Gay marriage and then Calvinism

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Opening Remarks and the New Cartoon

And good morning. Welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White and it's good to have you with us today. Those of you who are listening live, that is. And those of you who are not listening live, I guess that means you're listening dead or something.

I'm not really sure. Anyway, we have a lot to talk about on the program today. If you have not been on the blog site, you might want to be aware of the fact that we have a new tune-up. And as normal, what happens in these situations is last Tuesday's Dividing Line got the creative juices going in our redoubtable, ever-vigilant cartoonist, Angel Contreras.

We didn't go looking for Angel, by the way. I remember I was sitting in the hotel room in California the day of the Bible Answer Man debate when someone I had not seen before private messaged me in the channel and said, Would you mind if I sent you something?

And I said, No, I hope you're not offended. And that's when the first tune arrived. And by the way, it was of me. And I was just so tremendously impressed with his ability to do those caricatures. I mean, you can always tell who it is.

And eventually, a couple more tunes and I'm going to put together a tune page and put the pictures that are used by Angel to make his cartoons. So you can see just how tremendously good they are. And I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a Yahoo page, a MyYahoo thing.

You know, you can put various sundry things on it. And one of the things I do is I pick editorial cartoons. And I like to look at editorial cartoons that is a way of making a point. Rush Limbaugh does it in the same way.

Makes a point and the point sticks. It really cuts past all the verbiage and it gets to the point. And, you know, it's easy to understand. And his activities are the theological equivalent of the editorial cartoon in the newspaper.

They make a singular point. And today's makes the singular point that I think we all understood when we listened to. Read my book. Yeah, that's the point that we all understood on Tuesday. Was that when we were told to read the book, it's always a good idea to make sure that your book actually addresses the subject that you are telling people to read.

Especially when it's the central point of the debate. Especially when one side kept bringing up the issue, kept trying to go to scripture. In all of the many, many, many, many, many, many emails that we have received, the constant theme over and over again was one side went to scripture, one side did everything they could to avoid scripture.

The only answer given to Genesis 50, Isaiah 10 and Acts 4 was read my book. And there's nothing in the book about it. Who knows? Maybe we should expect an update of the dark side of Calvinism. The future edition being the darker side of Calvinism.

That will then address those particular passages. I don't know. But if you haven't seen the blog, the front page, AOMin .org, Angel said his sides hurt from listening to the dividing line on Tuesday. And so that got the juices flowing.

And so whenever I come in channel and I see Angel hiding there, I immediately start checking my email because there may be a little gift waiting for me there in the email. That reminds me, Mr. AOMin person, we probably need to move that over to the other site, so the graphic thing and all that funny stuff.

I already did it.

Oh, very good, man. About five minutes after you put it up there. Excellent. That's very, very good.

I'm glad you did. I hope you rechecked it because I had to make changes on the Doohickey Whopper.

Well, you weren't in the office when I did it. Oh, okay. Well, I did the changes. Okay, good.

That's good. See? That is one of the advantages of only two people working in the ministry, is that when you have 20 people working in the ministry, then that kind of stuff gets really messy. But you just wait until I leave and then undo anything that I did wrong or whatever.

So anyhow, make sure to pick up Angel's new cartoon. It's a great one. And if you didn't listen to Tuesday's dividing line, then it may not make as much sense to you. And if you didn't listen to Bible Answer Man debate and Tuesday's dividing line, then you have no clue what is going on.

That means you're out of the loop and you need to get into the loop. Before we start taking our phone calls today, I wanted to mention, obviously, and this is something I want to get to on the blog eventually.

There's only so much time in a day, and I've been putting a lot of effort into that blog of late. Hopefully it's a resource to folks and gives you a heads up on things. What's going on in Massachusetts, what has gone on in Massachusetts, shouldn't surprise us a whole lot, but it is, I think, one of the major developments in the cultural decline of the West and the United States.

It raises all sorts of issues. I am not, in the classical sense of the term, a theonomist, but I do have theonomic leanings in the sense that I do see in Scripture and do see in history the fact that God's moral law is relevant to the entirety of life, including man's governance of himself in his society.

