Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this video
Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.
The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.
Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.
This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the
United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is
James White. And good afternoon, welcome to the Dividing Line, starting half an hour early so we can add in a half an hour, get done at the same time.
If I would stop listening to podcasts and debates and trying to keep up with stuff as best you can, nobody can keep up with everything.
I don't know. I don't know how anybody, you know, people send me links all the time. I'm like, how did you find that? You know,
I mean, it's enough for me to be keeping up with Unbelievable and Al Mohler and a few other podcasts that I try to listen to regularly.
And all the URLs sent to me of debates and stuff like that, I don't know how people keep up with some of the stuff they do.
But anyway, evidently they multitask a whole lot faster than I do. But if I wasn't doing that, then we could do just regular size dividing lines because I just keep doing the same thing.
But I keep running into stuff and I go, oh, I want to talk about this and I want to talk about that. And so we have to have more time.
So in this first half hour, we're going to answer some couple of emails, make some comments on some mullinism from William Lane Craig, and then move back to the two primary debates that we're working on here.
We've got to make a little more progress. I keep slowing down too much. I apologize for that. But then again, where else are you going to get this kind of discussion?
But right here on the dividing line, two questions were sent in that are relevant. I'm actually going to try to have a flow of a theme here, which is very difficult.
But I will put in the proper effort, and that is the proper use of the term effort. There are some people who abuse the term effort.
It's a sad thing. It's a very, very sad thing. And we should pray for them. But anyway, here's the question.
I have a question concerning John 6, 39. And this is the
Father's will, which hath sent me, that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Obviously, King James is the fifth there. I have heard an Arminian say, well, there you go, that's an
Arminian. I've heard an Arminian say that the shoulds in that verse are in the subjunctive and therefore refer to possibilities or probabilities.
So the sense of the text would be something like, I should maybe raise it up at the last day, or I might possibly raise it up at the last day.
I know that there are other ways of showing this. This is not the sense of the text. And I know that if that were the interpretation, all of Christianity would be destroyed.
But I was just wondering if you could give me some insight on the use of the subjunctive here and why it does not negate the fact that all that are given will be raised up on the last day.
Okay. Well, those crazy Arminians proving once again that a little
Greek is a very, very dangerous thing. I'm a little surprised.
I have a feeling that this isn't the verse that the person actually was thinking of.
Maybe, I'm not sure, what you normally hear is what I addressed in regards to Dave Hunt years and years ago when
What Love Is This came out. And people who look at the subjunctive, and since they don't know the range of meanings of the subjunctive, especially the use of subjunctive in purpose and result clauses after the term hinnah, they try to say, well, this might happen.
And they confuse purpose and result clauses with a regular use of an indicative versus a subjunctive in a statement of fact or something like that, or conditional sentences.
It normally is far beyond the reading they did in the front of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance or something along those lines.
And in John 639, apaleso is in the subjunctive and anastaso, but these are in hinnah clauses, and that's why it's translated.
The should part is primarily coming from English because that's just how we express these things.
Think about it. And this is the will of my father. So when you have a, it's tuta day, when you have a tuta, this is, and then hinnah, literally we translate it in order that, but frequently it's really just indicating sort of a, here's the fulfillment of what
I just said. Sometimes it's a quotation. He said this or something along those lines. And so all that we have here is the revelation of the will of the father for the son that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but I should raise it up in the last day.
So all this is telling us is this is the will of the son, this is the will of the father for the son.
And so any question about the ability of the son to fulfill this would not be a matter of grammar.
This is just simply telling us this is what the will of the father for the son is. And anybody who would suggest that the son is incapable of doing that,
I question their Christianity. I question their very, now
I've actually heard people say, well, yeah, it's the will of the father for the son, but man's free will can get in the way.
And I just, I look at that and I just go, are you listening to the words?
The will of the father for the son is that he should lose nothing of all that he has given me.
So are you telling me the father is so unwise he would give his son a task he cannot accomplish? Are you,
I mean, do you really want to go there? I mean, if you, let me put it this way. People are always saying, well, you know, some of the, some of the hypers out there are always saying those, those are, you know, there's not
Arminian in the world to ever go into heaven and all the rest of that stuff. And we've, we've talked about that. And I'm thankful that the vast majority of Arminians I know of are inconsistent and they would recoil from the idea that Jesus could fail.
But you know what? If you're a consistent Arminian at that point, if you will actually look at me in the eye and say, oh, hey, the father can try and the son can try and the spirit can try.
And they, it's, it's a, it's an inter -Trinitarian effort, but fail.
Now you're starting to get to the point where I'm sort of a little more comfortable going, you sure you understand this gospel thing?
Because you, you've got, boy, wow, you are really out to lunch on that one. So no, there's nothing in the shoulds that indicates there's a, well, yeah,
I don't know if it's really going to happen, you know, no, there's a, that's a, that does not follow at all.
Next question that it was sent in is a very, very interesting. I've been a joyful Christian for 35 years, but when
I was introduced to Reformed theology eight years ago, I lost my joy over my loved ones who the father didn't want to save and are now in hell.
Jesus said no one could come to me unless the father who sent me draws him, yet Jesus condemns those who don't come to him. How can he condemn them for not coming when the father doesn't want them to come and is making it impossible for them to come?
Also if the father loves the elect so much and decides when to save them, why does he wait to save some until they're older and have lived lives of sin, hurting others?
Why not save them when they're children? Finally, I don't know how to witness anymore. I could be witnessing to a non -elect person and telling him or her a lie.
Jesus doesn't love him or her, didn't die on the cross for his or her sins, et cetera. Can you help me?
I will be very honest with you, I doubt that this is actually an honest question. I really will, because I've never met a person who is actually
Reformed, who's in a Reformed church, who hears any kind of meaningful Reformed preaching that would ever be this confused.
I'll be perfectly honest with you, I have heard this as an objection so many times that my gut feeling is this is more of an objection masquerading as a question than it is actually a question.
But given the commonality of it, let's take this apart. Why for this person did you have joy over your loved ones before when
God couldn't save them one way or the other? It was all up to them. When people say, this is the big emotional ploy that George Bryson pulled, and you hear people doing it all the time in the sermons,
Radio Free Geneva as we've done recently, you've heard the same thing. God might not want to save your children,
God might not want to save your parents or your loved ones, and all the rest of the stuff. The hidden part of that is, what
I'm preaching to you is if even God does want to save them, he can't, it's up to them.
He's doing his best, we do our best, but nobody can save them, it's all up to them. That's what they're really saying, and I just don't want you to think about that part, or maybe they've not thought about that part, that's a possibility.
But I find it very difficult, I've never, ever, ever met anybody who embraced
Reformed Theology and said, oh, that made me so sad. I lost all my joy because the Father doesn't want to save my loved ones.
You know, it's interesting, why do you think that God would be under obligation to save anyone, including yourself?
That's what I would like to ask. Because you seem to think God's under obligation to do this, so anyone who believes doctors of grace recognizes that my salvation is completely of grace.
So if I recognize that the propriety of my own condemnation, then
I'm not going to be sitting around going, oh, well, what if he doesn't want to save this person or that person? The question is, why would he want to save any of us?
