December 16, 2004

The Apostle Peter’s Call to Give a Defense

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. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White.

Hyper-Calvinism, Scholarship, and Misrepresentation

Well, good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line Thursday afternoon the 16th of December. I'm being geeky today. I would just was just scanning through New posts using my RSS reader program. And we have RSS capability on our blog now and so it's like, you know, I read all these blogs.

But it'd be really easier if I caught them as they were posting stuff during the days. I know I know a lot of you folks way ahead of me on this. Okay, I understand that I'm just getting caught up. I just put my log offs my library system on my main system.

So now it's running with Bible works and I'm just having lots of fun. And it is interesting Eric Svensson has his his discussions today on his 4 .5 point Calvinism and We may get some calls on that. I have a feeling Somewhere along the line, but I've been adding various sundry Blogs here one of my tried to add and they're going down for maintenance the moment doesn't work.

Well when when they're not working too well. Anyways eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number if you would like to participate in the program today. I have I have more of course from Dr. Patterson that we will be looking at but I also have in my in my hand some material that people have been talking about.

I Mentioned this particular article on the Reformed Baptist discussion list and that got a lot of stuff going on as far as that went and There's a lot of discussion Has come up in regards to the subject of hyper Calvinism, you know that many people identify any Calvinistic belief at all as hyper Calvinism.

For many Evangelicals Calvinism is believing in Once saved always saved and if you believe anything beyond that if you believe in divine election if you believe in the total poverty of man Unconditional election obviously if anybody leave believe in limited atonement.

Irresistible grace. You're a hyper Calvinist. Shouldn't that be a four-point Arminian?

What the the you know you believe in one thing? I'm just I'm just talking about it for most evangelicals That's a Calvinist well for example is fairly obvious that On the program that we played with Dave Hunt the host that's pretty much how he viewed everything was that if you believe in eternal security you're you're Calvinist and Since Dave Hunt believes in a form of it.

It's certainly not a Biblical form it's a form that comes from the Wilkins non lordship got your ticket punched going to heaven. Saving faith in any kind of faith at all type view. But still since Dave Hunt did not believe that you could be saved and lose your salvation and be and be lost.

You could just tell that the host was disappointed and and probably would like to have at that point said well That means you're a Calvinist which of course it doesn't but anyway The the term is thrown around and We obviously have to define it we have to do something with it, and there's in in the process of Discussing this today.

I'd like to also give some insight into a phrase that I've used a number of times and That that phrase Is Scholarship is as scholarship does. That sort of comes from ironic source of course. That is it it comes from.

Well, I've got somebody just send me an email wants to know how to listen to the dividing line. How do you how do you respond to that and do the dividing line at the same time? That's not that's not an easy thing to do actually when you think about it other than going Back to the the the website and pulling stuff out.

I'm not sure maybe I'll do that anyway. The scholarship is a scholarship does and what I mean by that is you can claim to be a scholar all you want. If you are one, then you will do things in a certain fashion.

You will Utilize or you should utilize or you're misusing your scholarship facts in a certain way research in a certain way. I think for a Christian scholar there needs to be a certain level of integrity Honesty things like that, so you shouldn't be found regularly misrepresenting other people especially just simply to promote your own crusade or your own self and.

So recently there was a there's a series monarchism calm and I Don't spend a lot of time surfing the web. I'm busy with a lot of things, but you know I'm certainly familiar with monarchism calm and I know they have links to a lot of my materials there in fact when I Logged on there on the front page were at least two articles that I had written that were that were linked there directly to our site.

And I appreciate that and I have some friends right for monarchism calm some you know fairly familiar with it. I don't think this person who's writing this article has anything at monarchism calm, but anyway There is a a particular article that gave a list of Ideas Concepts that may or may not but may be associated with the idea of Hyper-Calvinism and This writer then added a lot of material To what was found the monarchism site.

Basically to try to take some shots at me personally and if you want to know where it came from. What this person is referring to evidently I Greatly offended this individual with the comments that I made on February 17th this past year if you go to the blog go down the bottom you go to the pre December 2004 archives go to February scroll down the 17th member was going on last February.

It seems like it in some ways. It seems like yesterday and in some ways. It seems like a long time ago I was going to Atlanta and my goodness that seems like it was forever ago. That is really odd, but anyway.