What I mean by that, obviously, is that God's moral law reflects the way that he made us to function. He made us to exist in a particular fashion. When we choose to go against that law which is written upon our hearts, when we choose to expend such effort in suppressing the knowledge of God that is there, when we choose to embrace the activity that we see in Romans 1, where Paul goes through the various sins of man, and he says, beginning in verse 28, he says,.

Now, notice that Paul has not laid any foundation in discussing his people and saying, well, these are people who are recipients of special revelation from God. These are people who've read and understood the Bible.

He doesn't say that. Instead, he's talking about those who know of the existence of God because of what has been created. They are made in the image of God, and yet they're engaged in rebellion against God, and although they know the ordinance of God, and that's parallel to what he had said earlier, that they know God exists.

They know the ordinance of God, that moral law is written upon their hearts, they suppress that knowledge, and they know that those who practice such things are worthy of death. But they not only do the same, but they also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

And so, sinners love the company of other sinners, and that's exactly what is going on in this particular situation. And so, what we have going on in our society is just the continuation of this hatred of God, hatred of God's law, and when a society is given over to itself, even a society that once knew the light of the gospel, once knew men in public service who loved Christ and who spoke of his word, this nation was founded by a mixed group, yes, but a mixed group of people, all of whom gave either hearty approval to, or at least lip service to, the supremacy of the scriptures as God's word, and they recognized the importance of religion in the public life.

This nation once had individuals who were in leadership who openly spoke of their Christian commitment, their belief in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the importance of God's word in law and things like that.

But once a nation like ours that has that heritage turns against that, and in essence is intent upon spitting in God's face, then we should not be overly surprised that this kind of behavior, this kind of result would come from this.

Massachusetts, Marriage, and the Collapse of Moral Order

Now, hopefully no one thinks for a moment that the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and I suppose we can take some solace in that the decision was four to three, but still there are four justices in Massachusetts who evidently have embraced the idea that no one can really know what texts written in previous generations actually mean.

Evidently they believe that what was written two, three, four hundred years ago, you don't have to worry about what the authors intended it to mean, and maybe they don't even believe that we can know what the authors intended it to mean.

We can't look at their other writings. We can't look at their context. We can't look at their language. We can't come to any conclusion as to what they intended us to mean. So we throw those things out, and we recontextualize these writings, and we put them into our own context and form them in our own image.

That means the end of law, by the way, because it becomes, instead of the rule of law, it becomes the rule of man, and you have these four people who view themselves as kings. They view themselves as kings and queens with this judicial power to, without reference to an unchanging standard, just simply create law.

That's what they've done. These are not truly judges either in the biblical, logical, or even constitutional sense. They have removed themselves from that role and have become priests, kings, little judicial despots who think that they can just simply create law without reference to the original.

Does someone actually want to argue that the framers of the Massachusetts Constitution intended this? That they intended that homosexuals be allowed to marry? No one could possibly, in a rational sense, defend that thesis.

It's obvious that was not the intention of the framers of the Massachusetts Constitution. They understood that marriage is an institution designed by God, and that's where the conversation has broken down, because even the people that we listen to in the media who are conservative, they're afraid to say that.

They're afraid to recognize that. They're afraid to go with the reality that, look, there are ultimate authorities in culture, and you are either going to allow God to be that ultimate authority and to speak and to recognize it.

Historically, that's what we believed. That's what this society believed. And there's been a revolution. We no longer live in a society that believes those things. And so marriage is defined by God, and it is evidence of the tremendous degradation of our society that we are actually having to consider a constitutional amendment that would define what was so clearly understood only a small period of time ago.

If this is allowed to stand, if we cannot combat this, if the moral fabric of our society is so degraded, and I fear that it may well be, if we cannot combat this, then there will be no logical or rational ground for denying polygamy.

That's already coming up. There's already been lawsuits filed in Utah on behalf of polygamists to say, look, if the Texas sodomy law has been thrown out, if Vermont, Massachusetts, these decisions demonstrate that the definition of marriage is fluid and is determinable on the basis of a small minority viewpoint of people who call themselves judges, then you cannot possibly, in any way, shape, or form, say that we cannot engage in polygamy.