No one is truly Reformed in their heart when they do not have a biblical view of grace.
It just doesn't happen. You may say you believe some of the doctrines or whatever else, fine.
But to be Reformed, first and foremost, is to recognize that you are a deserving sinner.
You're deserving of God's wrath and punishment, and everything you have comes from grace.
All of grace. Read the book. Charles Spurgeon wrote it. All of grace. Read it. It's a good thing. So, yes,
Jesus did say, now, it says, loved ones who the Father didn't want to save and are now in hell.
Okay, so you'd be more comfortable with the idea that he tried and failed than that he didn't try and they're getting justice.
Is that the idea? Jesus said, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
Yet Jesus condemns those who don't come to him. He condemns them because they are what again?
Deserving of condemnation because they are what again? Sinners. Because they're under the wrath of God.
And they are justly under the wrath of God, right? And so, we have the question, how can he condemn them for not coming when the
Father doesn't want them to come and isn't making it impossible for them to come? Hello, fundamental Reformed theology.
They don't want to come. What does the Bible say? They hide in the darkness. They're enemies of God.
God -haters. Hearts of stone. Love their sin. And so,
I'm sorry, but if you introduced
Reformed theology eight years ago, you weren't introduced to it very well if you do not understand both the holiness of God, the universal call to all people to repent and believe, and then the necessity of grace to free people from spiritual death, and the fact that nobody has any basis for saying to God, why didn't you do this?
Because the only thing that God owes to anybody is justice. You did not get a very good introduction at that point.
And he's not making it impossible for anyone to come, because it's already impossible for them to come. He didn't make it impossible.
They're spiritually dead. I mean, are you...
Okay. Also, if the Father loves the elect so much and decides when to save them, why does he wait to save some until they're older and have lived lives of sin, hurting others?
Wow. So God just has to save all the elect and their kids? There's no purpose why someone would be saved at a different age?
I mean, I was saved at a very, very young age, and I am thankful for that. But you know what?
There are times when I talk to people who are going through stuff in life that never even touched me.
It wasn't a part of my upbringing. I was not around people. And I recognize I am limited in what
I can say to them. I mean, I can give them biblical advice, but I cannot in any way, shape, or form on a personal level connect with what they're going through.
I mean, if I talk to someone who struggles with drug addiction or something,
I have no concept of that. I really don't. Alcoholism, no concept.
Listen, I detest the taste of alcohol. I cannot stand it. And when I had
LASIK surgery a number of years ago, they said, would you like to have half of Valium before the thing?
Rich knows. I took half of Valium, and then five minutes, I was on the floor.
I was gone. I can't handle the stuff, man. I just detest the feeling of not having complete control over my mind and faculties and body.
I just can't do it. So I never experienced any of that stuff. And hence, there are certain people,
I can tell you what the Bible says about these things, but I'll be perfectly honest with you, it's outside my experience.
But if God wishes to make trophies of grace of someone who's 65 years old and draws himself to them at that point, who are we to complain?
He has his purposes. He is the sovereign king. Why not save them when they're children?
Well, sometimes he does. But he's under no obligations. He has his purpose. He's working out. Finally, I don't know how to witness anymore.
This is where I really go, come on, I don't think so. I could be witnessing to a non -elect person.
Yes, you could be. And you know what? We don't know who the elect are. And there is not a reformed person on the planet who's truly reformed.
There might be hyper -Calvinists out there that say, well, you need to look for signs of regeneration. That's what makes them a hyper -Calvinist. And that's why everyone who says
I'm a hyper -Calvinist is a bold -faced liar. And they know that. And you know who you are.
And some of you teach at Southern Baptist Seminaries. And you continue to lie about me. And you won't debate me.
I'd come down and debate you and demonstrate these things. But you know, that's the way it goes. But anyways, we are not told, go look for the elect.
Because we cannot tell who the elect are. So we proclaim the gospel to all people.
All people. That's a wonderful thing. Can you help me? Yeah, I hope
I did. But I'm, again, just a little bit skeptical on that one. If that's what you've been taught, then you need to get to a better church than the one that you are currently at.
Now, for some reason, here we go. There we are. All right, let's listen to a recent podcast from William Lane Craig, where he's talking about Mullenism.
And I went a little bit longer on those than I expected to. So let's dive right into it. This is Dr. Craig. I've really been trying to find a good ground to stand on concerning libertarian free will.
While it seems intuitive, it's now without serious problems when probed. Your work on Mullenism has really opened a world of thought for me and a view of the nature of God, the nature of man, and some good self -reflection as well.
But as I'm sure you're all too aware of, I've come to that fork in the road of the problem of randomness, arbitrariness, that libertarianism presents.
As our compatibilist friends would say, if God is not the grounding source of why we choose
A over B by determining it, then what is? Why did one choose
A and not B? Now let me just stop it right there. Now let's think for just a moment in the
Mullenist worldview. We have this thing called middle knowledge. Why is it called middle knowledge? It exists between the natural knowledge of God and the free knowledge of God.
The natural knowledge of God is the knowledge that God has of himself, his being. It's perfect. It's complete. The free knowledge of God is that which he has of the universe that he decrees to create.
So the difference between natural knowledge and free knowledge is that free knowledge is dependent upon the decree to create all things and therefore know everything there is to know about the creation that has come forth from God.
And middle knowledge comes between the two. And it's this concept that God would know what any free creature would do given any circumstance in any possible world.
And one of our big problems here, and it's a problem that I don't think that Dr. Craig has solved in any way, shape, or form, or any of the
Mullenists do, which is why the Roman Catholics who came up with this weird theology in the first place have pretty much abandoned it, the main problem is called the grounding objection.
And that is, what is the ground of asserting the existence of this knowledge? It certainly doesn't come from Scripture.
No one has ever read the Bible and come up with these conclusions. I'm sorry, it just doesn't come from the
Bible. But the idea is, how can God know what a free creature is going to do?
What actions a free creature would take given circumstances outside of his decree?
Because it's his decree that determines who I am. I mean,
I think it has just a really weird philosophical but not real world understanding of how human beings make their choices.
Because you have this human being that sort of floats around out there and makes decisions but isn't determined by his own makeup, his own nature, etc.,
etc. So if God's decree determines how tall I am, my intellectual level, how much body fat
I carry, where I live, so on and so forth, and all of these things massively impact the decisions we make, then how can
God have any knowledge of these beings and what they're going to do outside of his decree? It just doesn't make any sense at all.
I'm sorry, but I've tried to think it through and I've asked those people who support this idea and they don't give me very satisfying answers as to how could
God have this kind of knowledge outside of his decree. But the point is, the idea is that God knows this and there is nothing in his—it is not determined by his decree as to what their actions are going to be.
So what is it determined by? It's not determined by God, so it's determined by—and let's let
William Lane Craig answer. Let's start there. Well, the question is misconceived for a libertarian because there isn't any determining cause or reason for why a person chose
A rather than not A. This is—the essence of free will is to make a decision oneself without any sort of determining basis or ground.
So the whole idea of agent— Now, immediately I just go, do you really believe that we make decisions that way?
I mean, this is just a total rejection of the idea that our nature presents to our will desires, the strongest desire is what the will will act upon.