I was looking at it, and I scroll back to this and on the 17th of February. Remember the big story at the time. Yeah, you're right. It's the film that was that is what is it the seventh now biggest grossing film?

Maybe even higher than that I made maybe somebody in channel will know where it is right now. But the passion of the Christ was coming up and It hadn't come out yet, and there is all this stuff going on in the Media about the Christ story and All sorts of things like that and and there is all this stuff about who killed Jesus.

Well is the film anti-semitic? Because it says that you know the Jews did this or you know was the Romans and and who killed Jesus and Nowhere in all of this. Did you get any? Meaningful biblical discussion of the overarching purpose in the cross and.

So though I have addressed the issue of the atonement in in writing and a scholar of course would Would address what a person has published. First and foremost a an unscholarly person who abuses scholarship for their own personal means.

Would ignore what a person is published and just you know go with other sources and brief little snippets and things like that because they're just trying to promote their own little little crusade and so there's a little little Discussion on the blog obviously I have discussed the atonement and in full in other places and and I've discussed the issue of compatibilism.

I've discussed the relationship between the The will of God the decree of God the will of man. The fact that men do what they do Freely because they desire to do so the fact that God holds men accountable.

That God calls all men everywhere to repent. And that we are to preach the gospel to every creature. Because the fact that we do not possess the the content of God's Secret decree we do not know who the elect are so we preach the gospel to all men and we've discussed the fact that that has taken us to places that our minions won't go and I've mentioned the fact this particular individual who likes to write against me.

I've never seen him out there. I don't see him doing this kind of stuff, but anyway On the 17th of February I wrote the following. Isn't it amazing. That the title was who killed Jesus. Isn't it amazing that this is the big question today because the Gibson film and Isn't it even more amazing at the early church long before the first Gospels written of the first epistle penned knew the answer and Isn't it just sad that most evangelicals don't even believe what the Bible says about anymore and refuse to consider what it really means.

Here's the answer folks for anyone who wants to know and I gave a citation from scripture and The scripture passages Acts chapter 4 verses 27 to 28 for truly in this city They were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur answer the question.

God did it. It's no mystery. The early Christians had bothered to listen to what God had inspired seven centuries earlier in Isaiah 53 for surely our grief see himself born our sorrows. He carried it.

We ourselves esteemed him stricken smitten of God and Afflicted smitten of God. There's the truth. Let's start telling folks God Had his son nailed to a tree and no it wasn't so that you could decide if you'd like him to be your Savior.

He did so to redeem his people and if you do not repent and believe you'll be among. You will not be among those people. But do not be mistaken if you continue in your hard-heartedness. Your unbelief will not cause his failure.

All that the father has entrusted the son will receive eternal life. The great question is not what will you do with Christ Jesus my friend. It is what will Christ do with you now? Of course. Some of you have probably heard RC Sproul Use that very phrase.

The first person that I ever heard used that phrase that last phrase there that The great question is not what will you do with Jesus Christ? It is what will Christ do with you? Emphasizing of course the Sovereignty of the Savior.

The power of the Savior to save his people. That passage we think of in Matthew 1 this time of year. Why was his name called what it was? Why is he a Savior? Why is he Yeshua? Because he will save his people in their sins.

Not he will try. Not he will make the best effort possible. But that he will save his people his people from their sins, and so I remember very clearly hearing especially in that wonderful RC Sproul Ian voice that statement the obvious implication of it is is that the tendency of evangelicalism is to so limit God.

You've all heard it. You've all heard the explanation of election. God has voted for you the devil's vote against you and you you're the one it gets to cast the tie-breaking vote. You've heard the presentation.

You've seen the pictures of Jesus Standing at the heart store, and there's no knob on the outside, and he's meekly knocking and and he wants to come in. But he can't he's powerless. He has no authority in.

Well, he can have authority in heaven and earth just as long as it's not in my life we want to limit him in that way, and that's what I'm referring to here, of course and These are common beliefs that reform people have shared for a long time that Christ is a powerful Savior, and he will not fail in the task that has been given to him.

I quoted from John chapter 6 of course that he will. All that the father has entrusted the son will receive eternal life, that's John 6 38 and 39 and so I Presented biblical pre biblical material. There's there's a lot behind this in My written materials.