Not only would same-sex marriage be thrown out the door, but on the same basis, and I'm not the only one saying this, but on the same basis, consent ages must be done away with. There is no logical or rational or moral basis any longer for saying that 18 years old or 16 years old or 14 years old should be the consensual age for sex.

Men should be able to marry children, little boys or little girls, for that matter. The entire area of bestiality immediately comes into play. There should be what logical basis, what rational basis should there be for precluding a man marrying his dog?

There is none. Once morality is gone, once the standards are gone, as long as you can get somebody on TV and you can start the process, just start the process. At first, society goes, oh, oh, but you see, you just have to get people used to the idea.

It's a process, it doesn't happen immediately, but once you dull the senses, eventually that has to come in as well. We're seeing it happen right before our eyes. I do not know what kind of society my children's children will live in, but folks, this is not what brings the judgment of God.

I honestly believe it is the judgment of God. The scriptures tell us that God's wrath is being revealed day by day, ongoing, present tense in the original language in Romans chapter 1, and we are seeing this happening.

Remember that the Canaanites were destroyed by God. God actually allowed the children of Israel to stay in Egypt for a lengthy period of time, to become a great nation, and one of the reasons that he lets was that the iniquity of the Canaanites had not yet been completed, and then he brings the Israelites in and he destroys these nations utterly, man, woman, and child, and beast, and he never sends these people prophets.

He never sends his word to them. Once they demonstrate a constant desire to suppress that knowledge of his ordinance, which is written within them, he gives them over and his wrath comes upon them in completeness.

They did not have one ten thousandth of the light that this society has access to and has received in its past, and if they deserve the judgment that came upon them, what kind of judgment does this nation deserve?

Does this society... I'm not even talking about... I mean, look at Canada. Look at Europe. Look at... I saw something just recently about... what was it? Someone, I think, had come over here and were applying for rights because they had been married as a gay couple in Germany.

So, believe me, I understand that in God's providence and sovereignty, our nation has been the slowest in Western society to be embracing these things. But we are, and it's inevitable, unless God brings repentance to this land, and repentance is normally brought about through judgment.

And so you look at Europe, you look at the United Kingdom, you look at Canada, you look at all of these nations and they are embracing these things, and the people who live there will tell you it has been horrible for the society.

You don't see these societies being blessed. You don't see them being blessed with great intellectual thinkers. You don't see the arts expanding in these societies. Man cannot live against God's design for him and expect God's blessing.

And that's why I repeat what I said back right after 9 -11, when you see all these bumper stickers that say, God bless America. And my immediate thought is, why? Why should God bless America? For what reason?

Is it just so that I don't lose my nice home and my nice technology and my nice income and my nice cars and my nice health care? Is it just all for me? Where is really our priority? We really have to wonder about it.

So we need to pray for our leaders. I mean, you listen to the rhetoric in an election year and it's frightening. There is no two ways about it. If I didn't believe God was in control, man, I don't know what I would do.

I'd be looking for some little teeny tiny nation someplace that I could move to, I guess. I don't know, because it's a mess. There's just no two ways about it. 877 -753 -3341. I know that we have one caller who was first up, but the next two callers are all on the same subject.

And so if I go the first caller in line, then the subject changes, then we have to change back. And so unless there is a toll call issue involved with the first caller and I need to be informed one way or the other whether there is or isn't, then I would probably, if I am the smart webcast host, go with the subjects that are directly related to what we were just talking about.

And so let's go ahead and start with, I believe, Kiren in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Hello. From Phoenix to my persecuted brethren in Massachusetts. How are you doing? Doing well.

It's actually Kiren. Kiren, all right. Listen, it's amazing. I'd like to actually make a comment about this homosexual thing, that one of the Supreme Court justices who voted against this is actually homosexual.

Really? Yes. She actually was against this whole thing because she understood some things. The other ones who were more liberal than her even did not understand. What have been her comments? Well, her comment was that it's up to the legislation to legislate.

Right. She saw the problem with the idea that the court is legislating here. Yes, yes.

She's one of the few judges left in the land that sees that.