It's this free agent, and I just want to go, how can this fit with a biblical anthropology?
We are slaves to sin, are we not?
So is this the great prevenient grace thing that once prevenient grace frees us from slavery to sin and we can do this?
Something like that? I don't know. The causation is that the agent himself is the source of his decisions, and there just isn't any further explanation for why the agent freely chose
A rather than not A. Now, of course, you can talk about his motivation, so what he wanted to do, but then the determinist will say, but why did he want to do that?
And you launch into an infinite regress. I don't think it's an infinite regress at all. I think it goes back to the fact that the will makes decisions based upon the desires presented to it by the nature of that person, and this is where they can't go because that nature is determined by what?
If you say it's undetermined by God, then it exists ex nihilo.
It exists outside of God's sovereignty, so there are things in the universe that exist that determine the outcome of things, that determine the outcome of even
God's actions, but they are not determined by God. Wow, that's a pretty scary concept.
You simply need to cut the infinite regress off by saying that on libertarianism, an agent is able to make decisions to do what he freely wants to do, and that's it.
And that's not the same as saying that they're random. It's not like the motion of a subatomic particle that could go this way or that indeterministically.
It's not as though our choices in our minds are random events. They are events that are done for reasons, but ultimately they're because this is what an agent wants to do.
What reasons are these? So these reasons come forth from the nature of the person?
And so sin doesn't impact that, context doesn't impact that, doesn't all that flow from the impact of the external world upon the person, which would again wrap it up with a decree?
For there couldn't be any middle knowledge of these things. You see, it's a system that promises you something it cannot deliver on.
And the fact that you can have such libertarian freedom is evident in the fact that even for these reformed persons who want to have a compatibilistic view,
God has libertarian freedom. Yes, God has libertarian freedom because God is the creator of all things and is not constrained by creatureliness, sin, the decree of his creator, any of these other things.
Yes, there is one libertarian will in the world, and the idea that, well, if there's one, then there can be many more, seems to me like a really bad argument, especially in light of biblical anthropology.
He isn't determined in his choices by factors external to himself.
However, however, does not the Bible say that God always does good?
And so is there not a consistency between the actions of God and the nature of God in that sense?
So the Bible says God cannot lie, God cannot do these things, because they are contrary to his nature.
So even at that point— So even the compatibilist, it seems to me, ultimately has to admit the reality of libertarian freedom with respect to God.
He is a free agent who is able to choose between A and not A simply because he wants to do one and not the other.
The questioner goes on to say that he has seen that Plantinga appeals to the fact that God has libertarian freedom, so by extension, it's at least possible that we do, too.
But the determinists are determined— Yeah, but it doesn't fall from there. Now let me see if I can find—there was this one point, and I'm actually going through this in my mind right now, is where I was on the ride.
So okay, I was turning that corner, so that would be about here. Let me see if I can find something.
It's at least possible that we do, too. But the determinists are determined to push the envelope with the question, how is an appeal to God having libertarian freedom the only route we can take here?
Well, I don't think it's the only route. As I say, what you need to do is simply to insist that the—
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've already heard all that. I want to find— It's simply incorrect when he says that we're stuck with this unsolvable problem of randomness.
No, no, because— But they went on about this for a long, long time. He actually went to a text of Scripture, and I wanted to try to play with it.
It would be accurate to say that the actions of libertarian free will— And so I didn't have time to cue it up, and unfortunately this program doesn't have cues anyway.
—is that the agent himself is the source of his actions, and there is— Boy, they went on for about seven minutes there.
I'm surprised I didn't fall asleep while driving—or riding, I mean, I'm sorry. —24, Jesus describes the conditions under which the people of Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon would have repented, namely, if they would have witnessed the miracles that Christ performed there in Bethsaida and Capernaum and so on.
However, given that God knew that the people of those cities would have repented under those conditions, yet God didn't provide those conditions for them, means that these people were lost in our world, but they weren't transworld depraved.
How would someone who holds to transworld depravity handle this passage? Now we're getting into—this is sort of fun.
The question introduces this concept of transworld depravity, and this is sort of like what happens when
Voyager comes back and beams up a Calvinist and an Arminian, okay? We've got transwarp, transthis, trans—oh, it's pretty weird.
Anyway, now, Craig's going to explain this, and I appreciate that, but I want you to listen, and if we have to go a little bit in the next half hour, we will.
I want you to listen to what he does with this biblical text, because, folks, he's exactly right here.
William Lane Craig demonstrates he can do biblical exegesis exactly right here.
But listen to what he has to say. Seems to be a clear debunking of the theory. Just a terminological clarification, he's conflating transworld depravity, which is doctrine that Alvin Plantinga has suggested that says that in any world of free agents, which
God might have created, persons go wrong and commit sin.
He's confusing that with transworld damnation, which is a doctrine that I suggest it could be possible, which is that in any world feasible for God, persons who reject
God and are lost would have been lost in any of those worlds had they been created instead.
Now, just think about that for just a minute. Transworld damnation.
The idea that there are people in any feasible world for God that could never be saved.
Where does that come from, folks? Where does that come from? I mean, there must be some force outside of God that determines these things, that determines that there are certain creatures in any possible world that could never be saved.
Who determines that? God didn't. You have things in this type of philosophy that are determined by powers beyond God.
Now, the passage that he mentions in Matthew chapter 11, verses 20 to 24, is one of the classic proof texts used by Molinists to prove the doctrine of middle knowledge.
Really? Ironically. Yes, it is. When you look at the Molinists from the 17th, 18th century, this would be one of their proof texts along with the story of David and the men of Kilah asking whether or not
Saul would come down and attack the city and whether the men of Kilah would deliver David over. Similarly here, they appeal to this passage as saying that, ah,
Jesus is disclosing that if these miracles had been done in Tyre and Sidon, then they would have repented.
So, aha, this proves middle knowledge. Well, I don't think that it's a very good proof text, because I think that it's highly unlikely that Jesus is disclosing a piece of middle knowledge here.
I think that's weighting this with too much theological or philosophical freight.
As Anthony Kenney has said, I think exegetically this is far more likely a piece of religious hyperbole on Jesus' part, which is just meant to underline how wicked and recalcitrant the people are that he's talking to.
He's trying to say, you people are really, really bad if the miracles that you've seen had been seen by these other folks, they would have repented.
It's not meant to be literally a piece of middle knowledge, but just religious hyperbole to underline the wickedness of those who saw
Jesus' miracles and didn't repent. And so for that reason, I don't think it's a good proof text for middle knowledge.
And then at the same time, it's not a good proof text for showing that transworld damnation is not possibly true doctrine either.
I had to play one more. I agreed in the context of a great deal of disagreement, but it's exactly right that that text is not sitting there going, oh, well, there's there's some middle knowledge of what those people would have done in another possible world had
God done this. And no, the whole point is the Jews viewed the people of Tyre and Sidon as pagans.
And yet Jesus was saying those pagans were not as hardened in their rebellion against God as you are.
That's what that's about. It's not about middle knowledge. None of this. There are no biblical texts about middle knowledge.
It's just not there. It's just that it's it comes from outer space and place.
