The importance of cross examination

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. Yes, you know who that is.

I cannot hear myself, but you know who that is. That is Sonny and Cher. And why would

I start off with Sonny and Cher? Not because I want to drive everyone away, of course, but because, well, because.

Because I was directed to a wonderful lady who called into a nationally known radio program and she was confused because of her

John MacArthur study Bible. And though we've discussed it before, and though I honestly, honestly, honestly do not understand how this particular illustration can actually have ever been used, but continue to be used, especially as well, now

I can hear everything for the next five miles around me, that somehow it keeps getting used.

And we heard the Sonny and Cher example yet once again. Yes, we did.

And we're going to look at that. We're going to listen to that call. And we're also going to we're also going to hear.

Doomed before the womb. That's a nice Calvin quote that now, hey, at least we've got to we've got to be happy that a section, a very, you know, four or five words from Calvin's Institute is now being repeated repeatedly across the length and breadth of the land.

Of course, not really in the right context, but it's there. But we're going to take a look at that. And but first, hey, important things to talk about first.

Well, here it is. If you all will look into your. Well, you really can't see it, can you?

Well, you can hear it. See, there's a there's a windscreen over.

I can't feel the wind. But there we go. Oh, there it's a big one. It's it's a big book. And it it'll look really impressive when you carry it to church and stuff like that.

And I do like the cover, even though I didn't know. Maybe I didn't see in the graphics. There is a what would that be?

Be a dark maroon red stripe over top of the picture here on the brand new book called

Debating Calvinism. Five points, two views. I guess I got overwritten because it says

Dave Hunt and James White. I want a Dave Hunt versus James White. Only two endorsements on the back.

Tim LaHaye. Remember, Tim LaHaye said that his original book on this subject was the greatest book of the 21st century.

That was about a few months into the 21st century. This book deserves to be read carefully by anyone interested in the true nature of God.

Well, good. I like that. That's that's good. Then we have Chuck Smith. And you see, I'm happy about both of those, by the way.

In this debate, you will find a much better understanding of what each side is teaching. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I get the feeling those were excised from something that was a little bit longer than what ended up on on the on the back of the book.

It is a beast. It's 400 and 427 numbered pages.

It's fairly thick paper. It's it's it's it's a substantival book.

It's got a lot of paper. Yeah, it's it's a big one. And so it's out now.

I only have one copy mine. They always do that. They always send the authors. They rush them a second day or overnight type thing.

And but ours are arriving tomorrow morning. And that means that according to my clock here, you have six hours, 54 minutes and 20 seconds in which to get your pre orders in.

Now, you may say, why should I worry about a preorder? You're going to carry it, right? Yes, we're going to going to carry it.

Obviously, we're going to make it available for as long as we can make it available in the future. Obviously, we don't know how long that is.

But as you know, all of the preorders will be signed. And so tomorrow morning.

I will be getting hand cramps signing as many copies as as have been preordered.

And then if you don't preorder it by midnight tonight, then, well, what can

I say? Some people have asked since the page it's right inside the front cover.

I'm looking at it right here. Multnomah Publishers, Sisters, Oregon, one interesting name of a city.

But anyways, Dave Hunt and James White, people have been asking, well, there are two authors. So how are you going to sign

Dave Hunt's name? I'm not going to sign Dave Hunt's name. I am not.

He's going to be signing Charles Haddon Spurgeon. I'm free. Dear James, thank you for releasing me.

Signed CHS. Yeah, that's that would be that would be possible. And for some of you,

I might do that. That would be that would be sort of funny. But no, I'm just going to leave that one blank. You can take it to your favorite bring call seminar and get it signed.

Even though if he sees my signature there, you might might get a strange look or two. But we will be signing them tomorrow and packing them.

And the UPS guy is going to be really, really unhappy. But actually, he's a good

UPS guy. So he's he's cool with whatever we do. But we'll be sending these babies out. But as I said, midnight tonight.

And that's it. So if you want them, that's when you need to get them. So debating Calvinism, five points, two views.

I'm sort of interested in in seeing what Mr. Hunt's going to say. I'm going to be listening to the brain call here over the next few days,

I think. And maybe somebody else did that, too. And listen in to what's what's said once the book begins to be promoted.

And I'll be interested in what what is said or if it's just going to sort of just be sort of quiet. Because, you know,

I've written to Malt Nome and I've said, guys, generally, when a new book comes out, especially one that has potential like this one, there's promotion, you know, there's there's radio programs and the authors like do stuff, you know, and I've heard

I've not heard a word, nothing, zero nada. And there's a reason for that. And that is that Mr.

Hunt doesn't want to do radio programs with me. Because if if we do that, then

I may ask him all those questions that don't actually get answered in four hundred and twenty seven pages worth of of writing here.

