing to God for your heart to be pliable than for your heart to be hard?

Of course, I would point out all hearts are made of stone until there is the work of the spirit of God. But that is the real question that I don't think really was gotten to in the conversation on the

Calvinist call -in day, mainly because the vast majority of callers were not Calvinists. Totally aside, you do have to work this through.

Let's just say you have a child, and in your mind, your child is either elect or not elect, either chosen to salvation or passed over or chosen for damnation.

So whether you're the world's best father or the world's worst father, ultimately, that kid is either in or out.

If you're a strict Calvinist, you have to ultimately believe that. And I see everything in scripture telling me the opposite.

Okay, but Dr. Brown will say that God does know. Now, he knows passively.

He knows by looking down the corridors of time. He knows by some kind of foreknowledge.

And, of course, the essence of our debate was, what's the origin of this foreknowledge?

How can he have this foreknowledge? And obviously, I don't believe that Michael was able to give a consistent and biblical response to that.

But even from his perspective, and he's going to say it later on in one of the later clips, that God knows by foreknowledge who's going to be saved.

So God knows whether your child is going to be saved or not. And that's all that matters. So if God knows from eternity and his foreknowledge cannot be in any way, shape, or form falsified, then what's the difference here?

I mean, the only difference is that from my perspective, what I'm saying is that the decree flows from the good purpose of God.

What we are promised in scripture is his good and perfect will. And in the other position that Michael's taking, it's merely passive knowledge, what happens in time, and it doesn't flow from his good and perfect will, but his good and perfect will has been to leave that to mankind to determine.

I would rather have God, the judge of all the earth, in charge of my child's salvation than them being in charge of my child's salvation.

But that, in essence, is what we have going on here. And even if there's something

God's doing behind the scenes, Deuteronomy 29 .29 says, the secret things belong to the Lord. What's open and revealed belongs to us.

So that's our responsibility. That's for us to do. That's for us to act on. And we don't let

God do what he does behind the scenes. That's his business. And I think my Calvinist friends, based on how they understand scripture, then try to explain some of the secret things that are left unexplained.

No, I just would say that at this point, at this point,

I just wonder what Michael would say if in one of our debates with someone rejecting the deity of Christ, they used the same argument, saying, you're just going beyond.

This is not something that's explained in scripture. You're going beyond that. So this is where I see the difference between us, is that I believe

I'm using the exact same exegetical methodology. Here in talking about predestination, election, relationship with God in time, et cetera, et cetera, that I use in defending the deity of Christ.

And I'm just as confident that the word of God is clear and open on these things as it is on the other subject.

But here Michael, who would agree with me when we're defending the deity of Christ, is saying on this subject, I think my

Calvinist friends are going, they're going too far. So in other words, I believe that there is a greater clarity and a broader spectrum of what

God has revealed on this subject than Michael does. And obviously

I've attempted to defend that in the various encounters that we have had.

Now let me give you the context of this. The caller is talking about a young child that has made a profession of faith.

And he says, you know, I pray Lord's favor. I pray like a Calvinist. And Michael says, well, that's how

I pray. Why is that?

That's the way I pray. That's what I've always prayed. And I think most everybody does. But that's not praying like a

Calvinist. That's praying to God. That's I'm asking God. He's the Savior. I'm asking God to save her.

I'm not going to save him. I'm not asking that there by saying that she or he doesn't have a choice.

I'm asking God to do what he does. And then I'm also praying God soften that person's heart. Do you ever pray that?

God grant that repents. God, right. So we pray both ways. Hey, listen up. Now, again,

I just I struggle to find the consistency in this position.

I think the caller is right. He is praying like a Calvinist because he believes God can actually save.

And Michael says God's the Savior. Okay, what can a Savior do? A Savior can save.

You don't call someone a Savior who tries to save. You don't call someone a Savior who makes salvation possible. You call someone a

Savior who actually saves. And if what I'm understanding

Michael to have said fairly consistently, is that God makes salvation possible. He doesn't actually save.

