William Lane Craig and the Basis of Faith, Douglas Beaumont’s Failed Attempt at Redefining John 6:44

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:24

Greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line, James White along with you on a Tuesday, just programming note.

00:29

We will have another program tomorrow afternoon. I leave on Thursday for the UK, we'll be speaking at Grace Life Church in London, 11am on Lord's Day morning.

00:41

I always wanted to be there, that used to be where Kofi was, and now that Kofi's gone I get to go there.

00:47

It's just, he tried a few times, it just never worked out. But anyway, so we're going to be in the

00:52

UK, prayers for two debates we're recording on Tuesday on Unbelievable.

00:59

One of those could be really challenging, on an interesting topic, but I won't go into that until Justin talks about that.

01:07

Well, he did actually mention what it was about, but it's going to be on Romans 9, but not with Layton Flowers. Anyway, and then heading to the

01:16

Netherlands and then back to the UK, hopefully we'll be able to publish the location and time and stuff for a

01:26

Muslim debate toward the end, somewhere around the 2nd, 3rd of May, somewhere around in that area, and also where else

01:34

I'll be speaking, in the London area, so our friends over there can take a part in that.

01:40

Two topics on the program today, no, I'm not talking about the

01:46

Benedict letter, though it's fascinating, maybe we'll get to it tomorrow, we'll see.

01:52

We will do a program tomorrow, probably the same time, though I reserve the right to bump it back an hour if I need to.

01:59

I've got a lot going on between now and when I leave, and once I leave it just gets worse, and when

02:04

I get back it gets worse than when I'm away. It's pure insanity.

02:13

But I mean, awesome opportunities, but absolutely pure insanity that's going on.

02:20

Anyway, two issues to address today that are very, very important, and that is two articles that I only saw yesterday and immediately recognized, hey, these are vitally important topics, we have addressed both of them before, but they also providentially provide a means of seeing the connection between the two and once again illustrating some vitally important presuppositional things, not just presuppositional apologetics, but presuppositional as in having an appropriate understanding so as to be able to engage this culture which is in such rapid decline into simple totalitarianism and paganism all at the same time.

03:17

It's an amazing thing to watch. There was, by the way, an excellent PragerU video yesterday on controlling speech.

03:26

If you want to control the people, control the language. And the forcing of people to use unrealistic pronouns that are fantasy, they're just lies, but we're being told you have to do it.

03:40

You have to be able to control people's speech, and that's what's going on around us.

03:45

We need to know what foundation we have that we must stand upon to honor the tongue, to honor truth, to speak to these particular issues.

03:54

I was watching part of 1984 today while riding. Obviously, I was riding inside.

04:00

Even I haven't figured out how to do that safely outside. I can listen to all sorts of stuff. Right, right.

04:09

As Rich says, it's when you go outside and see 1984 happening around you that it's really bad. And he's right. And that's exactly what's happening.

04:16

But I was watching part of the film, and once again, I was just struck. If you remember 1984, and if you haven't read 1984, what's wrong with you?

04:26

You've missed it, and you need to. But if you remember the two minutes hate in 1984, and I had happened to have seen this morning a video of Candace Owens trying to get on a college campus, and the screaming

04:45

Antifa people. And I'm just sitting there going, two minute hate, Antifa people, two minute hate, Antifa. Same thing.

04:52

Same people. Same irrational insanity. And here it is.

04:58

Who would have thought? Who would have thought? It's right there in front of us. Stunning. Anyway, there you go.

05:04

But that's not the topic for today. So what two articles did

05:11

I see? Well, the first was from William Lane Craig, April 14th, 2019.

05:19

Reasonable Faith, number 626. We don't believe in Christ because we believe in the

05:26

Bible. Now, Andy Stanley did not write this. William Lane Craig did, but we've been saying for a long time,

05:31

Andy Stanley is just simply following after an apologetic methodology that is very popular.

05:37

And we have criticized it many times, and we will continue to do so. And that will keep us from being invited to a lot of places, but there's nothing we can do about it because it's just unbiblical and corrosive to the

05:51

Christian faith. So I'm going to continue to say what I said. And people keep saying, we need to debate

05:57

Dr. Craig on that. I stand ready. He's the one that won't do it. So don't talk to me about that.

06:03

And so here's, hello, Dr. Craig. I appreciate your work. I'm going to the Defender podcast.

06:09

I enjoyed your interview with Eric Thonas of Grace Evangelical Free in January 2019. In that interview, you said, we believe in the

06:17

Bible because we believe in Christ. Do not believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible. Can you explain what you meant by that statement?

06:24

Sounds again like an Andy Stanley statement. Sure, he says. What I'm expressing in a pithy way by this aphorism, which is not original to me, is that in order to rationally believe in Christ as Savior and Lord.

06:40

Now, just stop right there. What does rationally believe in Christ as Savior and Lord mean?

06:48

If you don't know what Christ means, because that's a biblical term, that's the

06:54

Hebrew term Mashiach translated into Greek means the anointed one.

06:59

There's an entire theology behind that, that must be there to even explain what Christ means.

07:05

It has to come from the Bible and the Bible has to be consistent with itself for you to even know what the very first word of the object of faith is, right?

07:15

Or do you just assume it? Believe in Christ as Savior.

07:21

Again, Savior from what? How? In what context? Words are supposed to have meaning.

07:28

There has to be a source to this meaning. And Lord, ditto, same thing, even more.

07:33

Hey, at least I'm glad you said Lord. A lot of people wouldn't even say that. Um, you need not embrace biblical inspiration or inerrancy.

07:44

Oh, okay. So, to rationally believe in this lengthy descriptor of who

07:54

Jesus is, all of which is derived from an interpretation of the text of scripture, you don't have to believe in biblical inspiration or inerrancy.

08:06

Um, so here's, here's, again, we've covered this a million times before.

08:12

We're covering it again because it keeps coming up. It's vitally important and we have new listeners all the time. So long as the

08:19

New Testament documents are sufficiently reliable to establish the historicity of Jesus's radical personal claims and the historicity of his crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, post -mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection, then you are warranted by the evidence in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and so was who he claimed to be.

08:54

That suffices for a Christian commitment. Okay. Now, I appreciate having a nice, pithy, short description of what is absolutely indefensible.

09:09

It so assumes a body of definitional language and revelation that it stands as its own self -refutation.

09:22

I mean, think about it. So, if you have, and who gets to determine sufficiently reliable, not inerrant, not even

09:34

God -speaking? They're just historical documents. Now, the problem here is, you know,

09:40

I see how this works with people who don't read a lot of historical documents. But years ago,

09:46

I debated Dr. Price, who likewise reads all sorts of historical documents and then brings them up as examples of why

09:57

Christianity isn't unique or shouldn't be believed. And so, you know, if all you've ever read is portions of the

10:06

New Testament, as far as works of antiquity, then I guess I can see how you might buy into something like this.

10:13

But there are all sorts of religious writings out there and all sorts of people who make claims for themselves.