And so, you know, I'm willing to do them. But obviously what happens is if you do a radio program about a book like this.

People are going to ask, so why isn't Dave Hunt here with you doing this as well?

And then I'm going to have to say, well, because he doesn't want to comment on these things. He doesn't want to participate in this kind of stuff.

And so he's not doing that and he'll be off doing his thing. And if he's off doing his thing and people ask why

I'm not there, I hope he has the the integrity to say, well, I don't want him here because he would ask me questions and I don't want to debate him, even though we all know that Mr.

Hunt does a lot of debates and agreed to debate me twice before this and then said, well,

I've said everything I need to say in the book. And I do think, as people in the channel are saying right now, it would be very useful if we had a formal debate, if we had a video,

DVD, MP3, CD, whatever you want to call it, that would go along with the book. I think it would be wonderful.

I think that would be a tremendous resource. It would add greatly to the value of the book. I'm ready to do it,

Mr. Hunt. Let's do it for the for the sake of people who would be interested in this subject and want answers on this subject.

Similar to the lady who called in and ended up hearing about Sonny and Cher.

But before we do that, it is interesting talking about debates that we've been attempting to arrange some debates ourselves.

And the reason that we, you know, we try to make debates things that are useful to a wide variety of folks.

And one of the subjects that we do not have many debates on is the subject of King James only ism.

Some of you may recall on the blog a few weeks ago, we had a little link to a section, one of the programs of the eight of the

John Ankerberg program series done back in 1995. And that particular program did not have a lot of interaction by one of the three

King James only advocates, a fellow by the name of Dr. Thomas Strauss, who is the president of,

I think it's Emmanuel Baptist Seminary, something like that up in Connecticut.

And he is a King James only advocate. He is very much in the

D .A. Wait, W .A .I .T .E. camp. If you're familiar with the people in the various groups, he's not a

Ruckmanite like the person he was sitting next to. And I sort of felt sorry for Dr.

Strauss because of the way that Sam Gipp and Joe Chambers behaved and the things they said, because I know he would not agree with a number of things he said, but he was in a tough, tough spot.

He can't say, well, you're all wrong. You know, my King James only friends here are wrong and all the rest of you from the modern translations are wrong and yada, yada, yada.

So he was in a difficult spot there. And I could tell he wasn't really enjoying himself a whole lot, which might explain what has happened here.

Well, to make a long story short, Chris Arnzen, who organizes all of our debates on Long Island, was having some discussion with a friend of his, an individual

I've actually debated on Long Island once many, many years ago. And the issue of the

King James came up because I spoke on King James onlyism at a church on Long Island back in January.

I remember walking in. It was so cold that night. Oh, man, just knife right through you.

Anyway, small group, but I addressed the issue and I got to use my new digital projector and it was really cool.

And so Chris was having this conversation with him. And so the idea came up, well, could we find someone who would do a debate?

And Dr. Strauss was mentioned to him. And so he contacted him and he said, yes,

I will. So we're like, all right, great. June we'll do this debate on Long Island on King James onlyism.

The thesis will be the King James is the only reliable English translation of the

Bible. And it worked out perfectly for me because I've been invited by the American Bible Society to be one of their speakers at their 400 year celebration of the beginning of the translation of the

King James. I'll be speaking in Manhattan at the American Bible Society celebration on June 25th.

So they're flying myself, my wife out and it just worked out perfect to do it this way.

So Chris sends the schedule, the organization of the debate out to Dr.

Strauss and it comes back and he says, there will be no cross -examination. And Chris writes back and says, well, you know, the folks on Long Island have come to recognize that cross -examination is the very heart of the debate.

That's where you really find out whether a position can really withstand examination is when the interchange takes place.

Up till then, if you don't have a cross -examination, all you have is a speech contest.

And so Dr. Strauss wrote back and said, no, I am absolutely adamant about this.

And so I wrote to Dr. Strauss and I explained our viewpoint on this and I'm going to let you know what

I said here. I said, greetings Dr. Strauss, Mr. Aronson, just inform you of the problem in arranging a debate on this claim supremacy of the

King James Version of the Bible. Surely you must understand that without cross -examination, you have no meaningful interaction on vital and important issues.

I have found cross -examination to be the very heart and soul of the exchange. Up to that point, you have only speeches and anyone can claim that they did not address such and such an issue because there just wasn't time, et cetera.

But in cross -examination, the audience gets to see the two positions in direct interaction. I have found that it is here that incoherent, self -contradictory positions collapse in a heap.

Without it, there really is no debate. I have also found that cross -examination truly tests the attitude of the debater.

