More on the Atonement and Calls on Today’s Dividing Line

And welcome to The Dividing Line on a Thursday. I feel like I'm talking like this,

I feel really stuffed up today. I don't know if I sound that way, but it seems that way to me anyways.

It's a pretty nice day here in Phoenix, it's all cloudy and stuff, and we've got rain coming in for tomorrow.

They have the big Phoenix Open today, starts today. And you know the sad thing?

It is now called the Waste Management Phoenix Open. Has there ever been a worse sponsor name than the

Waste Management Phoenix Open? Actually, I think it's rather fitting given the attitude that some golfers have towards how they do things over there, because it is basically, let's go get wasted and play golf.

Oh. Okay, so how to manage your being wasted while playing golf? Yeah, something like that.

It's quite a rowdy bunch for golf. I heard that this morning.

I don't know anything about that. I have no idea. I don't watch golf, do not follow golf.

All I heard was Tiger Woods is playing for the first time since 2001. Yeah, that's the reason why Tiger Woods has never wanted to play here, and that's because he's a serious golfer and doesn't consider this a serious event.

Really? Well, hasn't. He did play here once. He played here once, and somebody thought it would be really funny while he's on the putting green to roll an orange across the putting green while he's trying to concentrate and putt.

Really? Yeah. Oh. And yeah, for whatever reason, they thought that was funny. I don't get it, but yeah.

All right. Well, it's going to be raining tomorrow anyways, so pretty much all day, and it happens.

It happens. It happens, but anyway, welcome to the dividing line.

I don't know why I started there, but help me to clear my nose or something. I don't know. We're going to take some phone calls today, 877 -753 -3341.

Rich is all shocked in the other room. Do you remember how to do that? There's a phone system over there.

There's a button here somewhere. I'm sure I've got to push it. Press buttons. That's how it works. Yeah. Good night.

Thanks for the warning. You didn't ask. Little heads up there. You didn't ask. You didn't ask.

Did you know we used to take Skype calls? You know, we used to do that. We could probably still do that, but you know me.

I'm out of round toots these days, and when I can find Mark, we'll do it. Yeah, you are out of round toots, yes. I had to keep bugging him to put some stuff up on the

MRL. There are some items on the MRL. Well, I'm afraid I had to put my favorite travel bag back on the

MRL. Someone about a year and a half ago bought me the best travel bag on the planet.

I mean, it's just, it's the right size. It's a spinner. I, you know,

I don't have people to travel with me. So especially when I travel overseas, you know, you've got two weeks worth of stuff.

If it's during the winter, it's winter stuff, takes a lot of room. And so, you know, I'm dragging all this stuff.

And this one was just perfect. You could put another bag on top of it. It rolled well. Well, the problem with spinners is those wheels are exposed.

And if you ever watch baggage stuff, you watch those things coming down, wham, wham, and you know, eventually one of the wheels, and the wheel's been broken for about four trips.

But I literally had tape on it, tape the thing on there, and I'd have to turn it one direction.

But it was one of those, you could open it up. It wasn't one of those stupid things that zips around the outside. Those are just, who designed that?

Hit them, slap them. Doesn't work. You can open it up and snap it to the thing and it becomes a wardrobe and the stuff hangs there.

And it was perfect. Took it to South Africa and Kiev and all the rest of it.

Anyway. So I've had to put another one of those in there because I took it to be repaired and they said

Samsonite won't repair this and they'll replace it. Okay. All right. So the thing arrives.

It's a two wheel, not a spinner, and it's about two thirds the size. Won't do me any good. So anyways, then there's some other things we've, we've thrown up there.

So those are on the ministry resource list. Don't forget your cough buttons up there too.

That's the support. Yeah, yeah. A cough button would actually allow me to cough. Cause see, here's, here's the cough button. I hit the cough button and all it does is not really much at all because it's just turning off one microphone and you can still, yeah, we just,

I needed a stereo cough button and need a stereo. Finally, finally found one. Cool. Yeah. Um, I don't,

I don't really feel like coughing much. It's it's good. So 877 -753 -3341.

Um, I suppose you can ask a question on Twitter, um, can reform

Baptist hold to a Presbyterian style of church government and still be Baptist? Huh?

Huh? Well, I don't know if that would impact being a Baptist. It would impact being a reformed

Baptist. I would think, um, I'm not sure what you'd mean by a

Presbyterian style of church government. I would assume it would be, you can't be a reformed Baptist if you don't hold to a

Baptist view of baptism. Um, but there, there is a form of church governance in, uh, in the 1689.