So there you go with that. And I want to get that in there, but want to then transition immediately, since we're talking about those things, into another
Mullenist, Dr. Phil Fernandez, in his debate with Mr. Comis on the subject of Calvinism.
And we are at, if you are interested in such things, 44 minutes and 22 seconds into the debate.
And we are continuing with Phil Fernandez. I want to get through his opening statement because it's the interchange, the going back and forth that I think is the most interesting.
So let's let's dive back. In short, I accept conditional predestination, not the unconditional predestination of Calvinism.
In my view of predestination, I can truly say that I am here tonight because I freely chose to be here tonight.
But in my view, it is also just as true to say that I'm here tonight because God eternally predestined me to be here tonight.
If my being here tonight would somehow thwart God's purposes, God would have prevented me from actualizing my free choice to be here tonight.
Now, there is your Mullenism. God would have prevented me from actualizing my free choice.
And there's the problem. That's the micromanagement.
And I just want to I just want to ask my Mullenist friends, why do you call that free will?
Why do you? I mean, it's a it's a shadow. It's a charade because it has no it has no substance to it.
I mean, if you desire not to be there, then God somehow micromanages you and puts you in a position where you always do what he wants you to do.
How is that free will? I mean, I know some people are just really desperate to try to avoid compatibilism, even though there's these great biblical texts that present it, which didn't get discussed in this debate, unfortunately, but they're there.
And but at what cost, at what cost are you willing to do that?
God could have allowed me to get ill or it could have caused my car to get a flat tire. See, external things.
See, God, for some reason, these folks don't mind God's sovereignty impinging upon us as long as it's a flat tire or a microbe or something like that.
But not my will, because that is the ultimate authority. In a similar fashion,
I believe that God has predestined the elect to be saved and that he foreknew who would accept
Jesus as savior, given certain circumstances, given certain circumstances.
That's where the Mullenism comes in again, not just bare foreknowledge. He looks down the corridors of time and sees who's going to do this.
And we've already disputed foreknown and the noun, verb, et cetera, et cetera. But this, again, in light of the fact that Mr.
Comis specifically said Phil Fernandez is a Mullenist, I'm interpreting it in that way.
And here you have this actualization concept, the same language we hear with William Lane Craig.
Since he loves all mankind and desires that none be lost, God predestines to bring about circumstances in which
I would accept Christ as savior. If God loves all people and does not desire any to be lost, yet he actuates a world in which he is certain that there will be lost people, right?
What is his purpose in that? Now, this is where it gets really serious, because later on,
I think in the rebuttal period, Phil's going to make a comment about this. And I think it really does bring out the stark difference between Mullenism and Calvinism, because the
Mullenist is still saying that fundamentally, this is the world God chose and it could not be otherwise because his middle knowledge could not be falsified.
If God's middle knowledge could not be falsified, then God knew exactly what was going to take place in the creation of this world.
But the vast difference is, I say God knew exactly what would take place in the creation of this world, and he had a purpose for every bit of it.
The Mullenist can simply say it was the best he could do. It was the best he could do.
He could not do any better than this. This is the best of all possible worlds, has the best mixture of lost.
It's got the best lost to saved ratio. But that doesn't really answer the question of what is the purpose of evil?
Well, it's just the best he could do. So all that rant, you know, the killing fields and the random evil, it's not that God wanted it there and he doesn't have a purpose, but it was just the best he could do.
And that's given his prevenient, enabling grace, freeing the will, though.
We lost track of prevenient, didn't we? We sure did. It's been too many weeks. Who was counting that for us?
Was Algo counting that for us? I've lost track. We were at least at six. It might be seven, isn't it? I don't know.
See, we lost. We lost that. I knew we would. But there's there's prevenient grace yet.
Yet again, we've not heard a defense of even a presentation of prevenient grace.
It's just been sort of, you know, it's there. I would retain the ability to say no. Still, there are some people, in my view, who would never freely accept
Christ, no matter what the circumstance. In my. So here's this is the
Molinism again. There are certain people who would never freely accept Christ, no matter what the circumstance.
That means that outside of God's decree, because middle knowledge comes before that, outside of God's decree.
There are simply people unsavable, no matter what
God wants to do, in any in any world, in any universe. There has to be lost people.
God didn't determine it, so somebody above God must have. I don't know. I don't know how it works, but there's there's just stuff beyond God's control, folks.
You just got to you just got to accept it. I don't know where you get that from the Bible, but there's just just just the way it is.
God only actualizes the existence of the non -elect for the sake of the elect or for purposes of a greater good.
There there it is. There it is. Did you catch that? I'm going to I'm going to mute that real quick.
OK, let's let's still there are some people in my view who would never freely accept
Christ, no matter what the circumstance. God only actualizes the existence of the non -elect for the sake of the elect or for purposes of a greater good.
Catch that? I'm sorry. If if you are an Arminian and you're objecting to the idea that God creates people so as to demonstrate his attributes and to justly bring punishment upon them, what do you how do you like them apples?
The whole reason the non -elect exist is either for us, but not for God's glory.
I mean, I mean, let me just let's listen to it again. Of a greater good. The purpose of a greater good.
Now, is that the glory of God? I didn't get the idea. That's how Dr. Fernandez would identify that.
But it's a very valid question. Why do they exist? Why they exist?
They exist specifically either for the elect or for some greater purpose.
But I would even have to challenge that statement. How can that be just from middle knowledge? I mean, if God simply knows what they're going to do.
Then how can there be a connection between their acts, which God knows but has no control over?
It's not a part of God's decree. And some greater purpose and who determines what the purpose is, because again, all
God is doing in Molinism is running the numbers and figuring out which world has the best loss to save ratio.
And is that God's ultimate purpose is the best loss to save ratio? I mean, think of how impersonal this is.
I mean, this is really I mean, this this is this is health care by a computer.
This is this there is no personal interaction by God in time in this situation.
There's no interaction with the elect just simply because becomes well, you know, they're the elect because, well, that was this world produced that elect.
There's no choice on God's part. The only choice on God's part is to whether to actualize this world or another world.
There's no choice personally. I mean, I'm the more
I think about Molinism, the more I am absolutely repelled by it.
Not because it's not Calvinism, but because it's just not the God of the Bible when you really start thinking about the ramifications, and I don't think most
Molinists have. I think most Molinists embrace Molinism because William Lane Craig does. And that sounds like a neat way to get around in a debate the idea of freewill.
I think that's why I just don't think they normally think through what this system actually means.
Now, there's some additional problems that I see with Calvinism. Calvinists often witness like Arminians.
Now, Turgeon Fan just said, there are going to be some angry
Molinists after this show. Well, that's fine. They already didn't like me as it was.
Now we're going to get some of the really common objections as as as Dr.
Fernandez finishes up his presentation here and really common objections. Calvinists evangelize like Arminians.
No, Dr. Fernandez just doesn't understand that Calvinists can preach the whole gospel to everyone because God commands men everywhere to repent.
We've already seen that he's misunderstood how it is. I'm not sure how he thinks we should evangelize.
Do we do we know who the elect are? No, we don't know who the elect are. And so what do we do?
We preach like the apostles did and what the apostles do repent and believe they didn't have to know who the elect were.
That's the means God uses to bring his people into himself. It's the preaching of the word of God. So what?
