October 28, 2003

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 good morning and welcome to The Dividing Line.

It is Tuesday, the 28th of October, 11 a .m. in the only place where it matters.

If you are confused about the time, it's not my fault. Like I've said so many times, don't play with your clocks and all will be well.

Then again, most of you don't have that option, but hey, you know, that's how it works. And so here we are at the exact same time that we always are here.

However, since the rest of you do play with your clocks, we do have a problem Thursday evening. This coming

Thursday evening, the problem now is that four o 'clock in Phoenix is three o 'clock

Pacific time, which makes this fit, unfortunately, in the exact same time slot as the

Bible Answer Man broadcast. And I'd rather not compete for the 12 or 13 people that we have to listen.

And so, no, it's more than that. But anyways, and especially this Thursday evening,

I am more than happy to advertise the Bible Answer Man this week because our friend Bill Webster will be on the program.

It will be a Reformation Day theme. And of course,

Bill Webster, co -author with David King on the Holy Scripture three -volume set.

We've had both on the program before. You may all recall the Robertson -Genis Mr. X debacle and how that all turned out.

And so we've had Bill Webster on the program before to discuss Sola Scriptura, and he will be on the

Bible Answer Man broadcast. So if you can spread the word, the more the merrier, as far as that goes, and you'll want to be listening.

So I'm not sure we'll do Thursday. We will either go earlier or later or something, but we're not going to go head to head with the

Bible Answer Man this Thursday because we want to make sure that everyone gets an opportunity of hearing

Bill Webster live. So I'm not sure how anybody's going to know what we're going to do, but we'll do something so that that won't run into that problem.

877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

I was reading Carl Keating's e -letter this week, and I found it very interesting.

He had a section called Braininess, Good but Not Sufficient, and I thought you all would find this if you don't happen to be on Carl Keating's e -letter list.

I thought you'd find it to be interesting, especially because this obviously shows that Carl Keating knows that there is a whole spectrum of Protestantism out there that his book and his work does not even begin to address.

I've said many times that Catholicism and Fundamentalism is aimed at a spectrum of the response to Catholicism that is not particularly compelling, and when it spends time talking about Jimmy Swaggart as being relevant and Jack Chick and people like that, that's not what we need to be responding to, and that his book really does not provide any type of response to those of us who would agree with the fundamentals but are especially reformed in our perspective.

Well, this demonstrates he knows we're out here, it just doesn't seem to feel any compelling desire to respond to what we say.

For example, I read from Carl Keating's e -letter, Modern Reformation is a bi -monthly magazine published by the

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Its editor is Michael Horton, and among its advisors and contributors are

W. Robert Godfrey, Rod Rosenblatt, R .C. Sproul, Timothy George, Douglas Grutys, Carl F .H.

Henry, and John Warwick -Concomery. If you read the more scholarly evangelical journals, you'll recognize some of those names.

In other words, they just publish articles and can be from people in the past and stuff like that. Anyways, Once Upon a

Time, I love this, this is really funny. Once upon a time, Christianity today was the intellectual center of Evangelicalism, but CT long ago ceased to devote its pages to serious writing.

Today it represents Evangelicalism lite. Not a liberal version of Evangelicalism, but an intellectually light -weight version.

I'm sorry, the context is funny. Modern Reformation, which is a dozen years old, has filled much of the gap.

A recent issue was devoted to the theme, we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. And these evangelicals do, but it is one thing to believe in something and another thing to locate it.

I admire the seriousness that infuses the articles in this special issue and I wince in sympathy at the lack of success in finding that one holy catholic and apostolic church.

For those of you who are confused, Carl Keating, of course, is a Roman Catholic, I assume most people listening to this program are aware of that.

In his contribution, Michael Horton tries to define what is meant when one says the Christian church is Catholic. At one end of the spectrum are

Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and specific Protestant bodies that often claim simply to be the Catholic church, without remainder.

This won't do, he says, because the real church is not mainly a visible body, and these churches are all visible.

I didn't read that issue, but I somehow wince at that summary. Anyways, on the other end are most evangelical and Pentecostal groups that, in their non -denominational denominationalism, understand the church as simply the sum total of individuals who are truly born again.

But that won't do either. The answer is to be found among the churches of the Reformation, Horton says.

They reflect a somewhat mediating position. They have visible elements, such as faithful preaching and right administration, but they also take into account that the true church is present wherever the gospel is preached.

These reformed, Calvinist churches, thus, are one step up from the atomism of non -denominationalism, but one step down from the rigor of the pre -Reformation churches of the

East and West. And having given that summary, he then goes on to make the following comment here, if I can get this one box out of the way.

As I said, I wince when I read such arguments. I wince because the arguments are so unconvincing, as splitting the difference arguments usually are.

I don't want to pick on Michael Horton. Those writing in modern Reformation and the three other marks of the church are in the same predicament.

Then he talks a little bit about them, and then he says, Some Catholics think that Protestantism, being a truncated form of Christianity, must appeal only to people of restricted intelligence.

Sure there are many fine people in Protestantism, but those with brains move elsewhere. It's not as simple as that.

I know many highly intelligent Protestants, including several of the men whose names are listed above, and their remaining

Protestant is not a matter of a lack of brains. Why do they seem convinced by arguments such as those in this issue of modern

Reformation when I and others think the arguments are so weak that, in a way, they prove the opposite of what they are intended to prove?