Uh, which would not include the positive establishment of a

Presbyterian form of church government. So I guess when the question be, can you be a reformed

Baptist and have a Presbyterian style? Maybe he just ran out his letters.

I don't know. That's one of the problems with Twitter. Um, but you know, the answer to this is simple.

Just read my article in the five views of a church government clarifies everything.

That made me, that made me cough. Um, actually there is a good debate between myself and the late

Robert Raymond on that very subject in the five views of church government book, which is available at AOMN .org.

That's AOMN .org what store .AOMN .org. There is a link there that will get you where you're going.

So anyway, uh, I want to start off, uh, with a little bit more on, um,

David Allen and his position on atonement. And um, uh, once again, reiterate, and while we're lining up the phone calls, if you want to call in, probably do about 20 minutes here, maybe more.

We'll see. And then we'll start taking, um, your phone calls and chatting with you haven't done open phones in a while.

I realized it probably not a wise day to do so because it's early in the day and it's Thursday and Thursday is normally the afternoon and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But we'll see eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one on Twitter.

You said in a previous jail, you were hoping to come to Glasgow soon. Any progress on that? No, that fell through.

Um, we, we wanted to, uh, to do a debate there, but we can't find any Muslims who want to debate, but I really want to get back up to Glasgow just mainly to see, uh, the folks there in Annie's land.

Um, so I was actually thinking about contacting brother Handy side and, and seeing if, um, you know, the, the trip to Zurich in September is not all that long, relatively speaking.

So building in a stop either on the way out of the way back in the UK is pretty easy because you're normally flying into the

UK one way or the other. And um, so I, if, if we could just,

I was actually thinking about contacting, um, some of my friends in London, some of my

Islamic friends in London, and maybe, maybe the only way to do it is to get some of them to go up to Glasgow.

I mean, it's not all that expensive. I would think to get from the UK to Glasgow, um,

I mean, even take the train if you're just absolutely had to. Um, so we'll see.

I'd like to get back up to Annie's land and see, uh, Jim and Chrissy Handy side and, uh, stuff like that.

Um, Jim sent me his, uh, autobiography and I started listening to it yesterday. That's quite fascinating.

And uh, so I'd like to like to do that. We'll see if that will, if that will work out. I mentioned on the last program that, uh, we are going to Texas in May and, um,

I mentioned at the time that the fact that it would, it would strike me that there would be a, um, a tremendous benefit to a, um, a dialogue, a debate, a biblically based, um, scholarly timed moderated, uh, debate, uh, between myself and David Allen on the subject of the atonement.

And I mentioned, and I, sorry, forgot again. Um, the, the fact is that the

Dr. Allen has written a commentary, uh, on the subject on the book of Hebrews.

And so one of the things I think, you know, when people take a look, for example, at the big huge book on a particular redemption limited atonement came out last year, uh, people get lost in all of the historical discussions of who at the council of Dort, uh, believe that the atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.

And what about Amaraldianism and all this kind of stuff? And, you know, as a result,

I think some people put that subject off because it's like, well,

I could never really dig through all of that. There's too much stuff there. I believe in particular redemption, not because of the arguments of, uh,

John Owen or, um, someone like that, or because I don't find, uh, the reasoning of, uh, uh, of Amaral or someone to be all that exciting.

It's, it's a matter of biblical consistency. It's exegesis. And I was very strongly reconfirmed in my views on that subject by preaching through the book of Hebrews.

It just seems to me that a potential atonement, which is what, um, you know, if you're saying that Christ's death made us save a bull, then that's what we're talking about.

We're talking about a, a potential atonement. If, um, if that's what we have, um, that's to me seems to really undercut the apologetic argument of the book of Hebrews.

It just seems the book of Hebrews presents such a strong, compelling argument for the perfection and power of the work of Christ and of Christ's saviorhood, the perfection of Christ's savior, that I just, what

I, what I really liked, I think a lot of people would if, if Dr. Allen and I, uh, would get together and we would deal with that, uh, issue in a scholarly fashion.

Now, I would simply like to say, if someone could speak with Dr.

Allen, uh, please take the time to look at some of the debates that we have done with fellow

Christians. Um, look at the debate we did with Bill Shishko on Cato baptism.