10:23

Can you imagine Dr. Craig accepting the argumentation that, well, as long as the

10:31

Quran and Hadith are reliable enough to establish the historical claims that Muhammad made, then that's the sufficient ground for believing he was a prophet of God.

10:45

Why not? Why not? And then once you believe that Muhammad was a prophet of God, then you accept the

10:55

Quran and you go from there and now you're a Muslim. Right? Why not? There have been all sorts of folks who've made claims like this.

11:07

There has to be the continuity, the consistency. How did, you know, I'm preaching from Luke 24 at Grace Life Church in London on Sunday.

11:18

And when Jesus rose from the dead, what was the first thing he did? He emphasized to his disciples the absolute divine authority of scripture as the basis for even being able to understand what the resurrection meant.

11:33

It's the first thing he does. That's not what William Lane Craig is doing. That's not what

11:38

Andy Stanley is doing because Andy Stanley is following William Lane Craig and William Lane Craig's disciples. It is amazing to read this kind of stuff.

11:49

And how can just sufficiently reliable historical documents provide a meaningful foundation for absolutely miraculous events such as the empty tomb, the post -mortem appearances, the whole concept of substitutionary atonement, and of course the whole basis of believing that Jesus was the incarnate son of God.

12:19

Do you really think simply historically reliable documents, that's enough for you to go, yeah, the

12:34

God of the universe invaded his own creation. The God who created this vast universe filled with hundreds of billions of galaxies.

12:45

Not one of us can even begin to wrap our minds, not one of us can even begin to wrap our minds around the distance between here and Jupiter, let alone the size of our own galaxy, let alone the size of a hundred billion galaxies.

12:59

We can't even start. Our minds can't do it. And the God who made all this and sustains this actually entered his own creation and lived in Judea.

13:10

Right. Got to have something more than, and there's sufficiently reliable, somewhat inerrant and, you know, somewhat errant and somewhat contradictory historical docs.

13:21

Well, we don't have to worry about that. They're sufficiently reliable as the basis for that. Now, I see what he's doing because then he goes on to say, even taken as ordinary fallible human records, the

13:33

New Testament documents have been shown to be reliable with, catch this, with respect to these facts.

13:40

He gets to choose which facts it's reliable about. Now, obviously, an atheist goes, what do you mean,

13:48

Dr. Craig? I mean, some of the most difficult synoptic issues, especially in relationship to Matthew and Luke, are post -resurrection.

14:00

They have to do with the very issue you're talking about, post -mortem appearances and things like that. They can attack any one of these things and do attack any one of these things.

14:10

Now, the idea is minimize the range of possible attacks by the atheist.

14:16

That's the whole thing behind this. But they haven't, these

14:23

New Testament documents have been shown to be reliable with respect to these facts. Too many

14:29

Christians naively think that unless you presuppose biblical inspiration and inerrancy, the historicity of the life of Jesus goes down the drain.

14:38

Now, notice the difference. The historicity of the life of Jesus? How about the supernatural claims of Jesus?

14:45

Those aren't the same things. It's one thing to say there's pretty darn good evidence that someone named

14:51

Jesus existed. But that's very different than to say that there's pretty good evidence that he was

14:59

God in human flesh. There's a difference between the two. But notice the switch.

15:05

And maybe Dr. Craig's just used to doing this. It's a necessary defense mechanism. I don't know.

15:12

This attitude, far from showing confidence in the Bible, actually betrays a profound lack of confidence in its historical credibility.

15:20

Without the theological assumptions of inspiration and inerrancy to hold it up, the

15:26

Bible is implicitly taken to be untrustworthy on this view. Now, can

15:32

I just simply point out that you can't read a single apostle, a single prophet, you can't read a single chapter anywhere in the canon of scripture that does not assume that, what's it called?

15:47

Theological assumption. This is the air that the

15:52

Bible breathes. This is what thus saith Yahweh means. And it's repeated over and over again.

15:59

And Jesus' usage of the Old Testament scriptures demonstrates that was his view too.

16:07

But you see, the idea is, this is the roundabout. See, when you don't have a solid theology of salvation, when you are not reformed, oh, boo, yes, we love your work, except for that.

16:25

I've never understood that. Because if you can't see how absolutely essential to everything

16:30

I do, my defense of scripture, Trinitarian theology, everything, how central all that is, is my belief in the absolute kingship of God and his absolute freedom, then you ain't listening to me very well.

16:43

You're missing it. Dr. Craig is not reformed.

16:50

And so he does not have that foundation of the fact that Christ is going to save his elect people.

16:58

And his sheep's going to hear his voice. That's what regeneration is going to accomplish.

17:04

And God saves his people at the time and in the way he chooses to do so. And we get to be used in that glorious, glorious process.

17:16

So what he wants to do is he wants to lower the barrier. He wants to make it as easy for you to jump in as possible.

17:26

And I get it. Once you've got bad theology, bad anthropology, and a bad soteriology, then it has impact on other things.

17:37

And so what he wants to do is he wants to get you to—and all of this is based on man.

17:46

He wants to convince you to go ahead and believe that the New Testament documents are reliable enough to establish these things.

17:54

And then, as he says in the last paragraph, but once one becomes a Christian, then one submits to the teaching of the

18:03

Lord Jesus. Well, why? It was your—you got to judge whether he was who he claimed to be.

18:14

You got to judge what of Scripture was reliable and not reliable.

18:21

But once you become a Christian, then you give up that right and capacity on what basis.

18:33

But once one becomes a Christian, then one submits to the teaching of the Lord Jesus. When we see how

18:38

Jesus regarded the Old Testament, we perceive that he taught it to be the inspired and wholly reliable Word of God.

18:46

That's right, as did all the rest of the apostles. So as his disciples, we should too.

18:53

We believe in the Bible because we believe in him. So there you have it. This is the back doorway of establishing biblical authority based upon the minimalist set of facts.

19:07

So you do the mere Christianity thing, you get somebody convinced to go ahead and believe in Jesus, and then somehow something happens to where you go from being judge and jury over the

19:25

Word of God and the very person of Jesus Christ to all of a sudden submitting to what he taught about the

19:33

Scriptures themselves and realizing he had the highest view of Scripture. It's the backdoor approach.

19:40

Now the problem is, as liberalism demonstrates, as every dead and dying former

19:47

Christian denomination demonstrates, as the graveyard of Union Theological Seminary demonstrates, that doesn't always happen.

19:57

In other words, there are people who will say, well, you know, this

20:03

Jesus guy, I think I'll believe in him. But since you invited me to judge what part of Scripture is true and what part isn't, and since you gave me the right to determine who he is and stuff like that,

20:15

I'm willing to go so far. And that resurrection thing, that's sort of cool as a spiritual idea, but I'm just gonna leave it in the spiritual realm.

20:27

And all that law stuff, I'm not about to judge. And, you know, it's sort of like Daniel Kirk, formerly of Fuller Theological Seminary.

