Gay marriage and then Calvinism

from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And good 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 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 it's easy to understand.

And his activities are the theological equivalent of the editorial cartoon in the newspaper.

They make a singular point. Today's makes the singular point that I think we all understood when we listened to.

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 which 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,

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, a 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. Okay, good. That's good.

See, that is one of the advantages of only two people working in a 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? It 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,

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, they are gossips, slanders, haters of God, which could be translated hated by God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful, and here's the key passage, and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

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.

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 4 to 3, 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 2, 3, 400 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 the 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 that 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.

And 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.

One of the reasons that he lives 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.

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 ask you to make a comment about this homosexual thing. 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.

I'm surprised she took the view, but it is interesting that she is homosexual or lesbian and that she took that view.

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. You see, and that's very, very common. They do not see this as...

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 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 Washington and Seattle, a place like 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, 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, that takes 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, 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.

That's too old -fashioned. That's too old -fashioned. I know you're on this topic here, but maybe

I should call back another time. I would like to talk to you some time 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? 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. 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,

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written,

The prophets and they shall all be taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me.

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 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. In as much as that a person...

See, I don't agree with what you said about John 6. I'll just be up front. Not that I want to...

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...

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 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 who 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, unless you...

Because earlier on, you actually made an excellent point earlier on in the book where he talks about he who comes to me and he talks about it being a present tense or kind of an active tense of coming and keeps 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.

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 said, 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 statements? Since coming and believing are synonymous in John 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 pre -existing 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, if he were, again, I don't want to be too confrontational, but I do want to be a little bit here, if he were a

Calvinist, he would say don't do anything. 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 grace of God.

Not at all. So I assume that they don't teach you how to do anything. 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 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? Well, 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 is it said? 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?

It is, but facts are meant to cause people to be moved by him, to listen to this fact.

Here's a fact here. What are you going to do with this fact? And again, he goes on down. He says, I've said to you in verse 36,

You have seen me and yet do not believe. And then 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.

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? 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? 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 and 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. Exactly. 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, he then goes on to say,

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 are not coming to him. He is 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. Which is him. So he is 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. How is that an appeal to unbelievers outside of the supernatural enablement of God?

In other words, how is this an appeal to someone who is not drawn by the father? Or do you believe that everyone is drawn by the father?

Well, I don't believe everybody is drawn. Because if everybody were drawn, they would be saved. But I do believe that God does appeal to all.

I believe some resist. What's the difference between appealing and drawing?

Well, it's the same. Okay, I'll have to go to what Stephen said, for example, in his preaching to the

Jews. In Acts chapter, I think it's 7. When he, but just before he is stoned to death.

He says, You're like your fathers. You have resisted the spirit. In other words, the prophets had appealed to them to turn back to God.

Jeremiah, Isaiah, you know, had appealed to the people. And yet they stoned the prophets.

Not just necessarily Isaiah, but Jeremiah especially. They abused him and most of the other prophets they abused.

But they resisted their teaching. But yet God was still trying to draw them. Wait a minute.

The passage in Acts 7 about resisting the Holy Spirit is talking about continuation in sin.

Despite the judgment of God and conviction of the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with the issue of irresistible grace and salvation.

But the point is. Who say you, James? But where is the term draw in Acts 7? Can you show me?

No, it's not there. Oh, okay. But we're talking about. You were talking about how can a man resist.

And I was just telling the man have resisted in the past. Resisted what? Drawing or?

They've resisted God's drawing. They've resisted God's appeal. Okay. So let's back up a second here. Because this is where I believe you're engaging in eisegesis.

You're reading your tradition in the text. Rather than reading the text and deriving your tradition. Because you seemed to agree with me before.

At one point. That verse 44 does say. That all. That the one who is drawn.

Is the one who's raised up. Now is raised up equal to salvation? Okay. Raised up is equal to.

Yeah. Ultimate salvation. That's correct. Okay. So. All those who are drawn by the father.