Calvinists spend hours trying to persuade people to choose to trust in Jesus for salvation. Once the person accepts
Christ, then the Calvinist spends hours trying to persuade him that it really wasn't his choice after all.
Well, that's that's cute. But that's that's not the case. And having done a lot of evangelism as a reformed person,
I do not the difference between us would be this that I would never present the gospel to someone as if they had the ability to make
God successful or a failure. I am going to present the gospel as the
New Testament presents it as a command, as a demonstration of God's love.
But it is specifically for those who repent and believe. And if they ask me about God's sovereignty in this matter,
I'm going to show them what Ezekiel said about the valley of the dry bones. And I'm going to talk to him about the fact they have a heart of stone.
And you know what? If God doesn't change that heart of stone, they're not going to care. But oh, how many times
I've seen where they do care and where the Spirit of God was active. Another problem for Calvinism, no one held the
Calvinist view of predestination until Augustine. Well, really?
How do you know that? I mean, do we have exhaustive documentation of the entire patristic period?
Of course we don't. Why is it that Clement talks about the elect all the time?
Why is the epistle of Diognetus to Diognetus? Why is it present to us likewise high views of God's sovereignty and salvation?
Do you really know that? Now, that wasn't the big issue of the early church. And so you have all sorts of people.
Justin Martyr, for example, has a very high view of free will. He never quotes the Apostle Paul either.
So are you certain that all these people had all the canon, for example? And if Justin didn't have the entire canon in the
New Testament, is his testimony relevant on such things? If you don't have Romans 9, how can your testimony be really relevant as far as that's concerned?
But I do find it a little bit odd when my Protestant brothers start using this type of argumentation.
I don't think that it accurately represents the early church, first of all. But it also makes me wonder, isn't the primary issue here what the
Bible teaches on this matter? Because there are all sorts of issues that were not even discussed in the early church, or upon which you could find two dozen different views.
It's a slippery slope. Careful. If the Apostles taught Calvinism, then they apparently did not consider it important enough to convey this doctrine to their successors.
Except for Clement and the Epistle to Dionysus and stuff like that. Until Augustine embraced unconditional predestination in about 380
AD, we know of no church father who was a Calvinist.
Another problem for Calvinism. Only hyper -Calvinists, in my view, are consistent Calvinists.
Once again, we have a real problem with defining our terms here.
I'm not really sure that Brother Fernandez knows what a hyper -Calvinist is in light of what he's about to say.
If the doctrine of predestination automatically rules out a free human response when it comes to accepting
Christ, then it seems that it would also rule out all free will. I have no earthly idea what that has to do with the issue of hyper -Calvinism.
None. If he's defining human free will as an autonomous will, okay,
I only believe that God has an autonomous will. Ours are creaturely wills, and we are judged only within the realm in which we're created.
So, I believe Ephesians 1, and I would love to hear what
Brother Fernandez believes about Ephesians 1, because it does say all things, and so is there some way of limiting that?
I just don't know. So God works everything after the counsel of his will. That would seem to rule out free choice, not just in salvation, but in all things, if you hold to the unconditional predestination of Calvinism.
So, it sounds like he thinks that if you believe that God has determined whatsoever comes to pass—Westwood's
Confession of Faith, London Baptist Confession of Faith—that you're a hyper -Calvinist, and hence are consistent. Is there a phrase more misdefined and misused than hyper -Calvinism by people east, west, north, south, especially
Texas? Who knows? Calvinism implies volunteerism.
If a human parent loves some of his children, but not all of them, we view this love as somewhat deficient.
But when this principle is applied to God, the Calvinist often replies that whatever God wills is just and good.
However, this denies essentialism, the traditional view of the Christian Church, that God could only will that which is right or good, since God's will is only subject to God's good nature.
So, if God freely chooses to love in a special way, then this somehow is violating the historic view of the
Christian Church of God. I don't think so. It is a good thing that God chooses to have grace, but it is under no circumstances to be said that it is necessary, therefore, for God to have grace.
I mean, think about what's being said here. If God shows differentiation in his love like we do, then this somehow is violating
God's nature. So, for God, love has to be the peanut butter love, God has to love everybody who's going to be in hell for eternity just equally as he does everybody else.
Again, how would Phil Fernandez deal with the fact that John was the beloved disciple?
Is that not a violation, too? I don't think so. So, because God is good, he could only will that which is good.
Voluntarism teaches, on the other hand, that the good is arbitrarily good because the good is whatever
God wills. Both John Calvin and Martin Luther embraced voluntarism when defending unconditional election.
Another problem for Calvinism, the gospel is not good news for the non -elect. If Calvinism is true, then the gospel would not really be good news for the non -elect since there is no possibility of them receiving eternal life.
On your position, Brother Fernandez, if a person rejects the gospel, what does it do to them?
Does it not bring about their condemnation? So, how is it good news for them? In fact, on an
Arminian perspective, is not the gospel only good news for the person who repents and believes? So, how is this an objection at all?
I don't know. Yet, when pagans attempted to worship Paul and Barnabas, Paul and Barnabas told them that they were not there to be worshipped, but instead they had come to preach the gospel, the good news.
They had come to preach the gospel to them so that they would turn from idolatry to the worship of the true
God. Did everyone respond to that? No, there are many who did not, and therefore the good news that they preached to them became the very grounds of their condemnation, didn't it?
I mean, unless everybody that Paul preached to got saved, then for certain people who heard
Paul's message, that message was, well, as Paul described it, the very stench of death. It was, you know, the message of the cross is what?
Is foolishness, etc., etc. Acts 14, 15, and 17, 24 to 30.
Hence, Paul and Barnabas believed they were preaching good news to pagans, and that they had the ability to turn from idolatry to worship of the true
God. By the work of the Holy Spirit of God, as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Yeah, that's, again, nothing here that's in any way, shape, or form of objection to Reformed theology, at least.
Yet, they didn't know if any of the pagans were of the elect. That's the whole point. We preach the gospel to everybody, and if they reject it, then that gospel becomes the very thing that is a stench in their nostrils and is the smell of death.
If the gospel is good news for all mankind, then it is possible for every person to come to Christ. I'm sorry, that is just one of the weakest arguments of the whole presentation, because it just does not follow logically or on any other level.
Another problem with Calvinism, the non -elect are held responsible for something they can't change.
Calvinism is true, then the non -elect are held responsible for rejecting Christ, even though they lack the ability to come to him in faith.
They were born with a sin nature, I agree, but they lack the ability to accept the cure of Jesus. There's no prevenient grace given to them, and are held responsible for God for not accepting the cure.
So, again, a very standard objection that evidently is based upon the idea that God has to provide the grace to free one from slavery to sin to everybody, or he's not being fair.
So, God has to give grace. There's no freedom to grace. God cannot just be just. He has to give everybody an equal chance, to which
I go, why? Why? I mean, on a theoretical level, most
Arminians will admit that, yes, God could have simply punished us all for Adam's sin, but they don't really believe that.
But if they will accept that, then the whole idea of, well, but you have to provide a chance.
You got to give everybody an equal chance. Why? Do you have to give convicted criminals an equal chance?