He makes it a possibility because to save would be to violate that person's free will. Now, of course,

I would also say to soften her heart is also to violate her will. I mean, the heart is a very central aspect.

I mean, remember Lydia? You know, he's talking about those who are receptive. Then why did

Lydia? Why did God have to do? Why did God have to open Lydia's heart?

What does it mean to open someone's heart? Is there anything that could be more of a violation of creaturely autonomy than to open someone's heart?

I mean, unless someone's actually going to argue that after God opened

Lydia's heart, she still could have rejected God's purpose for her, which seems an amazing leap to me.

Then it seems very, very clear that the specific intention, the result that God intended in opening

Lydia's heart was her salvation, which is what took place. So are we to believe that God is opening the hearts of many individuals today, but they just simply refuse to accept this opening?

Then what is opening the heart mean? How can any of this be made to fit with some kind of theory of human autonomy?

I don't understand it. I can't even begin to see how it is.

So I would say that my Arminian friends are being greatly inconsistent when they pray like a

Calvinist. I mean, seriously, Lord, save her. Wait a minute. Isn't he already doing 100 %?

He's doing everything he can do, right? You say, well, for you, why would you say,

Lord, save her? Because he's either chosen to do so or not. That's an eternal decree.

I do not have access to what God's eternal decree is. I am told to obey

Christ's commands and to express my desire to God. And as I do so in prayer,

I am changed. And I may very well end up becoming the very means by which

God brings one of his elect people unto himself. But I'm the one that's changed there.

I'm not trying to change God. I can't change God, first of all. And secondly, I believe God is all good.

And so what, am I trying to convince him to do better? No. So, you know, it says everything

I see in Scripture, you know, it says just the opposite of this. Well, I think there's a major biblical problem there.

Yes, there was. Oh, by the way, I'm sorry. Then Michael says, now, by the way, we've been talking a long time, but how about your question for me?

And this was an interesting question. Yes, there was.

And in your second debate, I believe, with Pastor Bennett, you kept challenging about, not a verse, about there being a specific, someone specifically called, elected specifically for salvation.

And I guess my question would be, based upon Ephesians, do you consider it that adoption as sons and salvation or adoption as children and salvation to be something different than salvation?

Or is that, you understand what I'm saying? The point I made over and again somehow wasn't getting across clearly.

Nowhere in the Bible does God specifically say he chose a specific individual, excuse me, for salvation.

Every time it mentions the elect or chosen in salvation, it's always talking about a group of people.

Our chosenness is in Jesus. God predetermined that he would have a people in his son who believe in him.

So the chosenness is in Jesus. It is not that God chose me for salvation and chose to pass over my neighbor.

Nowhere is that language used with respect to individuals. Now, we first need to understand, first of all, that is an enunciation of what's called corporate election.

The concept that what God elects is a group, not the individuals in the group.

Very similar to what Norman Geisler says. The standard alternative to the

Reformed position is that you have to deal with election language. It's all through Scripture.

So what you do is you depersonalize it. You say that God has chosen a group, but that you cannot identify the individuals within that group, that who is in or who is not is up to individuals and not up to God himself.

And so this is a concept of corporate election. On the level of saying, well, there's nowhere in Scripture where it names a specific individual.

Well, the problem I have with that kind of argumentation is that you do have very clearly individuals named that God does not elect or actually elects, or the actual term would be reprobates, such as Pharaoh himself.

And so Romans 9 says, for this reason I raised you up, that my name might be demonstrated in you.

Now, again, I don't know if Michael tries to take some national view and just make that all of Egypt or something.

I think he'd be forced to, because he takes the idea that this text has nothing to do with salvation.

But the reality is, you have an individual being addressed here, and God making this specific assertion that I raised you up for the purpose of my name being glorified, through his destruction, through Pharaoh's destruction.

Realize Pharaoh is destroyed in his encounter with Moses. And so if you have reprobation, then it is quite appropriate when we look at Ephesians chapter 1, and that's what the caller was asking, the caller was saying, yeah, but in Ephesians 1, the object is us, not an impersonal group, it's personal.

And this is what really concerns me about my Arminian friends in their attempt to save the autonomy of man.