Receive salvation. Isn't that what verse 44 says? Let me see here.

Okay. No one comes to me unless the father who sent me. Draws him and I'll raise him up. If that him is the same him.

Then drawing results in salvation. So that seemingly was why you made a distinction. Between appealing and drawing.

And when I asked you. Where do you see this drawing? How do you make the distinction? You went to Acts 7.

The thing is. But the term draws not used there. No. But here. And back in 44 of chapter 6.

Of John. He just stating the fact. That anybody who comes to Christ. Has been drawn to Christ by the father.

That's all he's saying. He's not saying even here. That you know. You know. I mean. You're saying here.

That the only ones. That everybody whom the father draws. Will come. Yes. Yes I am.

Because I started at verse 37. All the father gives me. Will come.

Those who come. Receive eternal life. Who are the ones who are raised up. In the last day. All that is stating

James. Is that. Is that he's saying. All the father gives me. Will come to me. In other words. He's not saying. Again.

You're. I said while ago. We're saying the same thing. But we're saying it. Having different meanings here. All that the father gives me.

Will come to me. That's true. But you're. But you're not. But I read that. And I'm just saying that. That those who come to Christ.

Are. Have been drawn. First of all. By the father. Well you just use the term drawn. And I didn't. But I think you're right.

That those are parallel concepts. And that that's consistent. However. The giving of the father.

Determines coming to Christ. Giving of the father. Determines the coming to Christ. That's true.

That's first. So. Does the father give. Based upon some foreseen faith. Or something. Well let me back off.

Because. The way you worded that. You said the giving of the father. In other words. The father. So in other words. You're saying.

That the father. First of all gives. And then everybody comes afterwards. As a result of being. The only reason.

That I have come to Christ. Is because the father. In his sovereign mercy. Gave me.

To Christ. Yeah. Okay. Well does that verse say that? Yes. No. Sure it does.

Well if the giving. Precedes the action of coming. Then that means.

That God's action. Preceded mine. That's why I do what I do. And that's why the word. All is there.

All that the father gives. Will come to me. Do you believe. That you can come to Christ. Without being given. By the father to the son. I believe that the father.

Gives us to the son. Through his message. In other words. We believe in him. Through the teaching. Of the gospel.

Is the. Is the. Number of those given. By the father to the son.

This. A definite number. Or is it just up to us. I don't believe in. I don't. I don't accept the view.

That it's a given number. Like a. Like you would believe. So. All the father gives me. Doesn't mean anything.

It does. It does mean something. It means. It means. That you know. That. That the father gives us. But how does.

But by what means. Does he give us to him. I mean. Does he choose us beforehand. And say well here are mine. These are already saved.

So I'm going to give them to the son. Not that they're already saved. These are called the elect. According to the apostle

Paul. Are the elect. In a state of. Condemnation. Or are they in a state of righteousness.

Until. According to Ephesians chapter 2. We are all children of wrath. Until. God raises us to spiritual life.

That's called regeneration. Yes. And. So. So the elect. But those who are elected. Those who are.

You know. The ones you consider to be elected. Before the foundation of the earth. Sorry. Before the foundation of the earth.

Is what Ephesians 1 says. Yes. And I understand. I also believe in election. Not in the same sense as you would. You know.

Well. We have to let the scripture define those terms. Of course. The scripture has to be the determining factor in this.

You know. Getting back to this John 6. I mean. I know. It's not in John 6. But in the very next chapter.

Jesus gives us. You know. Kind of. The teaching of John is continuing. And you know. But in chapter 7.

He points out about. About you know. Jesus himself saying. If anyone is willing to do his will.

He would know about it. Yes. Whether I speak for myself. No question. That comes back. Back here.

You know. There was no willingness on the other. There has to be a willingness to do his will. And that won't happen.

Unless you've been given by the father to the son. In your raised spiritual life. But notice. I'd like to talk. Maybe some other time.

I can email you. We can talk about this. Well. Actually. You get a whole lot more done in voice.