20:37

You know, when he was debating Robert Gagnon on homosexuality, he said, hey, look,

20:44

Jesus was a first century man. He had first century human ideas. We need to learn to think beyond what

20:50

Jesus thought. Those folks aren't out there. You bet they're out there.

20:58

They're all over the place. Of course, the real problem with this presentation is not that it's not a, hey, you know, that might work.

21:07

I might be able to get my friend to do this because he's always had problems with this, that, and that. What are you actually relying upon? You're not relying upon what the

21:13

Reformation said is the only gift of the Church, and that is the Word and the Spirit. You proclaim the gospel from the

21:20

Word. The Spirit makes it come alive in people's hearts. Oh, come on. That's the old way of doing things.

21:27

Yeah, it is. And it's the only thing that actually creates true converts. It's the only thing that creates true converts.

21:38

So, we don't believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible is a bifurcation of the

21:46

Word, capital W, the Logos, from the

21:51

Word, the Rema Tuthayu, or the scriptures, the holy scriptures themselves.

22:00

It's a bifurcation. Where you can start with a bad view of the one and hope that you'll come to a good view of the other that will then repair your view of the other.

22:14

Where did the apostles do this? And immediately, what you're going to encounter in our day is we don't need apostolic example.

22:24

We don't need to do it like the apostles did. Times have changed. You need to understand,

22:30

White, that you've missed it. You can't keep doing things the way that the apostles did it.

22:39

We live in the day of philosophy and technology. Well, we do.

22:47

No one's going to deny that we need to recognize the place that God has put us, the day in which

22:54

God has placed us. But what that doesn't mean is that the very things that God in his promise, because by the way,

23:04

God knew it was going to be like this. I mean, I suppose there are some of you don't believe that, but God knew that we were going to be living in a day of technology.

23:13

God knew what we were going to be facing. And really, to be honest with you, today, we are being asked a serious question.

23:23

Are you going to continue to believe that God has granted to us everything necessary for living a life of godliness?

23:36

Or are you going to abandon that? Are you going to say, that may have been true in Timothy's day. That may have been true in Peter's day.

23:43

But it's no longer true today. We need to come up with something else.

23:49

And there are many people who have already become convinced. They may have never thought of that question directly.

23:56

They may not have answered that question directly, but they've answered it indirectly by their actions and by the positions that they take.

24:06

And they no longer believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ found in the word of God, made alive by the spirit of God, is the only power given to the church.

24:17

Don't believe it. Don't believe it. Partly because they have embraced a completely false idea of what the church is supposed to look like and how success for the church is to be measured.

24:31

That's where the rubber meets the road. And that's why, look, we made a decision a long time ago.

24:41

We're going to stick to what we believe. We're going to be consistent. And it may cost us big time.

24:48

I don't get invited to the big apologetics conferences. And this is why. If you want to go to the big apologetics conferences, you don't sit here and say

24:56

William Lane Craig has it upside down backwards and the resultant viewpoint is corrosive to the church.

25:02

That's not what you do. That's not what you do. And I'm going to be talking about Roman Catholicism here in a moment.

25:09

Oh, brother, that's how you marginalize yourself. That's how you keep yourself small.

25:16

Well, we've known that from the start. And every passing now decade proves that we were right from the start.

25:28

So I know that I am just blowing opportunity after opportunity.

25:35

There's nothing I can do about it. I have got to be consistent. I've got to say what has to be said.

25:43

And when I saw that article, I'm like, here we go again. But this is a nice, short, pithy statement of exactly what we have to resist and what we have to identify as a fundamental capitulation to the spirit of the age.

26:03

Because that's what it is. That's what it is. And so that's what we just did. That's what we just did.

26:11

So there you go. Speaking before we transition here to the article by Douglas Beaumont called

26:24

James White and the Logic of John 644. I've linked to these already on Twitter. And I think

26:30

I did Facebook. I don't know. I've also got a Mind account. I didn't even tell you about that.

26:36

But when I saw there's a it's a Facebook -like thing that seemingly is not as controlled because that's what's coming.

26:49

When David Wood gave that list of places where he's gonna be posting other stuff, I went, oh, okay, all right.

26:55

Maybe all we can do. I've been posting there, not that anyone knows or cares, but I've been doing that.

27:03

But before I go to the other, sort of following up on the final comments there, some of you,

27:14

I don't know how you do it, but you watch YouTube stuff. You watch podcasts and stuff like that on YouTube, but you don't follow social media.

27:23

I get the reason why. It can be depressing. Once again,

27:31

I'm very thankful to the people who send me these links because I don't have a staff to do that.

27:40

That's not Rich's job. Rich isn't running around out there scouring. And once in a while, you'll send me something that someone has sent you, but Rich isn't the social media maven.

27:52

We didn't put that as a title for you. Social media maven? Next board meeting, maybe?

27:59

SMM, social media maven, not the next one. Anyway, some of you may not have seen the announcement over the weekend that Jeff Durbin posted, but I'll just be brief about this because those of you who actually support the program probably already heard about it.

28:23

I've been really surprised by some of the responses of other people, but I guess I really shouldn't be. But last year,

28:31

Jeff came in the studio. We mentioned at that time that I had moved my membership to Apologia.

28:39

It was not something that we had discussed or planned, but obviously, when you have as close a relationship with the elders there as I developed,

28:51

Luke and Zach as well, very quickly, I became involved in the inner workings of the fellowship.

28:58

I have certain gifts and training that I can...

29:03

It's hard for me to sit in the back pew of a church and just sit there and go, Hi everybody, bye, I'm going to leave now.

29:11

It didn't take too long for the wisdom of asking me to become involved as an elder made itself present.

29:23

It is an elder -led church, and so the elders have asked me to join the eldership of Apologia, which

29:31

I have done. We will have a formal installation on June 2nd, the only reason for anything that long.

29:39

We're a busy group. I've never been with a more energetic, active, busy group of people in my life.

29:48

I mean, I just looked at the week, two weeks ago, we were at the

29:54

Phoenix City Council. You saw, I played that, and then two days later, all three of the other elders are in Salt Lake City at the

30:03

General Conference. I was in California. I would have loved to have gone with them, but I was already committed to that and had a great time there.

30:11

Meanwhile, with most of the men gone, the women were at the Planned Parenthood Center.

30:17

Planned Parenthood hates Apologia with a passion, wants to do everything it can to destroy us. So the point is, that's just a regular week.

30:27

That's just a regular week. I am now the elderly elder.

30:33

I have the most white hair. I am 16 years older than the next elder in the eldership.

30:40

And that's part of what's cool, is I don't think they mind having that kind of experience added to the group.

30:50

And I need their energy and their encouragement. And it's an exciting time.

30:56

Man, I'm going to tell you though, we had protesters at church.

31:02

Just one. But a lady who just hates Jeff to no end, out front with a sign. Yeah, once.

31:11

That was Lonnie. Lonnie Percival. Come on. Yeah. And that was because we were out in Mesa.

31:27

Yeah, yeah, it was weird. Anyway, there's a lot of resistance, because we're trying to do a lot of stuff on so many different fronts.