Well, I'm surprised she took the view, but it is interesting that she is homosexual or a lesbian, and that she took that view. But in this state, right now, of course, they're talking about it on the talk shows, but the liberals on the talk shows are really very gleeful.

They're saying this is a great breakthrough, that we're really going to be a pluralistic society now, and racism is going to be finished.

This is going to somehow impact racism?

Well, because it's racist in the sense that they're comparing it to being an Afro-American. Right, right.

You're kind of born this way, in that sense. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. You see, and that's very, very common. They do not see this as, I mean, and sadly, most Christians have gotten to the point, they have such a low view of God's word and God's law, they don't even see it as being first and primarily an issue of, can God define for us what is the proper boundaries of male and female relationship?

Is marriage defined by scripture? Sadly, most evangelicals, let me change my terminology there, let me withdraw the previous term and use the term evangelicals, are significantly more impacted by the culture's beliefs in that area than they are biblically.

You know, in my understanding or my estimation, this is really just the hem of the garment. Marriage has been under attack a long time with divorce being as freely accessible as it is, and a lot of my friends and a lot of the religious people that I know are so upset about this homosexual marriage, and I am too, teach against it and encourage people not to participate in it, and tell them it's sinful and, you know, just abhorrent to God, but also teach them that God hates divorce as well.

And it seems to me that a lot of the evangelical people, they hate homosexuality, but they don't hate divorce like God does.

Well, I understand the fact that as I listen to people calling in, for example, I frequently listen in the afternoons when I have the opportunity, if I'm out and about, to Michael Medved. And Michael Medved is a brilliant man.

I pray for Michael Medved that he'll come to recognize his Messiah. But one of the things that's interesting is that when he addresses this issue and he talks about the importance of heterosexual marriage, the importance of family and things like that, one of the arguments that he gets most often from his liberal callers, and for some reason he's certainly got a lot of them, I guess because he's up in Massachusetts, or not Massachusetts, Washington and Seattle, a place like that, that the argument is, well, look, how can you say that it's really all that important in light of the constant breakup of marriage within our society?

And there's no question that within society, and especially within the society that is most visible, that is within the media, within Hollywood and things like that, marriage is considered to be a temporary arrangement of convenience.

It is not seen as something established by God with purpose, with meaning, all the rest of that stuff. And so you're right in the sense that not only amongst the secular people, but again, the more influenced people are by the secular perspective, the more likely it is that they're going to downplay those elements of God's truth that the society does not consider to be important.

And so there's no question that, you know, I just want to make sure no one misunderstands me. I'm not one of those folks that takes the viewpoint, and there are some people I think that do take the viewpoint that the sin of divorce is somehow unforgivable in the sense that, well, if you've done that, God's finished with you.

You might as well just go live in the outback someplace because God's done with you. You have committed the unpardonable sin, and that's it for you. There are some people who I'm afraid go that far. But at the same time, that does not in any way, shape, or form lessen the severity of it, the importance of it, the relevance of it.

And I think a lot of the problem is there's not a whole lot of positive teaching on marriage from a biblical perspective that goes to Ephesians 5 and draws the parallel between what is found there and all through the book of Ephesians and the relationship of Christ, the church, and the husband and the wife and things like that.

Instead, what we get is a lot of psychology and stuff like that rather than the rich biblical material that is there. Because, let's face it, for a lot of folks, you get into that stuff, and, ah, that's too deep, ah, you're going to bore folks.

Yeah, and they say, well, that's just too old-fashioned.

That's too old-fashioned. Yeah, we need to update things.

The Meaning of John 6 and the Drawing of the Father

May I? I know you're on this topic here, but maybe I should call back another time. I would like to talk to you sometime about John 6.

Ah, no, go ahead. We can cover a wide variety of stuff.

Okay, because I didn't want to change your... I got your book on John 6. I can't think of the title right now. Drawn by the Father? Drawn by the Father. Yes, Drawn by the Father and everything. And having read it, I was kind of curious as to some of the things that I didn't think was clarified in my mind.

Maybe you did say it. I just wasn't able to grasp it. Okay. But anybody who reads John 6 understands, at least in my thinking, that God draws men. But how does God draw men? It seems to me that you were somehow implying that there is a supernatural draw apart from the Word of God.