Than you do in email. I'm so far behind on books right now. I'm just saying. That I could. Okay. Well. I'll call you again sometime.

I'm going to give some thought to it. Okay. Thanks a lot. Bye bye. Bye bye. Well. That was a great call.

877 -753 -3341. Let's go to our. Let's go to our first caller.

Steve. Up in Toronto. Hi Steve. Hello Dr. White. How are you doing? Doing well.

Oh. I sort of got sidetracked on that call. Oh. Well. Hey. That's all right. I got sidetracked basically.

On the subject you brought up. Calling from Canada. We're really well aware of that. What is happening in Massachusetts.

We seem to be. Just sort of. Trying to out race. The more liberal states.

Down where you guys are. How we're going to. Embrace. Homosexual marriages.

Yeah. Well. I'm afraid the infection is coming down from the north. I hate to. Well. I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

Actually. The. One of the members of parliament. Who is. Has pushed.

And endorsed this. Was also involved in. This. Euthanasia.

Movement. That they're trying to start here as well. He. Was present with a. A woman who had.

Lou Gehrig's disease. And was involved in her. And. Self -assisted suicide.

So it seems that they're all. Mixed in together. With that. Well. It is a complex of things.

And once you abandon. Then. God's view of life. And all sorts of things.

It all falls apart at the same time. It's. Related to one another. Actually. The reason I phoned was. And. It sort of regards.

In regards to what has been. Discussed. Is. God. And.

Or I'm sorry. The. Salvantry of God. And. Prayer. And. How do we do. How do we. Pray for.

Our leaders. And. Knowing that. God. Has sort of. Predetermined all things. Anyways. Well.

I really think that the reason. That we. Are exhorted to pray for. Our leaders. Focus is a lot.

Upon ourselves. It's not like. We are. Seeking to convince God. To be better than he is. Though many people.

Seem to have that idea. We. We pray. That. That they will be brought to. A knowledge of the truth. We pray that they will.

Even if. In opposition. To. God's truth. That they will be restrained.

From. Rebelling. Against. God's truth. Restrained. In their promotion. Of. Godlessness.

But first and foremost. That they would be drawn. To. The father. They would have gone to the son. By the father. They would be.

Given a knowledge of his truth. That God would show himself. Powerful. In converting them to himself. And.

Then when we're praying. For them. Then we're going to have the proper attitude. In which to evaluate. What they're doing.

It keeps us. From. Being. Overly shrill. In our criticisms. In recognizing.

That these are individuals. Who are in need of salvation. And. When we're.

We're praying for them. Then. We're not likely to. Be engaging in activities. That would. Bring disrepute to the cross.

In essence. And so. We. We pray that. God will also make us. Faithful. In the midst of a.

Faithless generation. And. That he will protect us. Within that context.

Those would be some of the. Elements of. The prayer. That we would. Offer for. The leaders. That we have.

Especially when we know. They're godless leaders. And they're open. In that. Remember. Paul was. Exhorting people.

To pray for leaders. Who were. Not Christians. In any way. Shape or form. They were pagans. They were opposed to. Christianity. They're involved.

In gross idolatry. And so. It wasn't that Paul was. Engaged in pie in the sky. Stuff here.

He. He well knew. Exactly what. What that was. And what those prayers were involved. Well.

Here. We seem to be. Engaged. In almost being. Apparently. Anti -Christian.

Many of our. Political leaders. And. From all parties. It's not just. The socialist party.

We have. Or the liberal party. Or even the conservative party. I mean. They. The only thing they differ. Differ on.

Is their. Possibly their economic policies. Rather than. But they all seem to be. Just as.

Embracing. Some type of. Liberal social agenda. That. Would embrace. Homosexuality.

Or. Or whatever. Right. So. As. There's no question. That. Men. Gather together.

In their. In their sin. And enjoy. Each other's company. And. They may disagree on. Financial things.