31:38

And so just pray for us, a lot of wisdom. I don't know how these guys go at the speed they go.

31:45

But then again, looking at my schedule, it's a good fit. You see what

31:52

I've got coming up as well. Yeah, it's pretty wild.

31:57

But I will be preaching, I believe, February 19th. I'm going to be starting a series on the

32:03

Lord's Supper. And of course, we post all that kind of stuff on the

32:08

Apologia page. So people are saying, that means you're changing something?

32:15

No. Obviously, the other three elders are supported by the church. This is what

32:20

I do. And so nothing's changing as far as Alpha and Omega, anything like that is concerned.

32:27

I've just always been a part of the local church, and will continue to be a part of the local church. And right now, it is exciting to me and useful to me as well to be a part of leadership at Apologia.

32:41

So there you go. All right. So I then was sent, also by Twitter, but not publicly on Twitter.

32:52

There are DMs in Twitter, which can be sneaky. An article by Douglas Beaumont.

32:59

Dr. Beaumont was one of the... I'm going to get a crick in the neck here.

33:06

Dr. Beaumont was one of those who had been on staff at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, that was part of the fairly decent -sized group of teachers and students who left and swam the

33:27

Tiber River and became Roman Catholics. And so I have addressed some of those...

33:38

Well, the technical term is apostates, people who made a profession of faith. And then, you know, if you once professed that your soul hope was the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, and yet you now believe in indulgences, and you bow before a man who calls himself an alter

33:54

Christus, another Christ. You follow a man who calls himself Holy Father and the

34:01

Vicar of Christ. That's an act of apostasy. And so I've responded to a few of these folks.

34:12

But last week, I responded to a fellow who seems rather unhinged to me.

34:19

His behavior is erratic, childish, a

34:25

Roman Catholic. But I responded to him on John 644. I took a screenshot, didn't show up.

34:31

I took a screenshot of what he was saying and, again, laid it to rest. We've done this many, many times. But you have to have ears to hear.

34:37

Now, here's Douglas Beaumont. Here's a guy who should have some ability, at least, to understand an exegetical argument.

34:49

Doesn't seem like he does, because the article that he put up was stunningly bad.

34:58

Just stunningly bad. John 644 is a staple proof text.

35:03

Reformed blogger James White. I'm a reformed blogger now. We haven't written any of those books, any of those debates. He uses it to argue for the

35:11

Calvinistic belief that all those drawn by God the Father come to his Son, Jesus Christ, and are saved.

35:17

Now, I just stopped for a moment. I've written multiple books that directly address this issue, none of which get quoted here.

35:30

One online article. But we couldn't be bothered. We couldn't be bothered to do the rest of it.

35:37

So when I responded to their book and read all of it, well, that's just what our side does, which is different than their side.

35:45

Anyway, so anyone who has ever listened to me address

35:50

John 6 knows how I do it. I walk through the text, just verse by verse by verse.

35:58

I don't go to John 644 and then try to put stuff together. There are numerous sermons.

36:04

I remember a sermon in a church in Florida right after I got off the Zondom. That was at 2008, somewhere around there, 2008 or so.

36:14

It was before the read my book thing, right before, the Sunday before read my book.

36:22

Where I, again, just, I've lost count how many times what

36:28

I'll do is back then I'd use Greek New Testament. Now I use my big old honking iPad where you can see the

36:33

Greek fonts from four feet away. Well, 10 feet away. And I just walk through John 6.

36:40

Sometimes I'll start at the end of chapter 5 or go through the feeding of 5 ,000. I'll, depending on how much time

36:46

I have, walk through it. Normally in the original languages, I'm providing a translation as I'm going along. The point is that I believe and have demonstrated for decades, starting back with a book called

36:58

Drawn by the Father, which is on John 6. God's Sovereign Grace. The Potter's Freedom.

37:04

There's at least three published books that contain the exegesis. And in every single one of them,

37:11

I never started with John 644. Never. Not once. Not a single time.

37:18

I always argue that the strength of John 6 is following it and following the flow from beginning to end.

37:31

So you won't find a time where I have simply said, hey, you can just look at John 644.

37:38

You can ignore everything. No. Not in my published works, in my sermons. It just doesn't work that way.

37:44

You wouldn't know that from reading Beaumont's article. It is a mishmash of philosophical nonsense that shows that this man, if he ever knew how to do basic exegesis, he has abandoned that skill in the service of Rome.

38:05

And I've linked to it a number of times. I will be more than happy to let anybody read this because it is that bad.

38:13

And by the way, his whole thing... One of my favorite YouTubers has already explained

38:20

White's error here. And then when White continued to not get it again here...

38:25

So he's trying to advertise for the guy who's trying to get his channel started after he just went and disappeared. Although the

38:30

YouTuber did a perfectly good job exposing the most significant flaw in White's thinking, he wisely didn't go too deep into the logical weeds.

38:37

I'm going to do that here because White's interpretation of the passage is definitely, absolutely, and without question, illogical.

38:44

And it is illogical at such a basic level that it should call into question White's reasoning on other issues.

38:50

So Dr. Beaumont's saying this guy is so illogical, he can't even think straight, ignore him.

38:56

My response is, I will demonstrate, Mr. Beaumont, you will never debate me on this text because you cannot do exegesis.

39:04

You can't do it. You face -planted, sir. You face -planted.

39:09

And anyone with the slightest respect for the text will be able to demonstrate your errors, sir.

39:16

And that means they should take that into consideration in understanding your apostasy. And your errors flow from your apostasy.

39:24

You've never believed the Word of God to be the final authority. That's why you left the gospel that you falsely professed.

39:32

How's that? Pretty straightforward? It is straightforward, but this is important stuff. And apostates need to be dealt with as apostates, as the scriptures give us example.

39:43

So with that, I will link to the article, by the way, if it remains up.

39:52

I'm not sure how to handle this. I'm just gonna go ahead and do it this way. Let me walk through it first, and then we'll look at some of the more egregious silliness in Beaumont's...

40:03

Well, actually, that messes everything up. Yeah, but now

40:10

I can't get to my Bible program. So that... Pull that down a second. And here, this is what

40:19

I need to do. I need to... No, that's not gonna do me any good. I shouldn't have...

40:26

I should have thought of that. Because I still want to...

40:32

I still need accordance up. And that's gonna get in the way of doing it that way.

40:39

So what I'm gonna need you to do is, if I can do that and you can zoom in on that center part, that's the best

40:48

I can do. Because if I go full, then it takes over both screens and it gets weird.

40:54

I'm sure there's a way for me to tell it, stop playing with the other screen. But off the top of my head, I don't remember what it was.

41:00

So we will work at it. All right. So that looks great.

41:10

So follow the flow of thought. John 6 in its own context.

41:18

Now, I would like to start all the way back, but we don't have time to do that.

41:25

It is quite possible to begin at verse 35, where Jesus is speaking to the

41:37

Jews, and this includes the men who have rowed across the lake after the feeding of 5 ,000.