Those who truly believe themselves in the right know that they can demonstrate this during this period of time. Those who are uncertain tend to either filibuster, as Timothy Staples, a

Roman Catholic apologist, did in our debate in California a few years ago. He then collapsed completely under cross -examination, get rattled and make mistakes, or completely lose their focus and end up having their wheels fall off, as Father Stravinskis did in the debate on purgatory, or they seek to avoid it completely.

Dr. Strauss, I believe God's people would be greatly helped by this debate, and yes, I am quite confident of the outcome of that debate.

But it would not be a debate without cross -examination. Folks can listen to you speak through your sources.

They can listen to me speak through mine. As it is, I will be speaking on King James Onlyism as a movement at the

American Bible Society's 400th year celebration of the beginning of the translation of the KJV in New York on June 25th.

Having a non -debate a few days earlier, where there is no direct interaction, would not be worthwhile.

Further, I have a book coming out as early as next week wherein I debate Dave Hunt on Calvinism. There was no cross -examination due to the fact that it is a written format, and Mr.

Hunt just chose to dodge and duck all of my direct refutations of his assertions. That is why I've challenged him to do a public debate.

He won't. The cross -examination would settle for everyone watching every question raised by the issues he refused to address in the book itself.

Dr. Strauss, I truly do not believe your position can survive cross -examination. It uses a standard for other translations that cannot be applied to the

King James itself, and that is truly not difficult for a veteran debater to demonstrate. But the only reason

I can possibly see for you to adamantly reject cross -examination is if you know that too. And if that is the case, how can you continue to teach and preach a position that you know cannot possibly survive cross -examination, the ultimate test of truth itself?

I would ask you to reconsider your unwillingness to have your position tested in true debate. I stand ready to debate, but I do not have any interest in a speech contest.

Let's let the people who watch and listen decide the issue, shall we? And to do that, we must have cross -examination.

I look forward to your positive response so we can get the final details set up."

Well, that was sent out late on the 7th, and on the morning, 8 a .m.

the morning of the 10th, that's this morning, a brief email was sent to Chris Arnzen, not to me.

I've received no response, and I don't expect to receive any response from Dr. Strauss.

It said, Dear Brother Arnzen, I respectfully decline your offer to debate Dr. White in Christ, Dr. Strauss. And so Chris forwarded this to me, and I replied.

I said, Greetings, Dr. Strauss. I will do my best to look past the personal slight involved in not even responding to my email to you, in which

I had laid out a very clear, I think, very compelling case and necessity of cross -examination and debate format. I have more than sufficient history with King James -only advocates to know that anyone who would dare to respond to your movement as I have can expect that kind of response.

It is disappointing, but certainly not unexpected. I want to make sure everyone is very clear on this matter, Dr. Strauss, since I am often asked why our catalogue of materials contains so little interaction with leading

King James -only advocates such as yourself. We extended a challenge to you to debate the topic, and you initially accepted.

However, upon being forwarded a debate outline that was almost identical in all respects to the format we have used in debates on Long Island for nearly a decade with Roman Catholics, Muslims, Oneness Pentecostals, and Church of Christ pastors, you insisted adamantly that there be no cross -examination.

And though I wrote to you and explained the necessity of cross -examination, its value to debate, and its value to the listening audience, you remained adamant while ignoring my correspondence, declined the challenge, because you refused to engage in cross -examination on the topic.

If you feel there is anything in this recounting of events that is inaccurate, please let me know, because as I noted, I am often asked about specific individuals, and I will be letting folks know that you have joined the list of those who will not debate the issue publicly in a fashion that actually puts the

King James -only advocate on an equal footing with everyone else. Once again, Dr. Strauss, I express my firm conviction, which has only grown over the years since I wrote the

King James -only controversy, that the system you teach to others cannot withstand critical examination in the context of vigorous debate against a knowledgeable opponent.

Your insistence upon limiting the interaction to a mere speech contest proves this point yet again. I do hope you will consider this, and if you truly, truly believe yourself to be right, will reconsider your position.

So, I have to sadly report that as of this particular point in time, we do not have a second debate to announce, only the debate on the issue that we normally have a debate on, and that is, of course, the subject of Roman Catholicism.

The topic will be the Apocrypha, is it Canon Scripture? My debate opponent is

Gary Machuta, that is May 20th at the Huntington townhouse on Long Island, and so that's coming up in a number of months, but I've considered some other folks,

I've given some other names to Mr. Aronson, he would still like to be able to pursue that, but whether it happens or not,

I really don't have any idea, but we continue to attempt to do so. Now, as I mentioned before we open up the phones, 877 -75, what is the number?