That is, they prove the necessity of joining the real Catholic Church, I mean the one headed by the Pope? Why are these intelligent people happy with arguments that others find flawed, and not just flawed on the periphery, but flawed in their core?

I have no answer for that. The situation may be something like that famous line drawing of a vase.

Squint your eyes just so, and the image becomes two faces. Squint again, it's back to a vase. So near, yet so far.

Now isn't that fascinating? There's a bunch of things there that immediately caught my attention. Some Catholics think that Protestantism, being a truncated form of Christianity, you know,

I don't view, not only do I not view it that way, but I don't view it the opposite direction.

In other words, I don't see Catholicism as simply an ornate version of Christianity with too much clutter.

And I think that's one of the issues that I think some people have today. Especially Protestants who are flirting with Rome and going, well, you know, there's stuff we can learn from, you know, just looking at this and looking at that, and let's compare our traditions, and let's sit around and have ecumenical dialogue, and all the rest of this stuff.

So you'd have to sort of view Catholicism as just simply, you guys, we're all on the same page, but you guys have just, you know, gone a little bit too far.

I don't see that at all. There is a fundamental, foundational difference.

And it goes back to the nature of grace, and the freedom of God, and the clarity of truth.

It's not just this continuum. And that's, unfortunately, the reason that that is getting a lot of foothold, a lot of traction,

I guess is the term that's used in the media today. A lot of traction amongst quote -unquote evangelicals and even

Reformed folks today is because that comes directly out of the worldview of the world around us, and it's especially common within scholastic circles, within scholarship, to view things in this way, and seeing this continuum of things, and Rome's just sort of down there someplace, and a hesitation to make a clear break and say, no, in reality,

Rome has gone so far as to cease to be a part of the continuum.

They've jumped the track, and they're on a different, on a completely different plane, a different level, a different place now.

And so I just simply, you know, that caught my idea, the idea of, you know, some

Catholics think the Protestant being a truncated form of Christianity. I don't see it the other direction there at all.

And then it is fascinating to listen to Keating going, so how can they be so intelligent and yet hold to such bad arguments?

And I sit there and I read Keating talking about Mary as the one through whom

God has chosen to distribute all graces, and the absolutely surface -level exegesis, not even exegesis.

And I just, you have to sit there and go, you think that their arguments are weak?

But the funniest thing, though, not funny, but the most unusual thing, I don't have an answer. Why are these intelligent,

I'm reading it, why are these intelligent people happy with arguments that others find flawed, and not just flawed on the periphery, but flawed in their core?

I have no answer for that. Well let me tell you something, from my perspective, I do have a clear answer for why the opposite is true.

I do have a clear answer for why the most muddled, incoherent, inconsistent argumentation is compelling.

And I'm not just talking about historical arguments of the papacy, or Mary, or purgatory, and Roman Catholicism, but we can expand this out.

Why are there so many intelligent LDS people who believe God lives on a planet that circles a star named

Kolob? Why are there intelligent people in all of these groups? Because it's not an issue of intelligence, it's an issue of the spirit, it's an issue of judgment, it's an issue of, if you don't love the truth,

God causes you to love a lie. The Bible addresses this, but, see, Keating is at least in step with the current magisterium, unlike many of the

Catholic apologists today, who are more Catholic than Romans, in the sense of being more conservative than the current magisterium.

Keating has to buy into the separated brethren, inclusivisms becoming more and more popular type of perspective, and so he can't answer the way that I would answer, and say, it's false doctrine, it's heresy, it's the judgment of God coming upon individuals who don't love the truth, and yes, they're extremely intelligent, but they're holding to beliefs that will damn their souls.

Well, Keating really can't say that in light of the current viewpoint of the magisterium.

And so it ends up, at least he's being consistent at that point, but he has to be consistent in saying,

I don't know, I have no answer for that, that's a direct quote from the e -letter. So, that's a fascinating little aspect of it.

I don't see any little lights lighting up over there, so I do have a clip that I downloaded just prior to the program

I was going to play for you, and I also have some, you know, we'll just get to what we get to, and if we get callers, we get callers, and that's just sort of how it works, someone was mentioning,

I don't know if it was last night or this morning, that's what I like about the program, it's so unprofessional. I think what they meant by it,

I don't think they used, I think they said free -flowing or something like that, or, I forget what it was, but it was, it was somewhat hilarious.

Sort of smack across the face, I like your program because you guys really screw up once in a while, you know, it's,

I guess that's a good thing. Hey, at least we're not pretentious, you know?

We do have, oh, well, I didn't see it because I didn't have the window thing open and it just scrolls on by, so finally

I got that, and that was the window that popped up and was messing up what I was reading and all the rest of that stuff, and it was because I was, somebody was playing with the volume of my headphones, it was going up and down, it distracted me, so it's,

I don't know who's in control of such things, but anyhow. Let's go ahead and take our first call then, and then if we get back to the clip, then if we don't, that's fine too.

Let's talk with Stephen, oh, well, Stephen's in Toronto, aren't you?

Yes, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you, Stephen. Okay, Dr. White, I want to, first of all, thank you so much because of how you've helped me to embrace the doctrines of grace, it's really, your help in Omega Ministries has been a real blessing to me, so I just want to thank you, first of all, for that.