41:44

This is what prompts the discussion of spiritual bread, spiritual food. Jesus said to them,

41:51

I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.

41:57

Thirst. Now, I just point out in passing that the focus here is upon Jesus.

42:06

Who is Jesus? It never leaves Jesus. Jesus is absolutely central to all of this.

42:14

That's why the Roman Catholic understanding of verses 50 and following is just completely out of order.

42:23

Jesus says, ego, I am the bread of life. I myself am the bread of life.

42:29

The one coming to me will not hunger. The one believing in me will never thirst. The very first references to hungering and thirsting are clearly spiritual.

42:37

They are fulfilled by spiritual actions. And therefore, what comes later needs to be interpreted in light of that. But we're not getting into that today.

42:43

But that is the literal meaning of John 6, which is not eating Jesus' flesh and blood, as in literally,

42:51

Jesus establishes that in verse 35. But I said to you that you have seen me and you are not believing.

43:03

So, what must be taken into account in any interpretation, and by the way,

43:10

Beaumont doesn't even try this. He does not offer an exegesis text at all. Doesn't even try.

43:16

It's all Venn diagrams and logical errors and stuff like that.

43:22

Does not even pretend to offer any kind of meaningful exegesis of the text.

43:29

Nothing. Says a lot. Says a lot. Jesus is explaining the unbelief of even the men who have rowed across the lake looking for him.

43:40

These are, they were seeking after Jesus. Even uses the terms they tell to seek after him. That is the context then of verse 37.

43:53

And I have never said, never even intimated, that verse 44 is understandable outside of the context in which it is found.

44:02

The categories of given, the role of the father, the role of the son, who is giving, what coming to the son means, all of that must begin back here.

44:14

So, when Beaumont starts criticizing what I've said by ignoring that and only later goes, well, you know, you might say verse 37 is relevant.

44:23

Yeah, like in every published presentation I've ever made on it, that's a demonstration again of just how badly this article was written.

44:40

Verse 37, God's ultimate authority in salvation, first and foremost, all that the father gives me.

44:52

No system that denies to the father the right to unilaterally, freely, sovereignly give to the son can be described as a biblical system.

45:07

I would say that the majority of systems that call themselves Christians today are not based upon that.

45:13

They do not begin with a recognition that the father has the absolute sovereign right, as king, to give a people to the son, not based upon what they do.

45:29

That is the essence of biblical truth. Now, all that the father gives me will come to me and the one coming to me,

45:40

I will never cast out, eris subjunctiva, strong denial. All who are given by the father to the son come to Christ.

45:54

What is coming to Christ mean? Well, in verse 35, it was paralleled with belief, coming, believing, coming, believing.

46:04

This is not foreseen faith because what action precedes the other? In this text, there is no question that it is the giving of the father that results in the coming of those who are given to Christ.

46:25

So, you cannot say the father foresees that they are going to believe and on that basis gives them because it is his giving that results in their coming and believing.

46:42

So, saving faith is the result of being given, not the grounds, foreseen or otherwise, of being given.

46:53

Then Jesus says he never casts out the one coming to him. Those who come are those who have been given, none else.

47:05

And if you want to introduce the idea that there are people who can come to Jesus who were not given by the father, you can't get it from John 6.

47:15

You've got to drag it in from someplace else and that's exactly what people do. At some point or another, either at the very start, people say this is only about the

47:25

Jews, they go into hyper -dispensationalism, there's all sorts of ways that people try to get around this text.

47:32

But it always requires bringing in something from outside to do that.

47:39

You're not going to get it by simply allowing the words to speak for themselves. You're not going to do it.

47:45

It's not going to happen. So, verses 38 and 39 expand upon the final phrase in verse 37 and explain why he will never cast out those given to him.

48:00

What does he say? Because I have come down from heaven, not in order to do my will, but the will of the one who sent me.

48:08

This is the will of the one who sent me, in order that of all that he's given to me. He switches to the neuter there, so it becomes a group.

48:16

That of all that he has given to me, I lose none of it, the group, but raise it up on the last day.

48:25

The father's will for the son is for him to be a perfect savior.

48:32

Not a really good savior. Not a really good potential savior. The father's will for the son is that he save every single one that the father has given to him.

48:46

You can see why this is such an important text, because it's not who used their free will to do

48:55

X, Y, or Z and fulfilled sacramental penances and all the rest of this kind of stuff, which can allow you to put

49:03

Jesus out somewhere where he's just sort of making things possible. No, no.

49:11

But then notice at the end of verse 39, but I will raise it up on the last day.

49:18

If the son raises one up on the last day, those thusly raised have eternal life.

49:24

They have eternal life. Now remember, coming, raised up, eternal life.

49:32

Being raised up on the last day is receiving eternal life. They are coterminous concepts.

49:38

You can't divide them up. You can't say one's one thing, one's another thing. No, son raises one up on the last day, those thusly raised have eternal life.

49:50

That raising up on the last day equals eternal life is established in verse 40.

49:57

For this is the will of my father in order that everyone looking upon the son,

50:04

Thearon is a present tense participle, ongoing, looking at the son and believing in him,

50:12

I think in John very clearly, the use of the present there over against Eris for unbelievers is purposeful on his point, on his part.

50:24

It speaks to the continuation of the action.

50:30

The one believing, I'm sorry, the one looking upon the son and believing in him has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.

50:41

See, the two are brought together. Raise up on the last day, give an eternal life, brought together.

50:48

All right? So we've already established this. This is the context that must be established because it's the context that continues in verse 44.

51:03

The order is very vital. Beholding and believing are the result of being given, not the ground of being given.

51:13

Beholding and believing. Who's doing the beholding and believing? So I see some people want to try to jump in here of ignore what came before.

51:21

Forget about 37 to 39. Do it backwards. Norman Geisler did it backwards in Chosen but Free.

51:31

Did it backwards. There is a progression. You go from one thought to the next thought, you allow things to be defined.

51:38

If you have to take this thought out and ignore what came before it, you're obviously not wanting to listen to what the person's actually saying.

51:47

So beholding and believing are what we do because we have been given by the father to the son.

51:53

That's what coming to him is. Beholding and believing. That's not, that is the result of being given, not the ground.

52:04

Now after the grumbling of the Jews, Jesus explains their continued unbelief. And that's when we get to verse 44.

52:14

Verse 43, Jesus answered and said to them, do not grumble amongst yourselves.

52:21

And then for some reason Beaumont raises issues of translation. There really aren't any translational issues.

52:27

There's a few minor textual variants that do not impact the meaning of the text at all. Verse 44, no one is able to come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him on the last day.

52:43

That's a literal, perfectly fine translation. And if Beaumont wants to try to argue with it,

52:50

I challenge him, put it out there. Put it out there. No one is able to come to me.

53:00

No one has the capacity or ability to come to Christ in and of themselves.

53:08

Now I ask the question here, how many really believe this? How many really believe this? I mean, even in evangelical

53:15

Protestantism today, this is a minority view. Because of tradition, not because of exegesis, because of tradition.