I have affirmed compatibilism and the responsibility of men in light of God's sovereign decree. I have affirmed the existence of secondary sources secondary means by which this Decree is accomplished and the culpability thereof Etc.

It's that I've addressed this in conferences at the founders conference speaking with on panels with men like Bruce Ware and the scholars of that rank. But evidently for some people the use of sources and accurately representing things just isn't a part of what they consider scholarship and.

So as you read through these things you encounter these additions for example in going back to monergism calm some of the things about hyper Calvinism they say that that God is the author of sin and evil and So they will say a hyper Calvinist Would say God is the author of sin and evil that is they do not Make the effort to discuss the role of the secondary means.

They will not do what the London Baptist Confession, which I as a form Baptist elder present discuss those things but then there is placed in a in parentheses these little comments that are not at monergism calm they are from this author and It's very.

Yes, I know that Bruce where it is not hold to limited atonement. Congratulations for discovering that Good grief That God is the author sin evil then there's a parentheses for example who murdered Jesus.

God did it it's that simple. There's no mystery about it at all. Now. That's supposed to be a Shot at what I said on my blog now any person With a high school education knows that that's not how you handle information.

That's not how you handle what someone said. I cited scripture and I had a context and and I talked about all these other things and. Yet here you have someone who thinks that scholarship is exemplified By these petty little shots that are completely out of context.

Second one that men have no will of their own and secondary causes are of no effect. Well, certainly that wouldn't describe me and in any way shape or form. But then there's parentheses. In other words secondary causes are only occasions in which God's efficiency is exerted.

We are nothing more than clay in the hands of the Potter. Hmm. Potter hmm, I wonder what that might be in reference to. I Wonder someone has a problem with Romans 9. Don't know. Then modernism said that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men.

Well, how many times of course have I said that we don't know who the elect are? But then listen to this this twisted parenthetical insertion. Usually exerts itself in the following manner. You know who the elect are by the purity of their doctrine.

Hmm. Really. That's that's interesting. I I guess we're not supposed to be concerned about purity of doctrine, but I don't remember making the connection there anyway. That it is wrong to evangelize. Wow there's.

There's certainly not a point we could be criticized on. Oh. But we are in the robust sense of actually telling people that God loves them and desires their salvation and offering the benefits of Christ Death to them.

Many people think they are doing evangelism just because they hand out literature and tell people of God commands sinners to repent. So in other words, you have to do it in a particular fashion. And of course this particular individual has determined that if you are not an infralapsarian unless you are a conscious infralapsarian if you are a super lap certain of any kind you are automatically hyper Calvinist and.

So that just sort of fits into the whole idea here. Monarchism said that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they do. Now that's sort of odd. When you think about it that men who have once sincerely professed belief or say regards what they do.

I I know some hyper Calvinist that would not say that's that I'm not really sure. If I agree that that would even be relevant. But then in the parentheses equating saving faith with correct doctrinal scent.

Now I don't even see any connection to that first of all and secondly does saving faith have to have a proper object or is this writer saying that You can have saving faith without having faith in the one who saves.

That would be a question that I would ask. This is interesting that the sacraments are not means of grace but obstacles to salvation by faith alone. Notice hmm sounds like some internet apologist who insists the sacraments are only outward signs of salvation.

That we receive by faith alone apart from the sacraments and who think that Lutherans can compromise the gospel by believing a baptismal regeneration. These folks will sometimes just a baptism and the Lord's Supper only ordinances not sacraments since they do not actually convey grace.

In other words All Baptist just became hyper Calvinist in that brilliant. Well, this is scholarship. This is this is insanity. All Baptists automatically if you do not hold to a form of sacramentalism where where grace is automatically confirmed conferred.

And you prefer the use of term ordinance as I do. That automatically makes you a hyper Calvinist brilliant thinking. I just is it's no wonder that people like this would never show their face in public to where they actually had an equal time.

They have to defend this kind of stuff because they know in their heart of hearts. They would absolutely be run over like a freight train that the true church is only invisible and Salvation is not connected with the visible church.