Am I correct to say that? No, because when you read the two primary verses on that, 644 and 645, it says,. It says, I just went from the numeric standard to King James for some reason. And I wasn't addressing specifically, necessarily, the means that God uses.

I've said many times that the Scriptures indicate that God uses the proclamation of His Word as the means of drawing His people unto Himself. But that's not the specific point that Jesus is referring to here.

The drawing is supernatural. The drawing is, in this passage, identified together with, in John 6, 37,. All the Father gives me will come to me. And how is it that they will come to me? Well, they will be drawn by the Father to the Son.

Everyone that is drawn will come to Him. He raises them up on the last day. But then when He defines that drawing and the nature of that drawing, He does that in the context of hearing and learning. And that term, learning, would indeed indicate to us that there is content to the means that God uses to draw us.

And that content would come from the preaching of the Word of God. But that's not specifically what He's focusing upon there. Obviously, they're grumbling at the proclamation of the Word of God from the Lord Jesus at this point.

But it was not my intention to say that that exists separately from that. But it is a supernatural activity, however.

I don't agree with what you said about John 6. I'll just be up front. Not that I want to, you know, it was an excellent book and a lot of things I agree with. But I don't have a basic agreement with you.

Concerning what? I'm trying to understand what you're saying. That's my, you know, exactly. Because there's something about it that didn't ring true, at least in my thinking.

Well, could you be more specific?

For example, it seems to me like you said in the book that I believe that everybody who comes to the Son will be drawn by the Father. But you indicated in your book that a man could not resist that draw.

Well, most definitely, because I indicated that in verse 44, it says, No one comes to me unless the Father sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. That's the same Him. So all who are drawn are raised up on the last day.

That's correct. So if you could resist that, then you wouldn't be raised up on the last day, would you?

Well, because earlier on, you actually made an excellent point, which earlier on in the book, where he talks about He who comes to me, and he talked about it being a present tense or kind of an active sense of coming and keep on coming and all that.

That's the person that will be raised up on the last day.

But remember, I pointed out that, and I made this very clear, that when it talks about coming to Him and it's present tense, that's the second part of a verse. And that's John 6 .37 started, All that the Father gives me will come to me.

It is the Father's giving that results in our present tense coming. A person who is coming to Christ is coming because they have been given by the Father to the Son. And so the idea of inserting anywhere into this text some human activity that can cause either the Father's giving or the Father's drawing to be a failure has no foundation whatsoever in the text.

Now, I know it's very traditional to do that within certain evangelical circles, but again, I would just ask, where does the text indicate that the ones who are given by the Father to the Son? It says, All that the Father gives me will come to me.

Not some, not just a portion.

But that's a truism. Everybody that comes to God or comes to Christ will have come because the Father has drawn him and God has given them to the Son. I mean, that's a truism, but it kind of begs the issue when you say, we're using this expression differently, you and I.

I mean, you're meaning one thing by it and I do mean another thing by it.

And wouldn't you agree that the way it should be used should be determined by the way that the Lord Jesus used it? Yes.

And I think when Jesus, earlier on in the chapter, when he makes the comment about work for food that does not perish, but for food which endures eternal life, and then they ask, What shall we do? The Lord didn't say, Well, you can't do anything.

The Lord didn't say, There's nothing to be done. Just wait for the Father to draw you. The Lord actually tells them what to do. He says, This is the work of God that you believe. So their faith was dependent upon God because God is the source of the teaching, the source of the word, the source of the signs, and their faith would be resting upon God's revelation.

And who is it that is going to believe according to Jesus' own statement? Since coming and believing are synonymous in John chapter 6, and it is only those who are given by the Father to the Son who come and believe, then why would you assume that somehow this faith, which is described elsewhere in Scripture as the gift of God and something that is pleasing to God, and the Bible tells us that those who are in the flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God, why would you assume that somehow that indicates there is a preexisting statement on Jesus' part that says that the unregenerate man is able to believe?

Because when they ask what to do, what must we do to work the works of God, Jesus tells them what to do. The very fact that he gave them an answer, I mean, if he were, again, I don't want to be just too confrontational, but I do want to be a little bit here, if he were a Calvinist, he would say don't do anything.