I've asked and no one has bothered to, well no one, I didn't, that's because the person I asked didn't respond to me, but I have one number up on the topic thing, and another one down there, and I put the number is on my old,

I have a new monitor, and this is a glorious monitor, but I had stuck a little doohickey whopper on the old monitor, so I always had the number there, it was just right there, and evidently, that's what

I thought the number was. You can call Dr. White now at 877 -753 -3341.

So when I wrote to you in private message and said 877 -453 -3341, the reason you didn't respond to that and say that's wrong would be

I didn't see it, would be, oh, okay, all right,

I'm just wondering. Pay no attention to the man behind the carton. I also noticed my computer isn't up either.

Oh, it sure is. It wasn't just now. It is? It wasn't. I don't know what your computer's problem is, but it's up.

I don't know either. Oh, well, I wonder where that came from.

Where might that have come from? It wasn't running through the compressor there. I was afraid you were going to run

Sunny and Cher and blow everybody's doors off, so I had to pot it down a little. Pot? Well, it was potted down.

It was potted up, but the compressor portion was down. Oh, oh, okay. Yeah, okay, all right.

I did see your professional Radioman certificate license thing on the wall once, so I know it's out there.

Oh, you mean my bachelor's degree in hamburgerology? Yes, yes, your bachelor's degree in, well, hamburgerology and audio video equipment technology something from ACME training centers of Wontop, Long Island.

No, that actually was from Hamburger U. It's a different one. Well, they train you to do everything there.

Yes, yes, I'm sure they did, including the use of compressors while working on your hamburgers. Anyway, let us get on to the call here.

If anyone knows who this lady is, would you please let me know who she is? I would really, really, really like to talk to her.

I love John McArthur. I have his Bible, and I know you love him too.

He's a great Bible teacher. There's one area I'm very confused. Me and my girlfriend are.

The area called the chosen election. We really believe

John 3, 16 and John 14, 6. You know, he died for all.

I know that God knows all things, but he knows when we were born if we're going to come to know

Jesus or not. Right. Am I right? Yes. Now, what is I don't know?

He does his commentary on his Bible confuses me that some are called and some are chosen.

Can you explain that to me with simple words, because my vocabulary? Sure. Yeah, Ephesians chapter one is a good place to start.

Ephesians is a great book, by the way, because it's neatly divided between doctrine and deeds. You have three chapters on doctrine, and then you have three chapters on the practical application of that doctrine.

But in chapter one, Paul says, praise be to the God and father of our

Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight and love.

He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ.

So clearly, the Bible teaches predestination. So the question at large is not does the

Bible teach predestination? But what do we mean by predestination? And different people give different answers to that question.

Some believe that God looks down the corridor of time and chooses us based on what we do.

Now, note something here. Those of you who've been following this development over the past number of years, there used to be two perspectives that were primarily given.

Now there's three, and you can tell which one's which and which one is being held.

There's the basic foreknowledge perspective, God looking down the corridors of time, the improper use of foreknowledge, but that's the one.

Others believe that election is a function of a relationship to Jesus Christ.

That would probably be what I would identify as a Lutheranistic perspective, because Lutheran writers love to, in essence, say everything is

Christocentric, everything is wrapped up in Christ alone, in the sense that if you don't put that in there someplace, you've missed the boat.

And so the idea would be it's wrapped up in a relationship with Christ. Except, what does that mean? Well, that's probably

Christ is the elect one, and if you're in him, then you're elected, etc.,

etc. Still others believe that we are elected based on God's good pleasure.

That would be us. That's me, I mean, sorry. That's the reformed view. For his own purpose, for his own pleasure.

So there are different ways in which theologians answer that question, but that God predestines is incontrovertible biblically.

In other words, the Bible clearly teaches that, and that's what I just demonstrated by reading

Ephesians chapter one. And other passages, of course, could be read as well, but this lays it out as well as any other passage in scripture.

Now, the question now is, what does that mean? And the answer to that question is, the fact that God knows what you're going to do before you do it, does not mean that what you do is fatalistically determined.

That means, here comes, well, you know what's coming. You with me?

In other words, we still have genuine free choice, what

I would call libertarian freedom. We have the ability to act or to act otherwise. Now, keep that definition in mind.

That's a good definition. And keep in mind, the assertion is, if it's not libertarian free will, it's not genuine free will.

Now, I think that's loading the vocabulary, and in light of the fact that we were unable, despite numerous attempts over the course of the entire program.

Read my book. Yeah, that's all we got. We tried to ask about Genesis chapter 50, and we tried to ask about Isaiah 10, and then...

That's the problem with Calvinism. I know, it is. And so, we tried, but we weren't able to get those things asked.

So, I have a problem with the definition of libertarian freedom as truly genuine freedom, when the passages that would most address that subject aren't being addressed at all from an exegetical perspective.

And without that, without that ability, we wouldn't be morally culpable for the things that we do.