But. That's. That's. Really irrelevant. To the fact. That. Unregenerate men.

As a whole. Wish to. Overthrow. God's. Rulership. Over them. And mock. Those who. Submit.

Themselves. And do so. Willingly. And. We see that. Within. Within. Our society. And. Within.

Your society. And sadly. As I said. We. We seem to be. Intent. Upon. Following. After the lead.

From. From. Your society. Rather than. Giving. Leadership. And going. The right direction. And the only. The only.

Answer. Of course. Is. If. If. God. Changes. The hearts. And minds. Of men. And women. In this.

In this nation. Well. In the past. Fifty years. I mean. Fifty years ago. Toronto. Was known. As a city of churches.

And. Restaurants. Were closed on Sunday. You couldn't. You couldn't get anything. On Sunday. In Toronto.

And. The churches. Were filled. And. Today. It's. Less than. Six percent people.

Of the people. Would be. Go. Would go to churches. And out of those. I don't know. How many would be evangelicals.

Not very many. It's just. Just a very sad. Sad situation. Yeah. I understand. Well. We got one more call.

To try to sneak in. Thank you very much. Thank you. For your patience today. All right. God bless. Bye bye. All right.

Let's go to. Jeff. In South Jersey. Hi Jeff. Hey. Dr. White. How's it going?

It's great talking to you again. Good. Talk to you. You know what I should have told our. First caller though. What? Your first or second caller?

My first caller. I just tried to tell you. But unfortunately. My computer's not up. But I should have just said to him.

Yep. Still not working. I guess. I was going to say. Oh man's asleep. I was going to. I just played the sound. Read my book. But. It's ruined.

Because I played it. And no one. No one was listening. Read my book. There. There we go. You know. But after the third time. I don't know.

Howard Dean. Yeah. You're just in business. You mean.

The. That. Yeah. Read my book.

But I tell you. Talk about. Talk about completely destroying. Your political career.

And with one scream. What a thought. Anyways. What can we do for you today? It just so happens.

I did my undergraduate. Philosophy honors thesis. In George Prudence.

Oh really? Yes I did. And I noticed a couple things. The term Prudence. Just doesn't seem to be really applicable much anymore.

Well. Yeah. That's kind of cute. I think I noticed a lot of things. In regards to.

Sol Scriptura. And problems on the Protestant side. And problems on the Catholic side. That's also.

You know. That debate. A lot like the constitutional debate. Doesn't it though. I'm glad you caught that.

I was actually making double application. Wondering who would hear that. But. I am. One of the things

I noticed. In my studies for my thesis. And I actually made the main part of my thesis. Is.

And this involves. In the Constitution. There's natural rights. And human rights.

And I think. The main. One of the main problems. Besides. Being able to read the text correctly.

Is. One of the main problems. Is that. Inherent into the Constitution. Is the concept of natural rights. And human rights.

And. That was okay. In the 1700s. When. There was a consistent. Agreement.

About what those were. Right. But. Nowadays. You. It's pretty much.

Just. Wish projection. Yes. And. But. It's in the Constitution.

So you have to take it seriously. Right. So you have. No. Objective. Basis. And no.

Epistemological. There you go. Consistency. On. Determining that.

Within the. Within. You know. Juris. Just. Basically. Whatever they think is right.

And I think. In theology. I've. I'm kind of curious.

What you would say. Just say. What is a consistent basis. For saying. What is a natural right.

Or. Or. If we should just. Abandon natural rights. Altogether. And go to something consistent.

Like. Revealed. Revelation. Well. I think there's. Of course. One of the differences.

Here. Between. Looking at constitutional law. And looking at the scriptures. Is. The Constitution is.

Not an inspired document. Despite what the Book of Mormon says. And. As. As a result.

You do have. That kind of. Situation. Where you have. References to things.

That at the time. Seemed to be something. That would not be changing. Or did not foresee.

The possibility of change. That leads. To the problem. I don't think.