Well, you're most welcome. And the other thing is, you've also piqued my interest in talking to Mormons, and I've been acquainted with two young men who are coming to my house, and one of the questions they've asked me is basically the passages where Jesus is, you know, in Hebrews chapter 1, verses 1 through 3, where he sits down on the right hand of the

Father, and they're trying to argue that you have two separate beings, and I was just wondering how I could address that with them, and some of the passages that are relevant to that, they also point out to the one in Acts, where Stephen sees

Jesus, you know, at the right hand of God the Father. Well, one thing that you might want to obtain, because we still have them available, is a book entitled

Letters to a Mormon Elder, and in that particular book you will find letters written to a

LDS missionary, and what I did when I wrote that, and eventually we will be making that available in electronic form,

I should have remembered to have asked some questions about that when I was in Minneapolis, and I didn't, but in fact we have a

Canadian, you'll be glad to know, a Canadian fellow who wishes to help us to put that book into a format that you could read on your

Palm Pilot and things like that, so be looking for that, but anyway, in the fourth letter of that particular book,

I include the answer to the very question that you just asked, because that's very common in talking to Mormon missionaries,

I mean I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, as many people have been in reading the book, that, boy, this is exactly what these guys, you know, this is the stuff they raise, and so, for example, on, let's just start about page 65,

I'll just read you just a couple of paragraphs here and you'll see exactly what I'm referring to. Another passage that is frequently presented is from Acts 7, 55 -56, which reads,

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said,

Behold, I see the heavens open, the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Often I have heard LDS people say, See, Stephen saw

Jesus standing on the right hand of God, God then must have a right hand at which Jesus can stand. Even some LDS have gone so far as to make this a literal right hand, which it seems

Jesus was standing upon. I reply, in reply, let me note a few items. Psalm 91 -4 says,

He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust, his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

If we take this passage in the same way that many LDS take Acts 7, 55 -56, we have to be consistent and say that God not only has a hand big enough for Jesus to stand on it, and that's a big hand, but he also has wings and feathers.

In Hebrews we are told that our God is a consuming fire, so should we need to somehow fit a blast furnace into the whole anthropomorphic picture we are making here?

No, of course not. God is spirit, and a spirit does not have flesh and bones, John 4 -24, Luke 24 -39.

So what does right hand mean? The right hand is a common idiomatic expression in Semitic thinking, elder, and it refers, because this is written to an elder, and it refers to the position of power and authority.

But you don't need to take my word for it. Look these up for yourself, and then I have an entire list. I'll just read them off here, and you can scribble a few of them down.

Exodus 15 -6, 15 -12, Deuteronomy 33 -2, Job 40 -14,

Psalm 16 -8, 11, there's probably 20 of them here, Proverbs 3 -16,

Ecclesiastes 10 -2, etc., etc. There's, like I said, a whole list here. Or it is specifically the right hand of power there in Matthew 26 -64 is listed as well.

The vast majority of the rest of the times it is used, it refers simply to a direction or is used in the phrase, do not turn to the right hand or the left in following God's law.

And then I stop there. So I gave them a full listing of all the passages where you have this phrase right hand used, and demonstrated that it is a position of power and authority, not a physical location, indicating that there are two separate beings, that they have physical bodies, and that they are separated from one another by these physical bodies, which of course is what

Doctrine and Covenants section 130 verse 22 says, that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as any man's, the

Son also, the Spirit has not a body of flesh and bones, etc., etc. So that's how

I responded to that particular point. Yeah, I appreciate that. And the other thing is,

I've read your book, The Forgotten Trinity, and again, that was so helpful. And I was trying to explain to them the difference between person and being, and at this point in time, they just don't seem to get it.

Well, a part of it is, you know, there's two questions as to how

Mormons can understand that. They make the same distinctions. I try to emphasize, because part of the issue in dealing with a

Mormon is, they may not want to get it. They may not even be seeking to get it.

They may want to avoid getting it. So I try to point to them and say, look, we make this distinction every day.

And in fact, you make this distinction in your own theology. They recognize the difference between being and person.

They recognize there's a difference between human beings as a class and each individual within that class. And that while we share human being, that we are individuals.

They recognize that. They make that kind of distinction. They don't think that, well, some Mormons, actually, I have to take one part of that back.

Some Mormons do believe that rocks and things like that do have a personality or even a spirit. But they recognize the difference between an impersonal object that has being and a being that has personhood.

So they make those types of distinctions themselves. But part of it is, many Mormons simply don't believe.

And it sort of depends on whether they're raised this way, if they're Utah Mormons, or if they're more of a newer kind of Mormon that wasn't raised in it, or a convert, or they live outside of Utah.

It's getting more and more complex to sort of nail down where the missionaries are coming from. Twenty years ago, it was a lot easier to say, this is what

Mormons believe, and this is how a missionary is going to respond to you. Mormonism is changing. It's mainstreaming.

And therefore, you have differences like this. But many Mormons have a problem with the idea that you would have any role or any ability to teach them any truth anyways.

In other words, a good Utah Mormon believes that the priesthood is necessary to really know the truth anyway.

And so there would be a natural hesitation on their part to really put much effort forth in listening to what you're saying anyhow.

And one of the ways to get around that on just a practical level is to explain to them or to demonstrate to them that you know what they believe.

You've taken the time to learn what they believe. Yeah, I have tried to do that, actually. Yeah, that's very difficult in brief meetings.

But if they keep coming back, it's possible. Eventually, though, they will start changing the people that are showing up.

I just want to know, dealing with two particular individuals, is there a cutoff point where you have to realize that it's just becoming a waste of time?

Well, the only way really to determine that is by the responses you're getting from them.