Hence equating the true church with the elect. That sounds to me. Again, I see no connection here that I have to hyper Calvinism whatsoever. It sounds to me is like that's a veiled reference to the idea that and I would certainly believe that the elect and Those who are truly in the New Covenant and hence are saved that that's a co-equal number in our day.

But it doesn't expand beyond that. So it's really hard to say exactly what's referring to that the scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church. Parentheses also called solo scriptura view held by most American evangelicals, especially common amongst Reformed Baptists and too many Presbyterians as well again.

Unlike this particular individual I've actually published in this area and have addressed this issue of solo scriptura and the terminology utilized thereby and Have since this person was still in school been defending sola scriptura against Roman Catholic apologists and from the very beginning of emphasized that in reality The one of the main problems fact I was just discussing this on a radio program.

What's today Thursday? Tuesday afternoon, I was doing a radio program. One of the things I mentioned was the fact that There is this concept That Roman Catholic apologists like to try to they try to define the debate and force Evangelicals to defend something that they actually themselves Do not hold to and I'm sorry Frank I'm sorry that you had to had to run off.

We did have a caller and that opens up all our lines at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. I was unaware that there was a time frame involved with that, but there's something we knew about that.

They try to make a Protestant defend the idea that either you've got The Pope on one side and The church tradition and infallible interpreters or or it's you and your Bible alone in the woods now I've taught on this many many times it is so easy to Demonstrate that I Have addressed this consistently in every context for years so to have someone Make this kind of allegation just again demonstrates that that they have no concern for truth.

They have no no knowledge of of Self-discipline as far as truth is concerned That the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men. I eat the denial of common grace of defending that numerous times and That only Calvinists are Christians or in it's slightly more nuanced form that our minions who happen to be true Christians will eventually find The way to Calvinism that that those are not the same things though those are not the same things and I wouldn't even agree with that.

I would agree that there is a tendency to be our minion at your conversion and Then as you study the scriptures to begin more and more to see who was truly the one who brought you to himself. I would I would defend that easily, but these inserted comments and this was in the process by the way of Attacking Dr. Nettles and accusing him of being a hyper Calvinist the irony was that the Monarchism article if you went down below that linked to dr. Nettles talking about hyper I tell you there is a there is truly a Rabies a thalagorum the the rabid attitude of the theologians and You can really lose balance you really really can when you just sort of live in the the hallowed halls and You don't seem to really do anything with all that great learning.

That is yours you you eventually just sort of lose your Lose your mind. I guess anyway I Have here goodness, I got a an entire blast worth of stuff in the in the mail all at one time and Can't get look at right now, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to get that person into the program on time to 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 we began looking at Dr. Page Patterson's comments on Calvinism At New Orleans Baptist Seminary back in October.

We played a few segments and Then we moved from there And I forgot about it and so last week we began we went back to it. We finished the first presentation. He spoke in three chapels about 35 minutes a piece and so we're moving to the second Section of the comments that dr. Patterson makes and here's where he's going to explain to us How you put all this stuff together so?

Mr. SuperDuper sound man guy, I'm about to play Some audio again, so here we go.

Page Patterson on Calvinism and Compatibilism

Exactly 8 19 a .m.. In the morning in a flat in Cambridge in England. This caused no end of consternation to those who knew him and loved him among whom was a famous Anglican bishop by the name of James a Pike senior.

James Pike senior became so concerned about why on earth his son would have done this kind of thing that together with his secretary and Personal chaplain David Barr They made the journey to Cambridge and they actually took up residence in the flat Where Jim had taken his life and while they were there an unusual series of things began to take place.

For example At exactly 8 19 a .m. When Jim had taken his life the alarm clock would go off every day even when they had set it at a totally different time. In addition to that Jim Pike never approved of the bangs in the hairdo of Bishop Pike's secretary and so on one morning when she awakened there was the smell of smoke in the room there were lighted matches that had been extinguished now lying on the floor and her bangs had all been singed off and All kinds of unusual other things began to happen such as Books lying on the floor open to a passage with a marker there Indicating where someone wanted Bishop Pike to read and it inevitably had to do With something that Jim had been interested in and at least Bishop Pike did not know what on earth to do.

So on February the 25th, he went to consult with Canon John Pierce Higgins one of the leading Anglican clergymen of all of England at the time he After hearing the entire thing suggested one or two approaches to the problem one.