That's necessarily the case. With the scriptures. I mean. You do have cultural. Elements. The scriptures. But they are discernible.

And. And the underlying. Concepts. Are. You can. You can recognize them.

So on. So forth. So. I don't know. That there's a direct. Parallel there. As far as.

Certainly. There will be those. Who will engage. In the exact. Same type. Of. Of. Activity.

As far as. Going to the scriptures. And. Focusing. Upon. What might actually be.

Peripheral. Passages. Or peripheral. Statements. And building. Entire. Concepts.

Out of. Those particular. Statements. And. As a result. Coming up.

With an imbalanced. Theology. You know. Building. Their own. Perspective. Based upon. Their current worldview.

And saying. We'll see. It's biblical. Because. The Bible said. X. Y. Or. Z. And. That really. Wasn't. An emphasis.

Of the author. It wasn't. A part. Of the argument. It's. Tangential. At best. And. That happens.

A lot. I mean. Certain. Certain. Christian. Television. Networks. Wouldn't exist.

If you couldn't do that. I guess. Yeah. And. What I'm. Basically.

Wanting to come. Across. And say. You know. Someone who's studied. This kind of stuff. Is that. It's not just.

Judges. Going haywire. But it's. I think there is. A fundamental flaw. In. The epistemology.

For. Natural rights. At least. On a secular basis. And. That. You know.

When. You're. Left. To just say. You know. Go think. What's right. For yourself. And then.

That's. Something you have. Legally. By the constitution. Then you're going to get. Stuff like this. Yeah. But.

You know. In scripture. When we talk about. Man's natural. Knowledge. Or a natural.

Theology. The scripture defines. For us. Explicitly. What's. The image of God.

And the knowledge of God. Actually is. I mean. For example. I was talking about Romans one. And it gives us a listing of these things.

And it gives us. The nature of. For example. Man's knowledge of God. What. What elements of God's.

Knowledge does the natural man. Possess. Does he understand the doctrine. The Trinity. Well I don't think. That's what Romans one says.

But he knows. That God is his maker. He knows he should be thankful to God. God's eternal attributes. And divine nature.

Have been clearly made known. That's the limitation. Of what is found. In the natural law. In the creation of man.

The writing of the law. Upon his heart. So at least at that point. Unlike the constitution. You have spelled out for you.

What it is. That man. Outside of. Supernatural revelation. In the sense of scripture.

You know. We're talking general revelation. Versus special revelation. What is involved in that. So. That's one of the things.

That I would say. Scriptural revelation. The constitution really can't. Do. And doesn't do.

And hence leads to that kind of. That level of. Confusion. So I agree with that.

So basically. If we weren't following. Constitution. We work great. Well. If we weren't following.

We would have written the constitution. Better. A. And then. We wouldn't need it in the first place. And we wouldn't need it in the first place. That's exactly right.

Well thanks for your patience today. Jeff. No problem. All right. God bless. Thanks for calling. Well great calls today.

You may have noticed. We just went. Right on through the. The alleged. Break. There. Because I thought that call.

Was important enough to do so. Like that kind of. Call. Like the interchange. We had there. Drives people to the text.

Hope you'll take a look at that. That seems to be an issue. That comes up over. And over. And over again. If I'd have time.

There are a number of books. I'd like to address. And their attempts to deal. With John six. It is a passage.

That is very very important. But thanks for listening. To vine line today. We're back again. Lord willing. Next week.

On Tuesday evening. Five o 'clock. To talk about. The things are important. From the view. Of the word of God.

Thanks for listening. God bless. We need.

If you'd like. To contact us. Call us. At six oh two. Nine seven three. Zero three one eight. Or write us.

At P .O. Box three seven. One zero six. Phoenix Arizona. Eight five zero six nine. You can also find us.

On the world wide web. At AOMIN .org. That's AOMIN .org. Where you'll find.

A complete listing. Of James White's books. Tapes. Podcasts. Debates. And tracks. Join us again. Next Tuesday evening. At five