Despite the fact that Herod, and Pontius Pilate, and the Jews, and the Romans, and the

Assyrians, and Joseph's brothers were held accountable, and yet there was a decree of God, but again, we didn't get that before.

At least not genuinely morally culpable. Genuinely, as in genuine libertarian over against fake, which is what

I guess compatible is. In other words, if we had no choice but to act as we act, then where's human responsibility in the equation?

And what we want to preserve in this discussion, we want to preserve the sovereignty of God, we want to preserve the justice of God, and we want to preserve genuine human responsibility.

All three must be preserved in the way we answer the question. Now, the fact that I know

Sonny and Cher got divorced, let's say 40 years ago, or whatever it was, does not mean that I had anything to do with it.

You know, and Hank, we're very glad that we now know that you had nothing to do whatsoever with the divorce of Sonny and Cher, which took place, by the way, in 1974, which is only 30 years ago, isn't it?

Yeah, that'd be 30 years ago that this tremendous artistic group...

I mean, listen to those voices. Turn that up there. The range of that voice.

I downloaded that thing this morning. I started listening to that, and I was going, oh, man, I was a young person when people actually thought they were so good that they kept them on TV.

That's sad. That's just simply sad. Oh, so anyway, it was 1974.

We found a few websites that said 1975. And but it seemed to be 1974 is when the couple broke up.

And so obviously the question that I would ask, and we've heard this, you know, we've discussed it before, but since it keeps getting repeated, let me address it one more time.

We know what happened 30 years ago. We got on the Internet this morning, and Spidey Geek and a few other folks helped me to...

Veray and Spidey Geek helped me to find information on the divorce of Sonny and Cher.

And it was a sad thing. It truly was. But we dragged ourselves through it. And so we took in knowledge today of what happened 30 years ago when they split up.

Now, are we actually being asked to believe? That God's knowledge of that is of the same nature as ours?

Or, and this is the question that I want to ask, and I would like to find out about it.

Let's say scripture was being written in 1970. Now, that in and of itself is somewhat of a frightening hypothetical.

But let's say, just for the sake of argumentation, that scripture was being written in 1970.

And for his purposes, God revealed through a prophet that in 1970, that in 1974,

Sonny and Cher, who at that time looked so very happy, that Sonny and Cher were going to divorce.

Now, let's say that ended up in scripture. Similar to, oh,

I don't know, Isaiah 45, and the naming of Cyrus, or maybe the references in Daniel to future kingdoms, or things like that.

You know, prophecy, God's absolute knowledge of future events, not just past events.

Now, if I went around, by the way, if I went around telling folks that in the not too distant future, a couple was going to break up, what would you automatically think about me?

Wouldn't you sort of be assuming that maybe I was going to have something to do with it?

How else would I know? I must have some inside information. I must know about some problems going on, or maybe

I'm actually going to break them up. Well, anyway, what if God placed in scripture this prophecy concerning Sonny and Cher?

And yet the morning, and this is something I didn't know, I took in new knowledge today, according to the sources I saw,

Sonny's the one who filed for divorce. And so, let's say the morning that whatever it was that happened, happened, that caused him to feel that this was it, we're going to have to break up.

What if he had, as was defined earlier, true libertarian free will?

And remember what the definition was. The definition is that you have the ability to act or to act opposite.

So, if he had libertarian free will on that morning, then he was free, by definition, to either seek that divorce, or he could have just as freely chosen to not seek that divorce.

Right? That's what libertarian free will is. And so, what if he chose not to?

Oh, but he wouldn't because God knew. Well, then, if God has exhaustive knowledge of the future, then does it not follow that the future is fixed in its reality?

And what fixed that reality? There seems to be almost a nonchalant, well, who cares, attitude on the part of many people at that point.

Many people seem to be very comfortable saying, well, the future was fixed by the conglomeration, the confluence of all of the free will actions of men.

And so, all these complicated actions of men came together, and that's what formed the future.

And that's why I asked, at the time, well, then why should God be glorified for that?

He, it wasn't his decree that brings about the final result. It's, it's the chance, random, fatalistic confluence of the free will choices of men.

God himself does not have libertarian free will, seemingly.

He has limited himself to, in regards to his own creation at that point, given this perspective. And so, could

Sonny have decided not to divorce Cher? Well, most of us would say, look, if you put it in scripture in 1970, then

Sonny's going to divorce Cher just as certainly as Cyrus was going to let the people go. But you see, that destroys the entire definition of libertarianism to begin with.

That's where the inconsistency lies. And that's why this, this illustration just, it's just, it's just really, really bad.

So I can know something without causing something. The fact that God knows the future perfectly does not of necessity mean that he fatalistically determines that future.