No, because they're already convicted. See, this idea doesn't get the idea that we're actually already under the wrath of God.
The idea that's still coming, and so we've got to have a, no, this rejects federalism, it rejects our being in Adam the whole nine yards, and that's why it just doesn't work.
I agree with Jacob Arminius, this seems unjust. Another problem for Calvinism. How can
Calvinists make sense of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Jesus taught that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is when a person is guilty of an eternal sin and that they shall never be forgiven.
But why would Jesus even bring this up if all the non -elect already have no possibility of their sins being forgiven?
Because he's explaining that the people he's talking to are religious hypocrites who call that which is white, black, and black, white?
I mean, again, I don't even see how this is an objection. I mean, thankfully, I have a consistent interpretation of what this is.
The reason the unforgivable sin is unforgivable is because of the person against whom it is committed is the one that brings regeneration and forgiveness of sins in the first place, conviction of sins, and therefore that's why it's unforgivable.
But how is this an objection against Reformed theology? I just don't understand it.
They are indeed guilty of an unforgivable sin because of what it says about them, their twistedness.
It's only religious people that can commit this sin. So, again, it's not an objection to Reformed theology.
Another problem for Calvinism, it's admitted by many Calvinists, is that God doesn't love all mankind.
If Calvinism is true, then God does not love all mankind in the exact same way, allowing
God to actually have the personal attributes that his creatures have in being able to differentiate in kinds of love.
He doesn't love all mankind. He only loves the elect, yet God commands believers to love all mankind, even their enemies,
Matthew 5, 43 to 48. But he does not command me to love my neighbor's wife the way
I love my wife, does he? No. So we recognize there are different kinds of love. I really, you know, sometimes
I just sort of get tired of these real surface -level type of objections because they're just not thought through.
There's not. Does anyone really believe that our love encompasses more people? And God's love.
I would argue that unconditional election is arbitrary. Of course, the Calvinists would disagree there.
I would see another problem with Calvinism. We must redefine several of God's attributes. Think agape love does not really mean unconditional love unless they agree that God doesn't agape love the non -elect.
I do not believe that there is a quote -unquote agape love. This is one of those, you know, it's a well -known exegetical fallacy that agape has one meaning in full.
No, they're used interchangeably at places. Let's get rid of that. I know you've heard lots of sermons and people accept it because they hear big -time people doing it and stuff like that.
But that's just an exegetical fallacy. But the fact remains that God's love is conditional in Arminianism.
It's conditional upon what he sees taking place in time. So I don't understand how this is an objection.
This is actually a reverse objection, I guess. God's justice. How can God be just and fair to all mankind when he unconditionally elects some and unconditionally passes over others?
I don't understand the objection. It's based upon an ignorance of what we're saying. Everyone gets either mercy or justice.
No one gets injustice. So he is perfectly just. Those he passes over receive his justice.
Those he does not pass over receive mercy. Mercy is a category beyond justice. That's why mercy and grace are free.
No one receives injustice. So it's an invalid argument. What about God's goodness? How can
God be considered good to create people and send them to hell when they never had any possibility of accepting
Jesus as Savior? Because, of course, when you say they never had any chance, there's your false assumption.
You're rejecting federalism. You're rejecting the justice of their condemnation, and they never desired anything other than to reject
God and to live in that darkness. So questioning God's goodness,
I just want to turn around and say, how can you call God good when he knowingly created this universe where all these billions of people can be saved and there is nothing that you can do about it?
I mean, really? For a Molinist, there's nothing you can do about it. But, hey, you know, you just have to have a certain number of loss.
So, you know, there's just nothing you can do about it. They're going to be saved one way. They're going to be lost one way or the other, and I don't really have a purpose in that.
At least there's a purpose in the demonstration of God's attributes from my perspective. This mechanistic
Molinism doesn't actually answer these questions. And then we must redefine even several key
New Testament terms, like the world. The world doesn't mean for God to love the world or he has died for the world.
It doesn't mean the world. It means only the elect in the world. Actually, as we have demonstrated many times in this program, there are at least 14 different uses of world exegetically in the
Johannine corpus alone. And so I just ask Phil Fernandez, does world always mean every single human being has ever existed?
Jesus prayed in John 17. I pray not for the world. So that means Jesus didn't pray for every human being ever existed, right?
And when John likewise is a term world love, not the world nor the things in the world.
He who loves the world love of the father is not in him. Is that the same love as John 3 16? I pause only for rhetorical effect because it's just painfully obvious that there are many different uses of cosmos even within John, let alone going into Paul or Peter.
So this is not a valid objection. Why didn't God say that that Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost?
Well, only the elect lost. Why didn't he say that? He only when it says he came to seek and save that which was lost everyone who is saved before they were saved is what?
Lost. And so why do you assume that what that means is he came to seek and save everybody who is lost?
Especially in light of his own discussion, like with the Jews saying, I got my sheep. I gave my life for the sheep.
You're not in my sheep, etc, etc. There's again, nothing in the statement.
I came to seek and save that which was lost. That indicates that every single human being therefore is the object of God's attempt to save.
Otherwise, obviously, you know what you want is God's trying to save but failing to save if that's where you want to go with it, then we can deal with the many passages that say otherwise he died to save sinners.
Well, we're all sinners. Why do you need to say the elect sinners? Well, because we are all sinners and he died to save sinners and that's an amazing thing and the question is why do you think he fails in that?
Because that's what you're telling us. He died to save those sinners, but he doesn't actually accomplish it.
I'm going to go ahead and finish this opening statement. So we have a good break for the next one and then we'll get into the next subject, but he didn't he said he came to save the lost and he came to save sinners and he loves the world and died on the cross for the world.
The Bible teaches that the unsaved another problem for Calvinism can seek God repent and believe we see this with Paul preaching to the pagans in Acts chapter 14 and Acts chapter 17.
And then even though that's where we also have this, you know, Acts chapter 13 as many as were pointed to eternal life believed, but anyway,
I would also say that Calvinism has a problem explaining the problem of the evil solving the problem of evil if you this is where I really it's like wow, we're in our last minute and you throw out the
Odyssey as a Molinist not a good direction to take
God's going to allow evil and human suffering if he's not drawing people to himself trying to persuade people for pervading grace to come to him in faith.
It seems like God is unjust to allow evil and human suffering. Thank you. And there it is.
There's the end really so in Molinism, he actuates a world in which all that suffering takes place, but has no purpose.
It's just it's the best I could do. That's a better Theodicy. I don't think that's a better Theodicy.
So you counted five prevenience just in this this section. Well, we had at least six before us.
That's at least 11. I thought there were 12 references to prevenient grace in the opening statement somewhere along there's was close to what my account was.
So I'm sure eventually I'll go, you know, once he has time. We'll we'll track this whole thing down and give us the exact number eventually.
All right. So there is there is the Fernandes Comas debate and with that then we now shift gears one more time.
Well, not just one more time, but we shift gears again to the Roger Perkins debate on the nature of God right now.
He's debating Matt Slick and looking here at the waveform. We're almost halfway through his opening statement, which means at the rate we're going we're probably not even going to make it all the way through all this until October.
I just don't see what's going to happen. And meanwhile, someone needs to rescue
Rich who's exploding. Did y 'all did y 'all see that? What was that commercial?