I mean, most of us can tell if someone's really listening to what we're saying. Most of us can tell if someone is really responding or if they're just simply giving us the same position without really interacting with what we're saying.

And I've encountered folks that I gave up on fairly quickly because it was very clear that they were not listening.

They were just simply mouthing things back. But especially some of these young guys, you show a love for the truth.

You show that you're kind to them, that you're not just simply there to run them through with a theological sword.

And you can establish a much longer term conversation and discussion with them than the

Mormon Church would like you to. Let's put it that way. And when they start going to their mission president and asking questions, and I've had that happen a number of times in conversations

I've had with LDS missionaries, boy, it's not going to be long until they're not going to be coming to visit you at all.

But you might run into them later. I mean, I just had someone in Channel within the past week, two weeks, mention one of the very first missionaries

I ever talked to. They had just been sharing with him. And he mentioned me. And we spoke, oh,

I'd say 19, 20 years ago. So you never know. And most people looking at the outside of at least the first night of our conversation would have said, wow, that's a bad one because this guy got in my face.

He was yelling at me. He was towering over me. He's a big, tall guy. And he was yelling and screaming.

And he literally said out loud so everybody could hear, someday I'm going to be a god and you're going to worship me.

I mean, most folks would not consider that to be a very pleasant conversation. But the guy's not even really a

Mormon anymore. And one of the first people that really stood up to him and showed him things was myself standing up on a street corner in Mesa, Arizona, almost two decades ago.

So you never know. And to my knowledge, he has yet to confess faith in Christ and the truth.

But he's certainly talking to folks in a way that he hadn't before. So you never know.

Well, I just wanted to say that I'm trying to show some kindness. And I have spent a number of hours trying to discover what

Mormons believe. So I can talk intelligently with them. Not like those street preachers that you run into.

Well, that's quite true. You know, I should have mentioned Letters to a Mormon Elder is also available on the net.

Yeah, I've actually read parts of that on the net. Yeah, well, that's really, as far as getting a resource for responding to where these guys are going to be coming from, that's the best thing

I can aim you at right now. And like I said, the whole, I don't know, it's easier to read things frequently and hold it in your hand than when you're staring at a screen.

But could you also tell me what's happening with Jeremiatics? Oh, as far as being on the program?

Yes. Right now, and I haven't heard, I've heard back from Eric, but I'm still waiting to hear back from Jerry.

I sent out an email last week, I mentioned this Thursday evening, and I heard back from Eric that he's a go for November 4th.

But I haven't heard back from Jerry, but he did say that he was going to be gone this week. So hopefully at the end of this week, over this weekend,

I'll get the confirmation from Jerry that he will join us on November 4th. And it'll be

Eric and I and Jeremiatics. And I don't know about Eric, but I know

I'm really looking forward to that. And a lot of stars. Oh, I bet you, you know, there's far too much glee in your voice.

Hey, thanks for calling today. OK, thank you. God bless. Bye bye. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I've looked at the Ron Tichelli article that Jerry made reference to during the debate that just wipes out

Eric's research on... It's so painfully obvious that Tichelli has not even read

Svensson. So it's going to be very, very enjoyable. Just, you know, we all love the truth.

And so we just want... I'm telling you, folks, I read it for you last week.

He's the one that is, you know, alleging cowardice on my part if we don't have him on.

So don't anybody say, oh, you shouldn't do this. Oh, you're just beating up on the guy. Hey, I read you.

I read you what he said, you know. So what can I say? 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

Let's before we play the clip I was talking about or take your phone calls, depending on whether you have phone calls coming over the break.

Let's go ahead and take our break if we can a little bit early today so that we can get this entire clip played during the second half.

And I've also got some other stuff that we can read and work on during the second part of the program as well.

At least got a few things lined up. So if you would... If you want to get in, don't do this.

Wait till five minutes before the program thing and then call in with a question that's, you know, 14 minutes long.

I'm not sure why people do that. But 877 -753 -3341.

We'll be right back. The history of the

Christian church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation, the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine.

In his book, The God Who Justifies, theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of, understanding of, and dedication to the great doctrine of justification, and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel. In today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute,

James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith.

Dr. J. Adams says, I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates.

This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout. An outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God Who Justifies by Dr. James White. Get your copy today at aomin .org.

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the word of God, James White in his book,

The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true

Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .aomin

.org. What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free, A New Cult, Secularism, False Prophecy Scenarios?

No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Potters' Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, but The Potters' Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself.

In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture. The Potters' Freedom, a defense of the

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at www .aomin

.org. But you know one of the most common questions

I keep getting in the chat channel recently, what's the name of that song Steve Camp sings at the beginning of your program?

Well, that's called Run to the Battle. That one's called Here I Stand, if you couldn't figure that one out. I'm not sure.

Do we use Cornerstone? I don't know if we use Cornerstone. The other one's Wittenberg's Door. They're all, the one at the end is Wittenberg's Door.

And they all come from the CD Abandoned to God, as I recall.

Well, Run to the Battle doesn't. Run to the Battle is an earlier one. You can get that off the Best of Doing My Best.

Is that on there? Yep, Run to the Battle. Very first one on Steve Camp's Doing My Best CD, too.

So I just put that back where it belongs. So those of you who want to get that, that's where you can get it.

Well, I took the time today, once we got the internet back up. Boy, you know, once you've had high -speed internet, dial -up really stinks.