He suggested the possibility of consulting a Ouija board Which seems to me to be what you could expect from any archbishop Give that kind of advice and in addition to that He said if that does not seem to work or appeal to you Why not try a necromancer try someone who can is a medium and could prop Possibly get in touch with your son Jim.

Well Bishop Pike decided on the latter and so on March the 1st 1966 he entered into a seance With ena twig and sure enough ena twig was able to call up Jim from the dead and They began to converse through the medium and Bishop Pike said to his son Jim are you in heaven and There was a pause and ena twig was manifestly uncomfortable and the bishop said tell me what on earth he is saying and That link she finally said well actually he says that where he is is more like hell and Then she paused for a moment And she said he also says that Paul Tillich is there with him and has something to say to us.

So nobody's surprised. Well, anyway, what are we to make of an incident like that? Do all of these things that happened to Bishop Pike with all of this scripted in eternity past? Did God foreordain that these things should happen if he chose those that are to be saved in him?

And he did not choose others, but actually created them as some of the scripture We read yesterday seemed to indicate he created them for no other reason Except to show his power and his justice and his wrath in them.

Then did Bishop Pike really have any choice in all of this? Should we should we hold him in any sense seriously? Responsible that he simply carried out what God had planned for him. The issues are very profound indeed and as we wrestle with them to try to understand where human responsibility begins and and where God's electing providence should be Seen as limited or should it be all pervasive men have struggled now for some 2 ,000 years with that question.

Okay Yeah.

Wow, I preferred the Waffle House personally. Yeah, first time I'd ever ever heard that particular passage that particular story tied in there, but If you're wondering what does that have to do with Calvinism, I don't know either.

Other than the attempted connection there, and that is. Well should we hold Bishop Pike? Accountable for consulting a medium, and I would say yes just like pilot. And. The Jews are accountable in the betrayal of Jesus and just as the brothers of Joseph were accountable in the sale of Joseph in the slavery and yet what they did was intend.

I mean isn't this there isn't that right there in Scripture? Seems to be but I'm just sort of listening along with you. Well.

There are some who come to a position that is commonly called Compatibilism. Yeah, we know people that want to argue that Libertarian free will can be asserted for man on one hand and on the other hand we can still hold somehow.

Does the electing providences of God even a super luxuriant? Electing providences of God.

Let's define a few things. No I The very term libertarian there in its normal usage would not fit with Compatibilism. Free will at that point would be defined as compatibilistic free will not Libertarian because the very concept libertarian is that there is the possibility of doing the other.

There is no sovereign decree. So I I wouldn't utilize that terminology, and you did just hear a super lapsarian fly by there. It went by real quick. So that that was an interesting Point to just throw in there.

I'm not following the connections overly well either. I'm doing my best to Follow along with you, but we'll continue on and that the two are somehow.

Compatible and can exist together. Well unquestionably there is certain truth in this for if both doctrines are somehow taught in God's Word Then we must conclude that they are compatible. And yet I suggest to you that compatibilism as a general philosophy is in my estimation quite flawed.

It's illusory. It does not really.

Ultimately answer the question we I'm hoping we're going to find out why and I'm hoping that. We're also going to get some discussion of the key passages. I Remember somebody about a year ago like today.

On a national radio program I Someone kept trying to get people to address acts 427 28 and Genesis 50 20 and Isaiah 10. Remember that that was a year ago today. Yep, that's what happened. Seems like a lot longer than that are if we adopt the view of five-point Calvinism for example.

Ultimately pushed to some conclusions that are very uncomfortable. One of those is a Fatalistic conclusion. If it's all been decided in eternity past if every act of man has been scripted of God then in effect we have no say in it and it is impossible to and to avoid a fatalistic end.

Well there we have the misuse the term fatalism because the fact that it's you know ignores the reality of the personal element of the decree of God and Also ignores the difference between the creatures knowledge Which does not include the decree and hence he is culpable for what he acts upon his desires in relationship to the law of God and the sovereign decree of God and his eternal is eternal perspective.

And I'm wondering this is that a Seminary aren't there a number of students sitting there that are supposed to be reading books about this type of stuff and hence would recognize That there's a whole lot of stuff.

Just not really getting discussed here.