No. Have you ever heard a Calvinist preach that way?

No, but I've never heard a Calvinist say that, but in teaching what I believe, I've heard Calvinists say the fact that you teach you must do something.

Means that you're adding to the greatness of God. Not at all. Every single one of them. Have you ever read Charles Spurgeon? No, I haven't. Charles Spurgeon led thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of people to Christ, and he never preached like that.

You've never heard me preach like that. You've never heard R .C. Sproul preach like that. You've never heard any Calvinist preach like that. We call men to belief and repentance in Jesus Christ not as a suggestion, but as a commandment.

Verse 28 says, Therefore they said to him, What shall we do so that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent. So they said to him, What then do you do for a sign so that we may see and believe you?

What work do you perform? So they want to know, what do you mean by belief? Give us a foundation of belief.

They're not asking that. They're asking, give us a reason to believe. In other words, that you believe in me, and then of course they've already neglected the feeding of the 5 ,000. They've already neglected all the other great miracles, so this is just a hard-hearted question.

Don't you think Jesus knew that when he said that to them? Sorry? Jesus knew what their heart condition was when he said that to them, didn't he?

Yes, but look how he appeals to them here, and look how he tries to move them toward faith. The whole thing here is an appeal to them to come to him through the Father, to come to him on the basis of his works and what God has done.

He offers them eternal life in here, and he tells them about the security they'll have if they come to him and they eat of him later on down.

He tells of the security of those who believe in him that they have. Where does he say that somehow this security is up to them rather than up to God the Father?

My point is that he's appealing to them. That's another issue. Again, he's appealing to them in these verses, James, to come to him, and he's giving them reason to come. He's reasoning with them.

Where does it say that? Because Jesus then said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread of heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world.

That's a statement of fact, isn't it? That is, but facts are meant to cause people to be moved by them, to accept, to listen to this fact. Here's a fact here. What are you going to do with this fact? Again, he goes on down.

He says, I've said to you in verse 36, you have seen me and yet do not believe. He's appealing back to the miracles that he's done. Actually, he's making a statement.

I disagree with this idea that this is just always this appeal. These men are going to turn around and walk away, and Jesus is not going to stop them. No, he never does.

But yet he keeps appealing to them to come, and they turn away because of their choice. Do you remember?

I know that you keep saying that. I'm sorry. It's like we're reading two completely different passages. It's very clear to me from the text that Jesus knows that what he's saying is going to be offensive to these unbelievers.

And yet he not only says it, but he expands on it. And then verse 65 tells us, he was repeatedly saying to them, you cannot come to me unless the Father has enabled you. And because of this, they no longer followed after him.

There is no, I see nothing here of the idea of Jesus standing outside the knobless door, meekly knocking. I don't see that.

I'm not saying that either. Don't misunderstand that. I think what he teaches here is very plain and is offensive to many, but yet even though in its offensiveness, he makes this appeal. He says to them, he says, don't grumble among yourselves.

I mean, why does he say that? If it's not, he wants them to stop that because that grumbling will stop them from coming to a point of faith and coming to him on the basis of what he's been saying.

Well, what did he say when he says, do not grumble among yourselves? No one.

He said, I'm the bread that came down out of heaven. In other words, he identifies himself as this bread that he earlier talked about that a man must work for.

Right, which he recognizes. They are then going to say, is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, I have come down? He knew that they would find it scandalous that he identifies himself as the bread that comes down out of heaven.

And then he says, Jesus answered, said in verse 43, do not grumble among yourselves. And what's the next words out of the Lord's mouth? No one has the ability. And is that not the most offensive thing that God says to us, is that it is not of your ability, it is of mine?

I mean, here are people, you people, you think you know the prophets, you think you've been taught by God, but everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. And they're not coming to him.

He's explaining their unbelief.

Then he goes on in the next verse here, and then he tells them how they would learn from the Father by listening to him. He says, no one has seen the Father except the one who is from God. He has seen the Father.

So he's appealing to himself as this revelation from God. In other words, men don't learn from God in a supernatural way. They learn from God through Jesus Christ.