You know, it's just like, I don't want to do this. It's going to take me how long to download that thing?

Anyways, we got the internet back up, and I did a little surfing for some new quotes from our friend

Dave Hunt. Yes, and I sort of had the sneaking hunch, don't ask me why, that maybe, possibly, just maybe, that on the

Bree and Call radio show, that there would be some commentary about Calvinism. And of course, the question crossed my mind.

After all this time, after doing radio programs, and debating

Dr. Piper, and all the responses to his book, and then writing the book with me, in which

I specifically respond to all the misrepresentations that are a part of Dave's stuff, and try to get him to discuss that, after all of that, is there any change?

Is there any acknowledgement? And well, let's find out.

Let's listen to a recent Bree and Call question from listeners.

This question goes, I have a friend who turned his back on God after his third year in a conservative evangelical seminary.

He was taught that God has already decided who will be saved, and who will spend eternity in hell, who will have good things happen to him in life, and who will have bad.

Can you help me to help him? Dave, they can pick up some strange things in seminaries, although conservative evangelical, you'd think, oh no, that can't happen.

Well, I think he's misidentified the seminary. It would be a

Calvinist seminary. This is what Calvinism teaches. So these people would have to be

Calvinist. You could find it at some places that we have thought were evangelical seminaries, non -Calvinist.

It could be a Calvinist professor that slipped in, or it could be, there's a number of them that are really turning more and more

Calvinistic. Wow. So Calvinists are not actually evangelicals, and they just sneak into them, their evangelical seminaries, and they pollute them.

Okay, so Calvinism is inconsistent with evangelicalism now, according to Dave Hunt.

So we continue on. This really plays into the hands of the atheist, and you can see why it would cause him to renounce his faith.

You want me to believe in a God who doesn't love everyone, and who has predestined some people to go to hell, and there's nothing they can do about it?

Now remember, haven't we heard this somewhere before? I mean, isn't this starting to sound a little bit like, well, you know, it's funny.

I installed a turntable in my office this week. Now some of you young folks are going, what in the world is a turntable?

I even invited my daughter over so she could see it, because she had no recollection of ever having seen a record player.

And let's face it, there are a lot of folks these days, they're getting up to voting age, and they've never seen a record player, let alone an 8 -track tape player.

Anyway, and so they would have no idea, because CDs don't work quite the same way.

CDs can skip, they get damaged. But records, those old, big, huge vinyl things, if they get scratched in such a way, it can just simply keep repeating itself.

I mean, that was the scourge. I was a radio announcer for many years, and we were at an old radio station and played oldies, and long after everybody else had gone to carts and CD, and finally now today everything's digital, it's just MP3s and things like that.

We were still playing records, and the great danger was that you would hit a skip, especially when you had songs that you used that were long ones, they were at least four and a half to five minutes long, maybe longer.

Medleys, I had this one Guy Lombardo medley that I would use, and those were the songs you'd play when you needed to go visit the restroom.

And the biggest danger was that the thing would start skipping, and there wasn't anything you could do about it.

So, when people talk about a broken record, that's what they're talking about. It's starting to sound like a broken record.

That is just, and this is what Dave's starting to sound like. It's just this, well, you know,

God has predestined people to hell, and there's nothing they can do about it. Hello, Dave, for the 47 ,964th time, not only is there nothing they can do about it, there's nothing that they want to do about it.

They love their sin. They're doing what they want.

Hello, Dave, will you listen to us? Will you hear us? We're out here waving.

See us, folks over here? We're not off someplace lighting candles to John Calvin.

Hello, Dave, we're out here. No, he won't listen. Because, see, there's no place for that in his tradition.

And I've said many times before, Dave Hunt is a slave of his tradition.

And so, I can explain the love of God, and I did in a 2 ,000 -word presentation in the book, and he'll come back and say, well, sure, well, of course

God can have different kinds of love. But then put him back on there, well, God just doesn't love everybody.

Obviously, we're talking about the difference between redemptive love, and the love shown for all of creation, and mercy, and the extension of common grace, and not bringing wrath to bear, and all the rest of it.

But he can't argue against that, and didn't even bother to try to argue against that.

But his entire position is founded upon a functional denial of those very distinctions that are made.

And so he sounds like the broken record, just repeating the same thing over and over again. And how many people say, oh, you know, those atheists, that's what you really believe.

They have a real ground for doing that. Do they really? What an amazing thing.

Well, you know, the atheists are right to do that. For a Christian, what should be the issue? The issue should be, what does the scripture teach, not what will offend an atheist.

God's existence offends an atheist. God giving his law offends an atheist. God saying, this is right, and this is wrong, is enough for an atheist to abandon a quote -unquote belief in God.

It's just the ye olde broken record syndrome.

That's the attitude that this young man took, and I think it's reasonable. So their fate has already been set before time and eternity.

We've mentioned this in the past, Tom. This is what the atheist would say. If your God can't stop all sin and suffering, he's too weak to be

God. If he can, and he doesn't, he's a monster. I would agree.

Did you hear that? I would agree. I would agree with the idea that God cannot possibly have a purpose in the existence of evil.

Now, how is he going to get out of this? With that analysis. But Calvinism teaches that God could save everyone.

He could cause everyone to believe the gospel. But he simply doesn't love everyone, and he doesn't want everyone to be saved.