It's running right now where the guy is shown pouring all that activator into the volcano, right?
Is someone saying just a little bit and the next thing is a picture outside of this where all the windows are covered.
That's what just happened in the other room. Poor Rich just exploded. I think he's allergic to you,
Ricky. Some of you have absolutely no idea what we were just talking about.
All right. Let's get back into Roger Perkins here and I'm not sure the sound levels can be the same, but we'll find out here quickly.
Okay, this was he just said if you were to teach a theology to rabbi, probably laugh you to scorn.
Well, if I was trying to convince a rabbi, if a rabbi was my standard for Christian theology, he would laugh me to scorn about the cross.
He'd laugh me to scorn about the resurrection. He'd laugh me to scorn about Jesus being the Messiah. I say to Roger Perkins, please think for a moment, sir.
This kind of argument is really, really, really bad from a
New Testament perspective. To make Jewish understandings and to say, look, only as far as the
Jews went, that's as far as we can go. We can't go any farther than that. There can be no further revelation.
There can be no deeper revelation. You, to be consistent, would have to reject the vast majority of Christian theology that even you hold to.
If, I mean, why not allow the Jewish understanding of what the Messiah would do to be the standard?
I would encourage you to go listen to the debates that my good friend Michael Brown has done with Jewish rabbis and then ask yourself the question, do
I really want to make them my standard? You do not want to make them your standard. And notice that description of the oneness movement, a true church who believes in one undivided
God. Actually, it's, you know,
I know that that's the way the modern folks do it, but it's
Shema Yisrael Yahweh, Eloheinu Yahweh Echad. I know that the
Jews will not pronounce the divine name, but that is a Jewish tradition that comes long after and I think we've been robbed of the revelation.
God used that name thousands of times in the Old Testament. There is no reason why we should not use it as well.
We can do so with great reverence, but God used that name to reveal himself. I'm not going to use
Adonai in a situation like that. Now, of course,
I believe the Shema and I have defended the oneness of God against Mormons and so on and so forth, but our oneness friends simply will not allow for, because it's a presupposition.
Their presupposition is that of Unitarianism and therefore a oneness of being is absolutely a oneness of person.
But my whole argument is the scriptures reveal that to be untrue. You cannot assume that, you have to try to prove that.
And the very fact that the name Yahweh is used of Father, Son, and Spirit is one of my strongest arguments for the doctrine of the
Trinity, because the scriptures plainly differentiate between Father, Son, and Spirit, and yet to use that one divine name of the one
God of the Old Testament of each of these persons, that's very, very important.
Now, what do you mean not one major translation adopts such a rendering? What would the rendering be?
I mean, we recognize that God is one in his being. We just don't expand that out to one in personhood, because the
Bible reveals otherwise. What rendering would you think we would want to have for Echad?
Other than one? I don't understand that kind of argumentation. So, our doctrine is implicit while theirs is explicit, i .e.,
monotheism is explicitly stated. And then the leap beyond that to Unitarianism is said to be explicit, and that's the whole point.
It isn't. And as monotheists, that's exactly what we would expect, especially in light of the fact that the revelation of the
Trinity takes place in the incarnation of the Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And so I just hope you are hearing these arguments, see what they're grounded upon, see what they're based upon, and weigh them in light of that and see that most of the time people are arguing against something other than what we actually believe, if we understand we believe, and are clear in the expression of our faith.
Now, when you hear Mr. Perkins say strict monotheism, what you need to translate that to is
Unitarianism over against Trinitarianism. That's the assumption.
It's not the case, but that's the assumption. The New Testament writers came along and they built upon this concept.
Malachi 2 .10, and I've got to hurry, Malachi 2 .10 says that to the Jews, the Jews have one
God and one Father who created us. And that demonstrates that the term
Father in the Old Testament is not a title of a person in opposition to a son, but it is a reference to creation, which is,
I think, the exact same situation in the phrase avyad in Isaiah 9. Eternal Father is eternal creator, creator of eternity itself, which is fulfilled in Jesus in Colossians chapter 1.
Which, of course, we agree with.
And again, only by assuming Unitarianism can you think that any of this is relevant to an argument.
But when you realize that your opposition can say everything you're saying, then
I think you need to bring out the assumptions that you're operating on and actually defend them, but that's not really what ends up happening here.
The definite article, be careful, Mr. Perkins, you need to understand the function of the definite article there is a
Gramble -Sharpe construction, and we're talking about Titus chapter 2. That is a tremendous reference to the deity of Christ, and he is our
God, and there is no question whatsoever that this text, in light of its use of Old Testament language and everything else, it's all about Yahweh.
And we believe this, that does not confuse the person of the Father and the
Son, unless again you assume Unitarianism for Yahweh.
But remember, it is Yahweh that laid our sins upon the Messiah, Isaiah 53.
So there is differentiation. You have to allow for all that the text says, not just parts of it.
Now you see, very, very rapid fire, and that's why we're doing it this time, because I can talk just as fast, but I do not want to be guilty of the rapid fire presentation type thing in a debate, because I want the people who are listening, other than I want to communicate to the people on the other side.
It's one thing to get the people on my side all riled up, and that's pretty easy to do. But I want to communicate to the other side, and if I'm just simply doing rapid fire stuff and not explaining myself,
I'm not accomplishing that. And that's just one of the things I want to do in a debate. And so Isaiah 44 -24, one of my favorite texts in dealing with Mormons.
I mean, we have Mormons that come to the channel every once in a while, and I almost always raise Isaiah 44 -24 because their
Yahweh alone creates the heavens and stretches out the earth by himself. Now in Mormonism, that's not possible because Elohim is sent down.
Elohim sends Jehovah down in company with Michael the Archangel to organize the world in the Mormon temple ceremony.
And so you have a clear contrast. Now Joseph Smith didn't understand Isaiah 44 -24. That's not even really a question, but the point is you have a clear contrast.
So I love Isaiah 44 -24, and you say, well, then how can you believe that if you're a Trinitarian?
Because Yahweh is not Unitarian. He's Trinitarian. The being of God is shared by three divine persons.
I accept not only Isaiah, but also John chapter 1 and John chapter 17 and all the rest of the
Revelation that is there. But only by assuming Unitarianism can you then use that as an argument against the doctrine of the
Trinity. And yet the book of Revelation clearly differentiates between the
Father and the Son. The very Revelation, singular, that is the book of Revelation, is given by the
Father to the Son. Does the book of Revelation teach the deity of Christ? It most certainly does.
Are there times when the Father and the Son are so closely related to one another that you can barely distinguish them?
Certainly are. But are there times when they're clearly distinguished? Of course! Who's the lamb?
Who's the lamb standing as a slain? Clearly differentiate from the one who's on the throne. So again, it's a matter of allowing for all of the
Revelation to speak and not just a portion of it. First John 5 .20
might be a reference to the deity of Christ. It might not. I discussed that in the Forgotten Trinity. It's difficult to tell what the specific antecedent is at that point.
Wouldn't have any problem if it is, because First John has so clearly distinguished between the
Father and the Son and has said that if you don't have the Son, you don't have the Father. Is that just a human being?