53:26

Because of the way that we've been taught to do things. No one has the capacity or ability to come to Christ in and of themselves.

53:38

The father must draw anyone for them to be capable of coming to the son.

53:46

No one is able to come to me unless the father, the one who sent me draws him.

53:52

And this, of course, is where we then encounter the real issue.

54:00

Just here, we must see the error of all synergistic attempts to get around this text.

54:06

The one coming in verse 44 is, of course, identical with those who come in verse 37.

54:17

All that the father gives me will come to me. So who is the father drawing? Those he's given to the son.

54:25

They are coterminous groups. Groups. Hence, the giving of verse 37 and the drawing of verse 44 have the same audience.

54:42

If one is given, one will be drawn by the father. If one is given, one will be drawn.

54:51

This is what I mean by allowing the text to define its own categories.

54:59

Follow the flow of thought. Once the audience is identified in one verse, when three verses later, the same audience comes out and now a new description is given, this expands our understanding.

55:13

You can't just jump into one verse and make stuff up and then jump into another verse someplace.

55:18

That's not how you do exegesis. Maybe how you do philosophy, but it's not how you do exegesis.

55:25

But vitally, the one who is drawn is also the one who is raised up and given eternal life.

55:35

And this is that key issue that when it says, Halkusei auton,

55:43

I will raise, draw him. Then it says, Kago anesteso auton, and I will raise him up.

55:51

The two autons are the same. You cannot introduce a distinction.

55:58

Most synergistic theology introduces a distinction and says that the first hymn is everybody.

56:05

The second hymn is the one who makes the choice. No such distinction exists in the text.

56:14

All who are given by the father to the son are drawn by the father to the son, and the son raises them up to eternal life.

56:24

This is what these people are desperate to avoid, because if this is true, the entire sacramental system of Rome is a lie from the pit of hell.

56:35

That's the problem. That's the problem. Rome cannot have an absolutely sovereign

56:40

God and a Jesus who actually saves. Well, they don't have one anyways because of the mass, but that's another issue. Well, it's a very directly related issue, but it's another issue.

56:52

So, verse 45 continues. Let's go a verse beyond it, shall we? Verse 45 continues the same thought.

57:01

Quoting from Isaiah 54, 13, provides the ground of the assertion that everyone who has heard, remember hearing in the gospel of John, seeing in the gospel of John.

57:11

Remember John chapter 9, seeing but not seeing, hearing but not hearing. It's John 8, there's a whole discussion of it.

57:17

John 10, so on and so forth. It's all through it. Everyone who has heard and learned from the

57:24

Father is coming to me, he says. Hearing and learning from the

57:29

Father is the same thing as being drawn in verse 44. How does he draw those that he's given to the

57:36

Son? There is a revelational experience, which we call regeneration.

57:43

It's how God reveals the Son to sinners and raises them out of spiritual life.

57:50

That is natural then for them to put their faith in Jesus Christ, their Redeemer.

57:56

The result, as verse 45 says, all who hear and learn, and by the way, hearing and learning are passive activities.

58:05

You hear, but what you're hearing is coming from outside you. When you learn, what you're learning is coming from outside you.

58:12

These are not things that find their origin and source within man. They are passive activities. All who hear and learn, that's further description of what being drawn is, come to the

58:24

Son. Just stay here in John 6 and says, who comes to the

58:30

Son? Given by the Father, drawn by the Father, hear and learn from the Father. It's all God. The result is every one of them comes to the

58:36

Son and he will never cast them out. Hence, given by the

58:44

Father, drawn by the Father, hear and learn from the Father, all equals come to me.

58:50

This is simple exegesis. This is allowing the text to speak for itself in its own context.

58:58

Not pulling stuff in from outside, not jumping to other texts, following the flow of thought.

59:09

That's the power of John 6. That's the power of John 6. So, with that said, you might want to pull that down.

59:21

With that said, the article, we've already learned that we're not to trust me because I'm dumb and things like that.

59:33

Quotation from the ESV, and there's some weird statements in this article.

59:39

That's the translation of the Reformation Study Bible, but here are a few more in case its accuracy is doubted for comparison.

59:46

Here is James White's translation and commentary on the verse, which he got from the website, not from the book itself.

59:53

Note that from the statement, no one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I'll raise up in the last day,

59:59

White gets all who are drawn are also raised up.

01:00:05

White's view then being drawn guarantees coming to Christ, which guarantees being raised up.

01:00:11

Now, how did I establish that? How did I just establish that? By going back to verse 37 and walking straight through.

01:00:18

I allowed the text to define the terms. As will be shown, even on White's translation, such an interpretation is objectively illogical.

01:00:30

Objectively illogical. Now we're going to have a philosophical demonstration of the logic of Jesus's own words.

01:00:38

What we're actually going to get is a demonstration of why philosophers should not pretend to be exegetes.

01:00:45

That's what we should get. That's what we should see here. Logic 101.

01:00:50

Yeah, I've never studied logic, never even taught logic, even though I actually taught Christian philosophy and religion. Anyways, logic is essentially a means of precising common language into a form that can be objectively evaluated.

01:01:04

This involves a bit of restatement, but fortunately the verses in question are pretty straightforward. I'll discuss

01:01:09

White's understanding according to the two most basic logical methods, such as categorical logic.

01:01:15

When a statement is expressed with words like all, some, or none, then categorical logic is the go -to method.

01:01:21

It's simple and it's simple and are restated quite intuitively.

01:01:27

Okay, that's just what it says. So let's compare a logical rendition of John 644 with White's interpretation of it and see if they match.

01:01:37

A logical rendition. Well, that's interesting. How about we just render it in English from the

01:01:43

Greek language and follow? Well, why, Dr. Beaumont, why are you starting verse 44?

01:01:50

I didn't. I didn't in what you quoted. I didn't in my books. Why are you doing that?

01:01:55

Because you're misrepresenting me. That's why. And you've been caught. And we're now documenting it for many, many, many, many people to see.

01:02:05

There are only four categorical proposition forms. Subject, predicate, all

01:02:12

S is P, no S is P, some S is P, and some S is not P. To keep the logic clear, double negative statements like no one unless are restated into positive assertions.

01:02:25

That is, one would not use no S is not P. Aren't you glad that Jesus spoke a little bit more clearly than these people do?

01:02:36

In categorical terms then, no one can come to me, Christ, unless the

01:02:42

Father who sent me draws him would be stated as all those who come to Christ are those drawn by the

01:02:49

Father. Now, that bails and dumps the key element of verse 44.

01:03:01

And of course, it's not all of this just right now. Jumping into verse 44 is misrepresentational.

01:03:07

It's straw man. It's dishonest. It's just confused. We've already established categories.

01:03:14

Anyone who actually teaches logic knows you have to establish categories before you can bring a critique to any part of the statement. But anyway, so one of the key issues here is the inability of man apart from the enablement of the

01:03:28

Father. That's lost by this quote -unquote restatement.