So if you take predestination in its most denotative sense, it means that God knows what's going to happen ahead of time.

Now, the fact that God knows what is going to happen ahead of time does not mean that that is fatalistically determined.

Now, does that help? Yeah, but there's, so there's no such a thing as somebody teaching that some,

God calls some for salvation. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but that didn't help her at all.

And part of the reason is the Sonny and Cher thing makes no sense. It just doesn't make any sense.

Sure, I can know past events without having caused them, but I can't know future events without having some sort of either supernatural knowledge or some role in bringing about those things.

It just doesn't make any sense. She's completely lost here. And it really, really does bother me to hear someone who's completely confused, who has a good source at their hand,

John MacArthur's study Bible, but she's not getting, she's not getting any help here. No such a thing, correct?

Well, that is taught. And then it's up to us to accept him or not accept him, correct?

Not all systems of theology hold to that.

For example, John Calvin said that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man and in him the ruin of his posterity, but he also at his own pleasure arranged it.

He also says all are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation.

And accordingly, as each has been created for one or the other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.

God arranges all things by his sovereign counsel in such a way that individuals are born who are doomed from the womb to certain death.

So there's the phrase, by the way. It's like I said, it's a small little snippet from Calvin, but it's now become a real popular doomed from the womb.

That was his point of view. Now, not all Christians hold that point of view, obviously. Right.

But John 3 .16 is very clear that he died for all. No, actually your tradition about John 3 .16

may be very clear to you, but actually that's not what the text says. Correct.

Well, I think it certainly is. And I think that as you pointed out earlier, if you want it in simple language, there it is in simple language.

Yes. Because I don't think there is any doubt on John 3 .16 is the most simple and John 14 .6

I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father, but through me, you believe in him.

John 3 .16 belong. All people have the right to accept him.

So I have a big problem with the chosen area that some are chosen, some are not.

Well, again, that's not the debate, though, Vera. That is not the debate, though, with all due respect.

The debate is not whether we're chosen or whether we're elect. The question is, on what basis are we elect?

That's the issue. And I would agree at that point. I mean, at least there's the constant attempt to say, well, you got to deal with election.

It's there. He's always said that. And I appreciate that. All Christians believe that we are elect, which is a subcategory of predestination.

But the debate is over the basis on which we're elect. And I would agree with what you just said.

And you can go to many other passages. Matthew 23 .37. Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you.

How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.

And then this phrase, but you were not willing. Yes, they were not willing.

No one questions the question. No one questions it in Matthew 23 .37. The Jewish leaders who have been attacked and quite righteously and properly by the

Lord throughout the entire course of Matthew chapter 23, the

Jewish leaders opposed the ministry of Christ. Matthew 23 .13

says, but woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people.

For you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Clear, paralleled verse 37.

But, but he's not talking about the ones that Christ was seeking to gather. That has nothing to do with the issue of of irresistible grace or anything like that.

We've talked about it many, many times before. And and there it is coming up yet once again.

Matthew chapter 23. Wouldn't everyone listening like to hear just once a fair, balanced response to the exegesis that has been offered in books like The Potter's Freedom or now, you know,

I really have to wonder with this book with Dave Hunt going all over the place with Chuck Smith's endorsement on the back.

I address a lot of these issues in here. So will we hear sound exegetical responses?

Well, people will be calling in. They're going to be asking. It'll be very interesting. At least the conversation is going to be taking place.

And that's I suppose that's the that's the really most positive thing that we can say about is that that that positive discussion is going to be taking place.

And when that takes place, then we we see people coming to understand what the word of God is saying in these passages.

Well, see, we started talking about this subject and what happens when we talk about this particular subject.

But every every few weeks or so, we we get a call from back east. And and so we get the opportunity of talking with our our good

Mormon friend, Pierre, back in Virginia. Hi, Pierre. Hello. How you doing? I'm doing

OK. I'm glad to hear you're discussing this because I heard this in the Bible answer, man. And I really wanted to talk to this woman and answer her question because obviously

I would answer it affirmatively. She's right. God does not preselect individuals.

I know you feel differently about that. And it's not a matter of feeling. We've talked about this before computer because he waffled on the answer.

Although I think he was trying to try and be fair and trying to point out that there are different opinions in Christendom.

He was trying to do that. He was trying to make sure that she did understand that the

Bible does address the issue of election and that she couldn't just dismiss that his argument is that the basis of election is in point of fact, the human response to a sort of a universal extension of grace rather than the the concept of a the number of the elect being fixed based as Ephesians chapter one says on his purpose rather than our purposes, which is pretty much the exact opposite of where it ended up coming out.

So, you know, but anyway, wouldn't how do you understand that?