Is that just someone who came into existence at their birth in Bethlehem? Or is this an eternal divine person?
The Christian response is, it's an eternal divine person. Except Hebrews chapter 1 actually says that Jesus is the one through whom the
Father creates and that he is the exact representation of his hypostasis.
So there's a clear differentiation that is made in Hebrews chapter 1. Again, none of these are really sound arguments because they're not actually proving what
Mr. Perkins is trying to prove. He's got an assumption, and what he's doing is he's interpreting verses in light of the assumption, but he's not actually proving the assumption through the citation of these verses.
That's a very different thing. Yahweh speaks as the one true
God in the Old Testament. That is not an argument against the Trinity, when understood properly anyways.
And I would ask you, the intelligent audience, who's speaking here? Can three persons, as sort of like a trio, say,
I am the first and I am the last? So in other words, God must give the fullness of his revelation of his being from the very beginning.
That's in essence the argument that's being made. He must give—there cannot be any progressive revelation.
He cannot deal with his people and bring them out of paganism into monotheism and then promise the coming of the
Messiah, and in the coming of the Messiah, you have the word becoming flesh and so on.
So you can't have any of that. The question that's being asked here is, how could three divine persons speak as one person?
Well, because Yahweh can speak as the one true creator God and did throughout the
Old Testament. And just as, you know, years ago, I used to—I still have this.
I still have it in the other room. Someday we're going to have to videotape this, I think, because it'd be sort of fun. But remember the
Trinity box? Oh, yeah. I still got it in the other room. Many, many years ago, when I was skinny and had hair—what?
I didn't catch that. Well, it's not very high -tech anymore. It was pretty cool then, though. It was very cool in 1980.
That's right, about 1980 something. But I had a friend of mine get a box at Radio Shack and put a light inside it.
And on the one side, you just had one hole with a white cover on it.
So you just see plain white light. On the back side, same light, but it's clearly differentiated as red, green, and blue, which, as you may know, are the
RGB—red, green, blue—the fundamental, the primary colors of light.
And I explained that in the Old Testament, it was like, on the one side, you just have the white light.
Now, you're seeing red, green, and blue, but you do not have the ability—your eyes cannot differentiate between red, green, and blue—because it's seeing it all at once.
The New Testament becomes like a prism. And I would turn the box around this time. The New Testament becomes a prism that allows us to see what we saw before.
We're not seeing a different God, but we're seeing the very same God with much more clarity and distinctness—a clarity and distinctness that he himself has brought about in accomplishing his own purpose of self -glorification in the
Triune Declaration of the Father, Son, and Spirit to bring about salvation of mankind to his own honor and glory.
Can three persons say that there is no God beside me? Do you honestly believe that someone would just pick up their
Bible, read those scriptures, and say, oh, there's three persons in the garden? Do you really think someone would say, oh, well, we should just know, where he says,
I am the Father of one, we should just know that he really needs two there? Well, since anybody who read it in the original language knows the verbs plural, they would notice something like that, yeah.
We should just know, do you really think that anybody reading up their Bible would come to that conclusion when absolutely no scripture ever says this?
I call for honesty tonight in this debate. I say a nine -six, and otherwise— It's not a matter of honesty,
Mr. Perkins. It is a matter of allowing all of scripture to speak, however.
And I would obviously respond, can you really—you're really telling me that someone who read
John 17 would come to the conclusion that's only—that's half of Jesus talking to the other half of Jesus?
You know, that's easy for me to go, nah. Mr. Perkins, I would suggest you look into what's called the construct state of the
Hebrew language. Unless you're just simply saying the definite article, as in translation in English, well, yeah, there is a definite article there in your translation.
But most of us would be assuming that you would be talking at that point about the
Hebrew original. And at that point, I think you just need to be much more careful in the statements that you are making at that particular point, because when you look at avyad, are you really wanting to argue that this construct form is preceded by a definite article?
Where? Now, the definiteness is not an issue because of the construct chain here, but where is the definite article?
And ESV, for example, says, So, you know,
I think at this point, Mr. Perkins is on a roll and might be, you know, just making a few statements that he might want to be more careful about in the future because he's on a roll, but that's sort of a
Pentecostal thing is to get on a roll. And we Reformed Baptists, we can get on a roll too, but we tend to be a little bit more staid about it.
Again, no one would say that Isaiah 9, 6 is a revelation of three persons in the Godhead, especially if that revelation was going to take place fundamentally 700 years later.
But what you do have is a clear differentiation of the one who's being sent these descriptions of Messiah.
And he is called El Gabor, Mighty God, just as Yahweh is in Isaiah 10, 21. But he is
Sar Shalom. He's Prince of Peace. There's something, there is a differentiation here because it says to us, a child is born, a son is given.
So there is a differentiation, even from the oneness perspective. So I don't quite understand where Mr.
Perkins was coming from there. No, I wouldn't think that they would do that, but they would recognize there's differentiation between the
Messiah and yet there's something very special about the Messiah. So this is not a good form of argumentation is being used here at all.
Father manifests in the flesh, never, ever, ever found, not going to find that anywhere.
We already know the first John 3 5 is being abused at that point, but there's no place else where the father is manifest in the flesh.
It's the son that's manifest in the flesh and we just, that's just a fact.
Why do you never see father -son dialogue in the
Old Testament if Christ is a pre -existent mind? Well, again, if the revelation itself takes place between the
Testaments in the coming of Christ, the Incarnation, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, then we have to look back at the
Old Testament in light of the singular revelation of this truth in the ministry of Christ and the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit. When we do so, I think that we do, in fact, see prophetically differentiations being made.
For example, in Isaiah chapter 6, the one who's sitting upon the throne, according to John 12 41, is in fact the son there.
And you do have that very interesting text back in Genesis with Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah, where Yahweh walks with Abraham.
And then Yahweh rains fire and brimstone from Yahweh in heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah.
Given the fact the New Testament teaching is that no one has seen God at any time, the monogamous theos, the unique God, who is in the bosom of the
Father, He has made Him known, these would be pre -incarnate theophanies of Jesus himself, but that would then differentiate
Him as the Son from the Father. So we do have places that we can go to in light of the fulfillment in the
New Testament, but we are looking back upon these things. And I just insist that Warfield was right, that the primary revelation of this divine truth is found in the incarnation, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit of God. All right, we actually made a little progress on both debates today, and I kept my mouth shut a little bit more, but I think
I responded to everything I needed to respond to. And I hope you enjoy these programs where we are giving this kind of response.
I hope it helps you and your thinking on these issues, clarifies these issues for you. We will press on, who knows, maybe, maybe next week we might do a regular dividing line, but it's been three weeks now, and it's almost like an addiction.
It's really weird. So who knows? Well, we'll see what happens. We'll see you then. Lord willing, God bless. I believe we're standing at the crossroads, let this moment of self away.
We must contend for the faith our fathers fought for, we need a new Reformation day.
It's a sign of the times, the truth is being trampled in a new age paradigm.
Won't you lift up your voice? Are you tired of plain religion? It's time to make some noise.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.
If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at PO Box 37106,
Phoenix, Arizona 85069. You can also find us on the World Wide Web at AOMIN .org,
that's A -O -M -I -N .org, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.