01:03:35

All those who come to Christ are those drawn by the

01:03:42

Father. The reality, the only way that can actually be evaluated is to go back and do what

01:03:52

I did. What does verse 37 say? What does verse 38 and 39 say? How does verse 40 expand upon that?

01:03:59

How is that then applied in verse 44? That's the only way to do it, and that's what he does not do. And that should be enough.

01:04:04

We could stop right here and say, have a nice day. We'll see you tomorrow. We'll talk about the fight going on between the two popes and stuff like that, and that would be a sufficient refutation.

01:04:13

But we're really not done. So he puts together a diagram.

01:04:24

All who are drawn by the Father, all who come to Christ. Note that anyone in the coming to Christ category are also in the drawn by the

01:04:32

Father category. However, not all in the drawn by the Father category are in the coming to Christ category.

01:04:38

And now, can you put this up? So by pretending to be

01:04:47

Mr. Philosopher Man here, you are introducing entire categories into the context of John 6 that are nowhere in John 6.

01:05:01

They're nowhere in John 6. This is how you do eisegesis while making it look like you know what you're talking about when you're not even close.

01:05:11

And notice he's had to rephrase things. No one can come to me. He's talking to unbelievers.

01:05:18

He's explaining their unbelief. That's not here. You can't put that into this little diagram. So you're torturing the text.

01:05:27

Absolutely torturing it. So what this does is this introduces by putting this into a foreign context, by isolating it from its context, the idea that there is a larger sphere, that there are people who are drawn but don't come.

01:05:51

All that the Father gives me will do what? Come to me. See, once you allow 37 and 44 to exist in the same dialogue, this stuff falls on its face as well it should.

01:06:11

Note that anyone in the coming to Christ category are also okay. However, not all in the drawn by the

01:06:17

Father category are in the coming to Christ category. Now we've already demonstrated the error of this exegetically.

01:06:24

We've already demonstrated that everyone, everyone learning from the

01:06:30

Father, everyone drawn by the Father to the Son are raised up by the

01:06:36

Son. Do you see the sophistry here? This is Romanism in its full flower, folks.

01:06:43

That's why I wanted to do this. Rome has used sophistry for centuries to enslave people to a false gospel.

01:06:50

This is why I wanted to do this. Here in Douglas Beaumont's words, you can see sophistry being used to destroy the text of scripture while pretending to honor it, while pretending to honor it.

01:07:06

But I want you to see the mechanism by which this is happening. This is how you bring things in from the outside.

01:07:12

This is what is done to these poor benighted souls that go to Roman Catholic seminaries and get this stuff crammed in their head all day long.

01:07:21

This is why they really believe that what Rome is teaching is true. But it's a lie, and you're seeing it right here.

01:07:28

We've already demonstrated all that the Father gives the Son, come to the Son, that the

01:07:34

Father gives the people the Son and says, well, you raise them all up. No one is able to come unless the Father who sends draw him, and Jesus will raise that one up on the last day.

01:07:44

We saw verse 40 said that's faith. That's being raised on the last day, having saving faith. And then verse 45 finished it off.

01:07:56

All who hear and learn from the Father come to me. All. Destroys this.

01:08:03

This picture you're seeing refuted by a simple reading of the text.

01:08:10

From John 644 alone, see down there?

01:08:16

From John 644 alone, we cannot know how either category is actually populated, but we do know that this is their relationship.

01:08:25

Well, there's your problem, Dr. Beaumont. No one is going to John 644 alone.

01:08:37

Here, though, is James White's interpretation. All those drawn by the Father are those who come to Christ. As you can see, this is not the same thing.

01:08:43

In fact, it is the opposite of what John 644 says. White commits a classic fallacy. Ready now, folks?

01:08:49

This is how a sophist turns Jesus's own words on their own head. Remember, this is a man who now thinks that Jesus is sacrificed upon an altar every time a man who claims to be an altar

01:09:04

Christus says the proper words. This is a man who's left the gospel.

01:09:12

As you can see, this is not the same thing. In fact, it is the opposite of what John 644 says. White commits a classic fallacy known as illicit conversion.

01:09:20

This occurs when a universal truth is asserted of a subject, but then the universal qualifier gets switched to the predicate.

01:09:26

For example, the statement, all of my cars are blue cars cannot be logically converted to all blue cars are my cars.

01:09:31

Now, let's just ask a simple question here. Did I ever do that? No, obviously I never did.

01:09:38

Beaumont has created a misrepresentation, a pure straw man by ignoring three published books on the subject, dozens of sermons, entire debates, all to come up with a misrepresentational straw man that ignores the fact that I established the categories beginning back in verse 35, all the way through, all the way through.

01:10:05

So if the very first argument collapses upon the slightest examination, we don't have to spend too much more time about this, but I do want to, he then plays around with propositional logic, which is irrelevant because again, he's misrepresented everything that I've said.

01:10:26

But then after all his vaunted logical knowledge has been placed out there for everyone to go, oh, that's wonderful.

01:10:37

Then John 637, but maybe there is more to James White's interpretation of John 644 than just John 644.

01:10:49

You think, you think maybe there might be something to that? Wow. Wow.

01:10:58

Indeed, White connects John 644 to John 637 to support his interpretation.

01:11:04

No, sir. This is how you do exegesis. What were you doing at Southern Evangelical Seminary? Did you sleep through the exegesis classes or did they just not offer them?

01:11:12

I am stunned. All the father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me, I will never cast out.

01:11:19

Now, if gives in John 637 and draws in John 644 mean the same thing, then it would logically support

01:11:26

White's interpretation. This is because categorically, we would have two statements that reinforce each other.

01:11:34

All those the father gives are those who come to Christ. All those who come to Christ are those drawn by the father. Now, this is, of course, ignoring the flow.

01:11:43

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was some exegesis somewhere here? You know, pretend to actually deal with the text to allow the categories of verse 37 to then be expanded upon in verses 38 and 39.

01:11:56

Then verse 40 even sheds more light upon it. And then we would have a solid basis for looking at verse 44.

01:12:01

And now we can look at verse 45. Wouldn't that be wonderful? That's how you're supposed to do it. That's how you're supposed to do it.

01:12:10

Hey, maybe he was never taught this stuff. I don't know. I don't know. So between the two, we'd have overlapping categories that included all of each.

01:12:20

So now we have a new little, I think someone just wanted to do some graphics personally. But similar results obtained from propositional logic, it could be said that coming to Christ is a sufficient condition for the father's drawing per John 644.

01:12:33

Wait a minute. It could be said that coming to Christ is a sufficient condition for the father's drawing. No, no, no, no, no.

01:12:39

No, no. And is a necessary condition for being given by the father. Upside down. John 637.

01:12:46

It is the giving the father that results in our coming to Christ. Okay. Let me, let me just look at this real quickly.

01:12:55

Could we, um, uh, he looked at verse 40, 45 here.