They end up depersonalizing the most intimate and personal aspect of salvation itself.

I mean, I don't know how an Arminian could ever sing that song that talks about my name was on his hands, when

I'm talking about the death of Christ, because there were no names on the hands of Jesus.

There was no name in his mind at that time, because it was all up. Now, you could say, well, by foreknowledge, but not by choice.

By foreknowledge, but not by choice. Foreknowledge is something that God passively brings in. He creates the world and then somehow gains knowledge of what's going to happen in that.

It's not a part of his decree, but he creates the world. But somehow, without that decree creating that knowledge, he comes to have that knowledge.

Again, I do not see how, on a theological level, that kind of simple foreknowledge view can survive.

But the idea, again, is that, well, he has passively taken in this knowledge of who is going to be in this group, but it is not his choice as to who is in this group.

His choice is limited only to that there be a group. And then it's up to us, logically, to fill in the names.

That's why I've said that the only consistent Arminian position that I can see is that of an open theist.

I can't see any other way to be a consistent

Arminian. If you're going to believe that God does have knowledge of future events, you just will continually be dragged back to the incoherence of your system.

And you'll just never be able to be consistent. You can't do it. The only way to get around that is to say, you know what,

God does have knowledge of future events, but he does not know what free creatures will do.

Otherwise, they're not free creatures. Otherwise, they're not free creatures. And that, while I consider it a heresy, is at least consistent.

And that also explains why I believe that my Arminian friends can be

Christians, and are Christians, many of them. I don't think all my Calvinist friends are Christians. I don't believe everybody who claims to be a

Christian at all is a Christian, obviously. Regeneration is an important thing. The point being that hyper -Calvinists completely miss the boat when they demand perfection of theology.

I've had some people ask, because I've been reviewing Michael Brown, how can you cooperate with him in debating

Unitarians, and how can you cooperate with him on homosexuality, because he says some really bad things about Reformed theology.

Well, the answer is, he's not consistent. I mean, just the section we just played, well, okay, the previous section, where he talks about how he prays.

That, to me, is evidence of the spirit of God, but I don't think that Michael has a consistent ground for praying the way that he does.

So, my Arminian friends are inconsistent. They can talk about salvation by grace through faith, but they cannot give a consistent, hermeneutic explanation for why they hold the views that they do.

And I cannot force people to be consistent, and I'm going to get to heaven someday and find the places where I wasn't. So, there you go.

That's what you have to keep in mind and have to be aware of. If you want more on this concept of corporate election,

I have many times, certainly in the Potter's Freedom and the book with Dave Hunt and numerous times on this program, walked through Ephesians chapter 1 and demonstrated that it is not a group that is elected.

It is a people. The personal promises of the glory of salvation itself are made to individuals.

It's not an impersonal group that we fill in by our own actions. It is, in point of fact, a wonderful personal truth that you have

God's election setting the love of the Father and the

Son and the Spirit upon individuals. Yes, they form a corporate body, but to try to escape the personal nature of that election by pointing out that once you have more than two, you have a group,

I think is a very fallacious way of argumentation. And the results, I think we see in the sub -biblical views of atonement that are very prevalent and popular.

In fact, interestingly enough, the very caller after this was obviously someone who denies particular redemption and specifically the concept of penal substitutionary atonement.

But Michael didn't even let him get going on that, which I thought was quite wise. So we will pick up with that particular point the next time we continue in the

Calvinist call -in show. And believe it or not, we're going to get it done. It's not too far down the road, but we're actually going to finish the

Calvinist call -in show. There's not all that much left. And like I said, I would normally split this up with some

Yusuf Ismail stuff, but I just don't know if the sound quality of the other recording is good enough. So thanks for listening.

Again, I'll let you know on Twitter. I'm having Facebook problems, but I'll let you know on Twitter when the program on Friday will be.

And hopefully get an opportunity to join with us at that time. Thanks for listening, and God bless.

The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

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 .O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.

Join us again this Thursday afternoon at 4 p .m. for The Dividing Line. The Dividing Line.