You and I, we are told that we're to do good to all. Well now, let me stop right there, because he goes off into the, you know, we've got to be, if we're supposed to be loving to everybody, then

God has to love everybody in the same way. Again, stuff we've gone over a thousand times before, but what should catch the attention of most of you is if you remember listening to the initial encounter

I had with Dave Hunt. Back when he said, I've never read any of the Reformers, I suppose they've got lots of books,

I've never read any of them. Remember that? It's still available, straightgate .com, you can listen to it.

He was saying the exact same thing. I can't count, I mean, as I travel,

I have pastors who contact me. You know, I wrote Dave Hunt after the Breean call, and I wrote to him, and I tried to explain this.

He has had hundreds of people explain these things. There is no possible way that all those people have failed in being able to find a way to make it understandable to Dave Hunt.

Dave Hunt does not want to understand it. He does not want to accurately represent it in any way, shape, or form.

It is absolutely, positively amazing to listen to this. It's repeated. At least listen to what folks are saying and respond to them on that level.

Well, anyway, let's go ahead and take some calls because I'm going to go with Jim first,

Jim in Nashville, because this is something I mentioned just last week, so I want to make sure everybody's clear on it.

Let's talk with Jim in Nashville. Hi, Jim. Hi, how are you, James? Doing good. It's good to talk to you today.

It seems to me that all of these guys, whether it's Hunt or more particularly Hank Hanegraaff, and I know you're going to be on his program soon, and I'm hoping you can address some of this stuff with him, he's become increasingly more disturbing in the things that he says on his program, and the couple of things that I wanted to mention are his repeated assertion that to be reformed in your thinking is to make

God the author of sin, and the second is this Chatty Cathy thing.

It seems to me if anybody is having a string pulled in their neck and coming up with the same verbiage repeatedly, it's

Hank, who rather than address the actual issues, just immediately falls back to his sort of pre -written phrases that he likes to use, like, well, then that makes

God the author of sin, and then he carries on as if he's actually answered a caller's question. Well, there was a call from Georgia last week on the program from a

Founders Conference Southern Baptist Calvinist. Yeah, I heard it. The guy did an excellent job.

He did an excellent job. He raised good questions, but, you know, there's going to be a difference between a caller raising

Romans 8 -7 -8 and a 235 -pound bald fat man in studio raising

Romans 8 -7 -8. I will not be as easily dissuaded, and I'll tell you right now,

I'm going to start off by saying, look, let's cut to the quick here. I believe in Reformed theology,

I believe it's vital for consistent apologetics, and I do so because of the exegesis of the text of Scripture.

I honestly believe that the vast majority of issues here are due to two different ways of approaching

God's truth. One seemingly gives priority to philosophical considerations and then reads them into the text of Scripture.

The other says the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. We have to start with what God has told us in the

Word, and we build our philosophy based upon the sound exegesis of the text of Scripture. And, therefore,

I am going to sound somewhat, use the illustration I just used, like a broken record, because I am going to ask that when assertions are made that an exegetical basis be provided,

I am going to ask that we deal with whether God truly has libertarian free will in his creative activity and in his providence in the universe.

And then especially, I think the main thing we need to focus on here, because it seems to be what always comes up, is this issue of the nature of man, the nature of grace, and I am going to ask for sound exegetical presentations on Genesis 15 -20,

Isaiah 10, and Acts 4, verses 27 -28, because, Hank, you keep talking about Chatty Cathy dolls, and Hank, I almost bought you one from eBay.

But that's not what I believe. This issue of God is the author of evil, we need to talk about God's ordaining the ends as well as the means, something that you have said many times in the past.

Many times in the past you've said there is not one such thing as a maverick molecule in the universe.

Haven't heard that for about two years, but it used to be a common assertion. And we need to dig into these passages, we need to see what they teach us about the culpability and responsibility of man based upon the intentions of his heart, as well as the purity and holiness of God in decreeing what takes place in time.

We need to focus upon these texts of Scripture. If we don't, then all we're going to do is continue in this conversation what takes place all across the land and never gets anywhere, because it's not based upon what is found in the text of Scripture itself.

And so I'm going to be very adamant about that and try to be very convincing about that. Of course, this is all

Lord willing that I'm here on December 16th, but that's what

I'm going to attempt to do. I get the impression that Hank doesn't genuinely understand the language he uses, though.

Because he likes the word sovereignty, but he doesn't seem to understand what it means. Well, he understands it in a different way.

I think one of the reasons that a lot of Calvinists are confused in the terminology that is being used is because they assume the wrong source of what

Hank is talking about. And that is, people assume that it's primarily Norman Geisler and his perspectives.

It isn't. My understanding is it's more of a Lutheran perspective and an anti -Reformed

Lutheran perspective. We know that there are monergistic Lutherans, and then there are Lutherans who are much more

Melanchthonian in their perspective. And if you'll try to change the filter a little bit and not assume that it's

Geisler's categories lying behind it. Certainly, when he deals with Romans 9, he is using more of a

Geisler thing, but you may have heard him actually use Lenski on Romans 9, who is a

Lutheran. And that at least helps to understand where some of the stuff comes from in regards to the terminology that's being used, especially in regards to the issue of sovereignty and topics like that.

It's more of a Lutheran influence than it is anything else. So that helps some folks to get a little better idea.

But certainly, I commented a number of months ago that Hank had mentioned,

I just don't find Reformed theologians who can give me an answer to this. Well, I've tried. So you can't point that figure at me.

In fact, Hank will tell you that there have been two times when I have volunteered to get myself to Southern California to have discussions about this.