It also is a problem for theodicy for a justification of the goodness of God. Because ultimately it makes God the author of sin when the Bible explicitly says that he is not the author of sin.

Wow. Okay, we thought maybe possibly that. Given the presentation in the previous section which seemed to show some knowledge of the key passages. That there would be a fair analysis including the biblical passages used to to substantiate that.

Doesn't look like we're gonna get that. Oh my goodness with all of this running through our heads and minds and hearts and Two thousand years of effort of Christians to resolve it that often Resulted in more disunity in the body of Christ.

What on earth are we to say? How do we resolve the problem? I'd like to suggest to you this morning that maybe We've been asking the wrong question all along. Maybe the difficulty we have with all of this is because we've been asking The what question or the how question.

Instead of asking the why question maybe we've been trying to somehow get our arms around the mind of God and Explain how all of this is compatible when we should have been asking a different question altogether.

Maybe we should have been saying Lord. Why did you put a doctrine like that in the Bible anyway? I mean stop and think about it for a moment. Even if the doctrine of election means everything our Calvinistic brethren say that it means Why would there be any real necessity of placing it in the Bible after all it's all Settled in eternity past and later on when we can understand it.

Maybe God can explain it to us that here below with our physical and mental Limitations we will never adequately comprehend it. So why on earth even put it in the book anyway and Think about that one for just a second.

Think about the revelation of the Trinity intention of the atonement stuff like that put that in the same category think about that for a moment and You'll see why I don't find this perspective to be overly compelling.

That is a legitimate question.

Why are these doctrines in the Bible. Now when we ask that question, I believe that we will begin to discover Some remarkable answers. Yesterday we read from Romans chapter 8 and I want to take you once again to Paul's solution to the problem.

Question rather than that how. Question instead of deciding how it all works. Which nobody has done for 2 ,000 years to anybody else's satisfaction.

Instead let's ask why the doctrine is there. Well, you know, I have to wonder given it I Try to extend as much Charity as I can but Why is it that I consistently, you know, I've played a lot of different folks.

You gotta admit You look over we've been doing the dividing line on and off since the 1980s. For some of you that's long time ago. Doesn't seem that long to me but Continuously, we've been doing the program.

What would we start against 97 98? I think was 98 we started on kpxq so we've been doing it for quite a while now six years and I have played what other people say and And the list of people that we've presented has been pretty pretty large and over time you start seeing this consistent pattern of Not Accurately representing reform theology of The straw man and when you have to use straw man argumentation that that really means that you're not.

You have not been brought to the point where you've had to struggle with the truth in this particular area. That's that's the kind way of putting it for some people using straw man Argumentation is because you know, you're wrong and you want to remain in in your error.

And there are some people like that but here here it well, no one's ever gonna figure this out. Well, you know what? I I haven't been given any feeling here. That the speaker has actually seriously Listened to the answers that have been offered really don't and So I I can't accept this statement.

Well, you know, no one really knows just because there continues to be disagreement doesn't mean anything. There's always been disagreement. For example on the topics of Romans and Galatians. There was in the day in which they were written.

That is indeed why they were written. That doesn't mean that God's truth is unclear on those things and It's only in a postmodern context that people would think that disagreement means we can't know when we ask that question.

I believe we will begin to unravel some marvelous truth. First of all notice in Romans 8 verses 30 and verses 29 and 30 for whom he foreknew. He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son.

Now, let me stop right here. Maybe possibly because of the context here. This is dr. Patterson speaking before a seminary audience. I Sort of think in that context. If you're going to speak about things like this then you need to fairly deal with.

The language itself that is being utilized. What does for no mean? What's the difference between for knowledge and for knowing? When God is the one who foreknows in the New Testament is there something consistent about the objects of that?

Verbal action. Is it merely a passive taking in of knowledge? Is there something active going on here? Etc. Etc. I'm hoping that that's what we're going to hear because that I would think that would be necessary within the context of presentation.

Right, I. Mean you would think this is you know, we're not standing in front of a high school Sunday school class here. We are standing in front of seminarians doing graduate supposed to be doing graduate level work and.

And so there's nothing wrong in getting to that level of the text dealing with the doctrine on that level. Just simply emphasizing words like whosoever or for no. Without making sure that your emphasis reflects what's there in the text itself?