01:13:04

Here's, uh, here it is. It is perfectly consistent with John 637 to 44 to believe that God, the father draws all people, but only gives some to Christ, the son resulting in their salvation.

01:13:16

That may not be Calvinistic, but it is scriptural. Only theological bias appears to tip scales one way or the other. Thus White's, despite White's posturing, he truly fails the logic on this one.

01:13:25

Well, of course it was Beaumont that completely failed logic and exegesis 101. But what's fascinating here is it is perfectly consistent to believe that God, the father draws all people, but only gives some to Christ, the son.

01:13:41

Did anyone see anything anywhere in John 6 that said anything like that at all?

01:13:49

Nothing. He never even makes reference to the fact that Jesus is explaining their unbelief.

01:13:56

How is this possible? Because what the Bible says is not his final authority. He's Roman Catholic.

01:14:02

It's what Rome teaches. It's what Rome teaches. This is the difference between doing biblical exegesis and doing

01:14:10

Roman Catholic posturing, which is what Beaumont has done in this context. And of course he continues, he finishes off by saying, now everyone makes mistakes and it would be unduly triumphalistic to make a huge deal out of one little misinterpreted verse.

01:14:26

Excuse me, Dr. Beaumont, if you're ever going to accuse me of misinterpreting a verse and you do not offer any meaningful original language -based exegesis, you are going to do a face plant, which is what you just did.

01:14:42

It's what you just did. Don't publish articles where you accuse people of misinterpreting verses when you didn't even bother to try to establish any meaningful exegesis of this text at all.

01:14:59

At all. Horrific. This problem, however, is a big one for James White.

01:15:06

For one thing, this passage is one of White's go -to proof texts for his brain of Calvinism, so his misreading of it is especially damaging to his case.

01:15:12

Well, and my demonstration of the fact that you haven't even touched my reading of it might mean something about your case for Catholicism, right?

01:15:21

Must be. More importantly, though, this particular failure is troubling because the mistake White makes should be so obvious to anyone who has even dabbled in introductory logic.

01:15:32

Hmm. Surely a subject to which he was at least introduced during his PhD program. Yeah, actually,

01:15:38

I've taught the Christian philosophy of religion, so yeah, I just recognize the difference between introductory logic and something called exegesis.

01:15:50

While White often demonstrates an impressive ability to cite various sources in Greek lexicons, those are just data, and data uninterpreted is useless.

01:15:58

Worse, data misinterpreted can be seriously misleading. Given the number of times White has been shown this particular error, zero, it is deeply concerning that he retains his interpretation and continues to make the same argument for it.

01:16:10

What does such a failure say about the rest of his theological reasoning ability? Well, folks, I will gladly,

01:16:16

I will gladly put what we just presented from the text of John 6 up against this mishmash of sophistry any day of the week.

01:16:30

Some of you are sitting there saying, man, you sure are hard on that guy. You've been nicer to Muslims.

01:16:36

Yep. You know why? Because most Muslims I'm dealing with are not apostates. Have you ever noticed something about the

01:16:44

New Testament? Who's the strongest language reserved for? People like this.

01:16:52

People who have turned the grace of God, have turned on the grace of God, and are now seeking to draw disciples away after themselves.

01:17:04

These are people who should know better. When I think of my Muslim friends who have never been,

01:17:13

I mean, think of the light that Douglas Beaumont has been exposed to. Think of the light that he is sinning against, that he is twisting to draw people into error.

01:17:24

It's very different than someone who's, they've never known. All they know is this one faith, and you have to patiently work with them through those things.

01:17:36

It's very different when you're talking about someone who has known. I could give you some examples of the past.

01:17:42

I won't go into it right now because we've gone longer than I was going to go today anyways. But here you've got someone not only twisting logic, but the simple reality is, if you can't do exegesis, don't pretend to be handling the

01:17:59

Word of God all right. So I would challenge Dr. Beaumont, how about backing up, admitting that you completely failed, offering a meaningful, original, language -based exegesis in context that refutes what

01:18:19

I have said? I'd love you to put that out there because then we can examine your sources and your reasoning and everything else.

01:18:29

You can't hide behind bluster because sophistry allows you to bluster and to impress people.

01:18:37

When you actually have to put exegesis out there, it changes everything. Changes everything. I won't remember that.

01:18:46

I will not note the name that Rich just mentioned from the other side of the window, because that would start a whole mess of stuff that we don't need to be starting today.

01:18:57

Now, one last thing. I said there was a connection between these two. There is. There is.

01:19:07

Beaumont has an external authority that fundamentally, by necessity, subjugates the authority of Scripture to a higher authority.

01:19:14

That's the very essence of Roman Catholicism, the denial of the soul of Scriptura, the creation of the sacred tradition category, capital

01:19:21

S, capital T, of which you have the written tradition and then the oral tradition, which no one can ever define because there isn't such a thing.

01:19:27

Anyways, what you have in William Lane Craig's approach likewise subjugates scriptural authority to human judgment, because what he wants to do is he wants to free people to use their autonomous will to choose to believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be and then submit themselves to that.

01:20:00

Both of these men have a fundamentally flawed anthropology and a fundamentally flawed epistemology because they don't have a thoroughgoing biblical doctrine of either one.

01:20:16

And I'm not the only one that's noticed. The people who buy into the minimal facts, arguments, the mere

01:20:27

Christianity arguments, how many of them paddle around the middle of the Tiber River? How many of them take a firm stand against Roman Catholicism and call for the evangelism of Roman Catholics?

01:20:37

Almost not a single one of them. Not a single one of them. There's a reason for that.

01:20:43

There's a reason for that. There's a connection here. And if you really think it through, you'll be able to see it's a vitally important connection.

01:20:53

It really is. So, there you go. Um, hmm.

01:21:02

Yeah, I didn't get down to verse 65. Johnny is mentioning John 6, 65, which, again, where Jesus does say, unless it is given to a man, no one is able to come to me unless it is given to him of the

01:21:13

Father. And that, by the way, is the reason disciples went back from following him.

01:21:19

That's the hard saying because it uses the imperfect. Jesus was repeatedly emphasizing, you can't come to me unless it's been granted to you from the

01:21:30

Father. And at this, they turned away. This is a hard saying. And they, they no longer followed after him.

01:21:37

That's, uh, that's quite true. So, there you go. All right. So, we're going to be back tomorrow.

01:21:44

We're going to shoot for two o 'clock. I, I, like, there's something that might push it back, but we'll let you know. But I should be able to make two o 'clock.

01:21:51

And yeah, we do need to talk about the, the competing popes. And, um, Notre Dame and a few things like that.

01:21:58

Um, unless someone ruins it all by sending me yet another article that I go, oh, got to talk about that.

01:22:05

And, uh, you know, jump onto, onto that. But prayers, prayers, please, for the trip coming up.

01:22:11

Man, it's a bummer being sick while overseas. So, makes it really hard to do good ministry and debates and things like that.

01:22:17

So, uh, prayers and support for that would be, would be wonderful. Thanks for watching the program today. We'll see you tomorrow.