And so it's not like I haven't been available. And in fact, the program we're finally doing, we started trying to arrange that in April of last year.

And I have made myself available over and over and over and over again. And we couldn't find anybody else that would go on on the other side.

So it's not that there's never been any hesitation on our part. On my part,

Hank will tell you as early as 1997, I sat down and said, hey, let's I'd like to talk about this. I'd like to at least explain why

I'm Reformed and why I think it's important to apologetics. And he was very open to that. We had a very nice discussion, but that was that was coming up on six years ago now.

And so, you know, time passes and it's not like we sit around chatting on the phone all the time. We just don't have that that much contact.

It's normally any more about two years in between times when I get a chance to get over there and you're only over there for a few hours.

So it's not like I have a whole lot of, you know, impact as far as that goes. Is it just my perception, though?

I used to listen to the Bible Answer Man back when Walter Martin was doing it. And Walter was doing more of an apologetics thing.

And he was Kingdom of the Cults and that kind of stuff. And he kind of had a good and a unique niche to what he was doing.

And since Hank took it over, he started carrying that Walter Martin sort of paradigm at first.

And it only seems that in the last maybe four or five years that Hank has suddenly decided that he is a theologian to be reckoned with and has started wandering into these areas that he just simply doesn't seem to be fit for.

Well, I really can't comment on I didn't hear

Walter Martin's Bible Answer Man. So I really can't comment on that. I only started hearing, at least in this area, the

Bible Answer Man after Walter Martin's death. So there has definitely been a broadening of the subjects that are addressed.

One of the criticisms that has been made is that Walter Martin primarily focused on Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and things like that, and not the word faith movement and stuff like that.

But, you know, there's been a broadening in what Alpha Omega has dealt with over the years, too. I mean, the first programs that we did were primarily on Mormonism and things like that as well.

And then we were forced to expand out to a broader range of subjects as well. So I'm very hesitant to join in with the chorus of the naysayers, simply because I know some of the naysayers, not all, there are good folks who are naysayers, too, as far as this particular subject is concerned.

But I also know some of the others that are rabid Hank -bashers, shall we say, and they don't like me either.

I'm just not big enough to really pick on a whole lot, though I think one of them is going to be doing that in the near future. So, you know,

I just, I'm very hesitant. It seems to me that the tone of the program has taken a decidedly more divisive turn in the last couple of years.

It used to be a, the tone has changed, is all. Well, I know that the position has changed in regards to libertarian freedom, because that, the clear affirmation of libertarian freedom did not start until after the writing of the book,

Resurrection. That much I do know. But as far as the rest of the stuff, you know,

I'm not really into comparing it with where it was before. But anyways, for some reason, everybody's calling in right here at the end as normal.

So we're going to run to some other folks. Thanks for your call today. Take care. Thanks a lot, Jim. Bye -bye. Let's real quickly grab

Steve real quick, and then we'll try to get to Jeremy as well. Hi, Steve. Hi, Dr.

White. How are you? Doing pretty good. Very good. I got part of my question answered with that previous call, and this, again, was on libertarian free will.

What I'm looking for, and you started to do that, was to respond to that, to respond to that in a quick and a concise way, as opposed to sitting down and going through different things like John Six and spending a lot of time.

How would you do that in more of a quick discussion? Well, you know, the quick response to the issue of libertarian free will, first of all,

I would say that the concept of libertarian free will is the cement that holds man's religions together.

It is absolutely necessary to affirm libertarian free will for any of man's religions to have any type of cogency.

The sacramental system of Rome, for example, could not possibly function without libertarian free will. It is part and parcel of all of man's religions, but the difference between sub -biblical

Christianity, a sort of naturalistic Christianity that would be, in essence, focused upon man and anthropocentric

Christianity, and supernatural Christianity that focuses upon the grace of God, is the assertion that it is

God as creator who has libertarian free will, and it is man as creature that has a responsibility before God based upon God's libertarian free will.

The idea of taking from the creator and giving to the creation, that which defines his very glory, is the very essence of libertarian free will.

It is God who is to be glorified by what he does in this creation, because he chose to do so freely.

When we assert that man the creature has this kind of libertarian free will, that in essence denies the existence of the decree of God, we rob from God the glory for the outcome of time itself.

Because truly, the open theists do have an argument against historic Arminians at this point.

Because upon what is God's knowledge of the future to be grounded if it is not

God's decree? How does God have knowledge of things? Does time simply take place because man chooses for it to take place in the form that he wants it to take place in?

And God simply takes knowledge of this in and then somehow takes glory and credit for how it turned out?

If the events of time are determined really, and this would be fatalistically, not by God's decree, but by the random actions of men, then

God cannot be glorified in the outcome of those things. So I would say to a person who wants to talk about libertarian free will, let's first define what we're talking about, and let's ask if you believe that God has libertarian free will, or is

God limited in what he can do? Can God create a universe in which he destroys evil through the sacrifice of his son?

Or are you saying that that would absolutely force God to be, in your terminology, the author of evil, and that God cannot use secondary causes,

God cannot use the brothers of Joseph to sell him into slavery to save many souls alive on that day?

Give me an answer from what Scripture says. And at that point, you normally get the deer in the headlights look, because you're asking, let's go to the text, let's derive our worldview and our philosophy out of the text of what

God has spoken. And that's just not normally how it's dealt with. So when folks start talking about libertarian free will, at least in regards to open theists, they're very consistent at that point.