By the way, when it's when specifically the statement is made in Scripture, he predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the kind intention of his will, the praise, the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed us in the beloved.

How do you get our will and our purpose into a passage like that?

We're chosen by God on the basis of our response to his invitation to come unto

Christ and in other words, the elect are all the whosoever.

I know you don't like that term, but anyway, it's not a matter of not liking. It's a matter of making sure we understand what it means biblically.

But where does that if you have a if you have a Bible there, you just turned

Ephesians one on its head, because if Ephesians one read the way you just defined it, it's it would be he predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the kind intention of our will to the praise.

I'm not sure how this would go to the praise, the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us and we activated through our free will.

Now, again, you're misunderstanding, I think, what the way God thinks. You're unfortunately have these blinders on that prevents you from seeing as a result of your tradition, your

Calvinistic tradition. You mean that belief in one true God over against an exalted man from another planet?

No, as opposed to a divine being who has chosen to extend several gifts to man.

Who are his offspring? Who are his offspring? Which includes life and includes intelligence and free will and utilize those gifts based upon how they utilize those gifts.

He either elects them to exaltation or to damnation.

And you could show us in the scriptures where we have election. We have election to exaltation, to Godhood and the giving of the gift of free will to man, right?

Of course, I can quote you from the document. Yes. So you would admit that that's not to be found in Ephesians chapter one or anything like that?

Not in so many words, no. But I think the concept is clearly taught throughout scripture that we have a choice.

And the fact that we are extended choice does not in any way limit God's free will or libertarian freedom because he made that decision.

He's the one who set up the plan of salvation. I mean, after all, if he chooses persons A, B and C for salvation, he has to have some kind of basis upon which he chooses.

Otherwise, it becomes a choice based upon, as I said before, a flipping of a celestial coin.

How about according to the kind intention of his will,

Ephesians 1 5? Well, if it's kind intention, what about the rest of us? You know, I mean, it's all well and good for you.

You get saved. But what about me? You get justice. It's kind intention for me. You get justice. Oh, that's very nice.

Yeah, it is actually. I mean, you get mercy and I get justice. I mean, where is the fairness in that?

Ah, you know, you just quoted Romans nine again, as we pointed out to you once before. You just you just quoted directly the words of objection to the apostles teaching in Romans chapter nine, almost almost identically word for word to what

Paul himself said in Romans 9 19. You will say to me, then why does he still find fault for who resists his will?

And as we said before, as a Mormon, Romans 9 20 makes no sense to you.

You're you're you can't. OK, then how how can an exalted man who himself has gone through the the process of exaltation?

He himself was reliant upon a plan of the gospel. How can an exalted man say through an inspired prophet?

On the contrary, who are you? Oh, man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say the molder.

Why did you make me like this? Will it when you don't believe that God and man are separate species?

They're just simply the same species at different levels of exaltation. And you don't believe that God molded us, that God instead has numerous wives by which he physically begat us in a spiritual preexistence.

How can how can you how can you look at Romans 9 20, Pierre, and say that the God who said those words is the exalted

God who lives on a plan that circles a star in a colon? You're taking it out of context. Romans nine or or your beliefs?

No, the way you interpret it. It's no problem for the latter day saint.

I think I as a latter day saint have no problem with the what is being said there, because if you look at the example that is given to us, what's he talking about?

Where does he talk about exaltation there? Where did he talk about salvation? I forget the word exaltation. Yeah, it doesn't talk about example that he gives us is what the previous two worldly examples, things here on this earth.

Yes, the previous was chosen for that particular role. Yes, he was.

And he was going to be used by God to bring about his purposes concerning the nation Israel.

And that's what he's talking about. Has it been chosen? Actually, he says choose Pharaoh for damnation.

You know, if Pharaoh was damned, it's because Pharaoh was pigheaded and he didn't want to, you know, he and what happens here is that God creates a scenario which brings out the pigheadedness of Pharaoh, which would not have been evident unless he challenged

Pharaoh in this way. And so that's how it brings out exactly the kind of person

Pharaoh was. Actually, if you'll go back to the book of Exodus, you'll discover that before Moses ever stood before Pharaoh, God said to Moses, I will harden his heart.

And then he explained what the purpose of his hardening his heart was for.

And that was for the demonstration of the his power and his might in the ravaging of the nation of Egypt and their false gods.

Each one of those plagues specifically going after one of the most popular of the Egyptian gods and demonstrating that those were not true gods and that there is only one true

God. And so the illustration actually, as as Paul illustrates or interprets it after verse 17, where he says, for this very purpose,

I raised you up to demonstrate my power in you, not to demonstrate his pigheadedness, but to demonstrate

God's power in him. And that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. Paul's interpretation, which is not yours, is so then he mercies whom he desires and he hardens whom he desires.