They are willing to, in reality, throw away a divine attribute so as to maintain a human attribute.

And then the response is that God will not violate man's free will. This is what I ran into this morning.

And I was looking just for a quick response to that. And my quick response to that is, no, it is

God who has free will, and it is God who will not violate God's free will. God frequently, for the betterment of the church and the truth and the accomplishment of his will in this world, will violate man's creaturely will.

And he will do so in one of two ways. He will either do so in mercy, in the sense of bringing about regeneration and giving a person a new heart.

If you take out a heart of stone and give a heart of flesh, ask that heart of stone if it wanted to be taken out. Of course it doesn't, but that's the whole idea of resurrection.

And secondly, sometimes he does so in judgment. I mean, let's face it, the

Bible talks about God not only hardening Pharaoh's heart. I don't even bother anymore with Pharaoh so much, because many of these folks have almost pre -memorized a response to Pharaoh.

But I'll use other passages in Scripture. I mean, even the people of Israel say, why have you hardened us that we would not heed your word?

There's a number of passages that you can go to and say, look, the passage is there in the text of Scripture.

We can't simply ignore it. We can't simply say, well, it can't mean that because of this philosophical presupposition it is mine.

Again, we have to go to the text of Scripture first and derive our beliefs from that. And so there are judgmental hardenings.

I mean, God, what does it say in 2 Thessalonians? If you will not love the truth, God will cause you to love a lie.

Well, if you cause someone to love something, does that have nothing to do with the will? Of course it does. So, you know, there's all sorts of passages you can get into.

And again, I just try to keep it as close to the text of Scripture as possible, because it's very easy for it to wander away.

Well, the positive thing that came out is we had a number of people there, one of them who was sort of in between on these issues.

He's not sure if Calvin was right or whoever was right. And so he will be on your website later on today or tomorrow, and then also on the

PRBC website going through your classes on the objections to the Reformed faith.

Great. Excellent. That's wonderful. There's a positive aspect to it coming out. So it's a good day. All right. Thank you very much, sir.

Take care. All right. God bless. All right. Let's run to our last caller real quick. Jeremy in Atlanta.

Hi, Jeremy. Hey, Dr. White. How are you? Doing good. Hey, I'm now in agreement with you on the time change, because you fell back in Atlanta here, and it cost me 45 minutes of the program today.

So I'm totally against time change now. Yes. Well, you know, I'm not going to go into it, but normally

I would mock you and embarrass you in front of our entire national audience for having missed any of the program.

But I'm just not going to do that, because I'm feeling very merciful. I appreciate your graciousness on that very much.

Real quick, I know we were in a hurry here. I'm still trying to recover from the frogs on the lily pads thing

I got in church. Yeah, yeah. You sent me that. That was, you know, it just warmed my heart.

It truly did. My question is on John 15. And I, you know, was coming out of the one that's been a gospel church.

As you know, you hear very little expository teaching in general. But most of the teaching on John 15 that I think that I have heard in the

Southern Baptist churches that I've been attending is that it's talking about nonbelievers and unbelievers.

And I guess I'm kind of confused, because I've read your thing. It's on the website. Oh, okay. It's directed more towards a

Jehovah's Witness. Yeah, but it's still very relevant here. Okay, so maybe I should check it out more, because I've always heard that that taught just your bad fruit that you bear.

You can be a believer and have bad fruit, but it gets burned up. But you're still a believer. I know. Remember, in John 15, there's no bad fruit.

The ones, the branches that are burned up do not bear fruit. Okay. That's the point. Verse 5 says,

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

And he defines discipleship on the basis of the existence of fruit.

My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. So the only disciples in John 15 are those that bear fruit, and the only ones that are burned up are those that do not bear fruit.

So... But this is often mistaught as something of true believers who are bearing bad fruit that gets burned up later.

Exactly, exactly. And that's the confusion. I didn't think that's what it was talking about. No. Well, and I should warn you, if you continue looking far enough, you're going to discover that there are those who are quote -unquote reformed, who will likewise say that the issue in John 15 is that those who are burned up are those who were once in the

New Covenant, but do not keep the, they experience covenant curses.

That's the new thing out of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian. It's not new. I mean, it's been around a while, but that's the perspective, for example, of those who would follow after the

Auburn Avenue Presbyterian church conferences, is that we've misunderstood the

John 15 stuff, that those are actually members of the New Covenant. And of course, my problem with that is, if you're a member of the

New Covenant, according to Hebrews 8, your sins are forgiven, and you all know God, and it's the covenant of the blood of Christ, and it goes back to the issue of what is the

New Covenant and things like that. But certainly, my position is that the text itself tells us the disciples are those who bear fruit, and those that are burned up are not disciples.

And so, that is the distinction that the text itself draws, and that we need to stick with it.

Excellent. Okay. Well, you take care, and I still hope that we can get you here to Atlanta. I'll see if we can't work that out.

Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. God bless. All right. Well, thank you very much for those phone calls today.

Excellent stuff. I appreciate when the callers are good and have pointed questions, and we give pointed responses directly out of the text of Scripture, we hope, anyways.

We try to. Like I said, I don't know if we'll be here Thursday. My guess is we'll probably be here earlier than normal on Thursday, just so we don't conflict, or maybe we'll just wait until afterwards.

We'll try to make an announcement on the website. Don't forget to listen to Bill Webster on the Bible Answer Man this coming Thursday night.

Talk to you all later. God bless. 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.