And those two phrases are directly parallel to one another in the original language. So Paul's interpretation of the event with Pharaoh seems to be very different than yours.

How do you explain that? Again, you have to these kinds of interpretations have to be looked at in the face of the whole of scripture and you have to bring in other scriptures that clearly point out the fact that the

Lord has given us opportunities to choose one way or the other. And we find that well,

Pierre, you keep saying that. But but I but I just point out to you, how can you know what these other passages say when we look at this passage and I just read one verse followed by another verse and the apostle interprets his own citation?

He tells us he says, so then here's isn't that if I were to quote an Old Testament passage and then

I were to say to you, so then am I not giving you my interpretation? And so here,

Paul quotes an Old Testament passage, what God said to Pharaoh and Paul's interpretation of his citation from the

Old Testament is so then he mercies whom he desires and he hardens whom he desires.

And the key between the mercying and the hardening, which is what got us to Romans 9. Remember, you said that wasn't fair, was his desire, not his looking down the corridors of time and seeing whether we fulfill or whether we use our free will to do something.

The difference between the two is just simply the word desire, which is why verse 19 then says you will say to me, then why does he still find fault for who resists his will?

Now, how can you say, well, we need to go elsewhere? We need to go get other passages. How can you know that you're interpreting those other passages when here we are?

All we're dealing is we're just allowing the language to speak for itself. We're not making reference to anything else.

We're just letting the apostle speak. I simply submit to you that it is a demonstration that in fact you're not dealing with the text when you say, well,

I've got to go get something, bring it over here, got to get something, bring it over here. That's a demonstration that in reality, this text as it stands is contradictory to your beliefs, and either you can say, you know what?

It is. I reject it as being scripture. I reject it as being accurate. And see, I've had a lot of Mormons do that.

I don't reject it as being accurate. I don't have any problem with that. I think what you're misunderstanding is the manner in which

God hardens individuals. For you, I guess the best way to explain it, he kind of rewires people.

I'm saying no. I'm saying that it's not as if Pharaoh was this nice guy, and all of a sudden

God decides that, well, you know, I can't have him as a nice guy. I've got to have a mean Pharaoh. I'm going to make him mean. I'm going to harden his heart.

No. Pharaoh was hard, hard to begin with. Oh, yes, he was. And so when Moses challenges

Pharaoh, it brings out what was already there. And that's the kind of person that he was.

And so the Lord needed that kind of a person there. And so he selected Pharaoh to be in that position in that particular point in time because he needed to use him in that fashion.

However, the Bible clearly says that he hardened Pharaoh's heart because even the most inveterate sinner, when faced with the suffering of his own body, when faced with the destruction of his property, will do the right thing for the wrong motives.

Not necessarily. Well, but he but he will. And it's specifically said all the time in life.

OK, then. Then what does then what does Paul mean when he says he hardens whom he desires?

What does it mean? What does scleroni in Greek mean? What is what

God doing and argue with you in Greek? All right. What is hardening? What does hardening mean? What does he mean?

What is what's the last word? OK, and whose heart has

God ever made hard? I'm not sure what you're asking there. Well, Romans 918 says that he hardens whom he desires.

Who does God desire to harden? Well, again, he desires to bring out the kind of personalities that we are through our experiences here upon this earth.

So the mercying and hardening all depends on who we are. Not his desires, but it does.

The mercy is extended to those who humble themselves before God. So this is a decision that we ourselves make.

Now, we see that from the very beginning when when Cain's offering was rejected, he was upset.

And what does God said? You know, why are you upset? You know, if you do what I tell you, will I not accept you?

We have a clear challenge here to to Cain by God saying, you know, if you choose the right path,

I'll accept you. But if you don't choose the right path, then, you know, Satan's ready to gobble you up.

And then we have that part of the biblical message that seemingly because of,

I would say, Pierre, your tradition in regards to external scriptures you don't listen to.

And that is, since we are the fallen children of Adam, we are not able to do what is pleasing in God's sight and therefore to place it based upon our performance of doing these things, to make mercy dependent upon our willingness to do these things means that no one would ever be saved.

And that's why in each one of these passages, whether it's Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John 6, we keep going to plain words that say the basis is

God's will, God's purpose. God does what he desires. And whenever you hear that, you reinterpret that through the net, through the grid of your system to say, well, what it is, is he looks at what we do and he acts based upon what we do.

And that's actually 180 degrees opposite of what the text itself is actually saying.

And the illustration has been very clearly given. Again, thank you for calling today. Thanks, folks, for listening to The Dividing Line.

The next Dividing Line is Thursday morning, 11 a .m., Lord willing. We will be here.

Hope you'll be there. Thanks for listening, and God bless. Join us again next