We're doing another debate. In fact, the location was confirmed, but I, I, did you, have we put up a banner ad or I think, all right, we're gonna be putting up a banner ad.

Um, it's, it's not at RTS. It's at a, uh, church in Orlando.

Okay. Church in Orlando. Uh, we have engaged in meaningful debates with Muslims and Roman Catholics and Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses and atheists and so on and so forth for years.

And especially on a subject like this, we are dealing with a topic that has such an impact upon our understanding of the gospel, proclamation of the gospel, that it just seems there would be such great benefit to a large number, a large number of people.

And so, I, I just, I realize that there are probably political forces involved here that will absolutely keep it from happening.

I, I, I realize that's the case. Okay, I'm, I'm, the confirmation that we got this morning, uh, is that the debate will be held

Monday night, March 23rd. This is the potato baptism debate. Uh, 7 p .m. at Orlando Grace Church, which is 872

Maitland, M -A -I -T -L -A -N -D Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida.

I gather that's close to, because it's Orlando, OrlandoGrace .org is their website.

So, it's got to be a suburb of Orlando. So, that's, um, we're now working out all the details behind doing that, getting a banner ad, hoping to get this videoed, uh, and so that this can get put up on YouTube, the whole works.

You know the one thing that's going to be missing that will, that will always keep it from being able to rise to the level of the

Shishko debate? Marcy Sproul? No, no, Chris Arntzen. You don't remember the introduction to that debate with Bill Shishko?

Um. When he wanders back to the, uh, to the baptistry and says, I wonder what they do back here?

I, I may be speaking a little bit out of school here. Yeah. But it's my understanding that it is the plan to fly

Chris Arntzen in to introduce these debates. I don't know if, if Greg Strawbridge can handle that.

Because, uh, Bill Shishko, it takes a while to adjust to Chris, okay?

You know what I mean? Um, but when you first encounter Chris, you're just sort of wondering, uh, who left the door open?

Yeah. You know, who's, who let someone go out wandering? And, and I've seen some people that are just sort of like, what's going on?

Who is this man? Why is he behind a microphone? Where do these people keep the loony bin and how did this man get out? How did he get out of there?

And so Bill Shishko was well aware of what to expect. Yes. And of course the moderator was even more well aware of what to expect.

But someone needs to warn, uh, Greg Strawbridge because it might throw him off. It, it, they might accuse me of using

Chris as my secret weapon. Yes. The distract, the great, the grand distraction. The great distractor.

Yeah. Um, and, uh, so yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, we, we just need to make sure anybody in the audience who knows

Greg Strawbridge, please make sure he watches the introduction to the Shishko debate. Yes. So he has a warning.

If Chris shows up, this is likely to happen. Not the same thing, but something.

Very spontaneous. Spontaneously similar. Yes. That's, that's true. Anyway, uh, yeah, that's, that's great.

All right. Uh, we, we press on here, uh, even though I am extremely distracted today, obviously, uh, by the fact that I am having to spend vast majority of my mental energy trying to breathe

Uh, funny. Um, no, it's not funny. Uh, not humorous at all. Actually. Um, what

I was saying, uh, let me finish up what I was saying. Well, I guess I did finish up what I was saying. And that is, um, especially on this subject,

I really, really believe that a dialogue context would greatly clarify the issues.

If we don't get to have debate and dialogue on this, and I'm talking about between Dr. Allen's perspective and my own,

I'm not, you know, I know there's all sorts of other views out there that do not represent a mainstream position, but especially amongst

Baptist as a whole and amongst people who believe in substitutionary atonement.

Um, this is a really important issue. I thought, uh, Michael and I's discussion of it was too short, but was helpful in Spain.

Uh, I would strongly recommend that the Dr. Allen take a look at that. If he is concerned about, uh, the way in which this can be handled, because it was obviously done in a very, uh, collegial fashion.

Um, but for most people being able to see, see, and hear both sides being presented and then have that interaction.

That's what allows, that's what allows a conclusion to be drawn. Otherwise you're listening to their presentation.

Oh, that sounds good. Then you listen to the other. Oh, that sounds good. If there's never any interaction, um, you never accomplish anything.

You never get anywhere. And that's what makes a debate so good. Uh, it, it really, really does.

I'll just play one section here and then we will, um, we will get to our phone calls. One of the things that Dr.

Allen insists is that there has been a universal position of the church on this subject.

Let's, um, oops, blow it back down to where it's supposed to be.

And, uh, let's listen to this, uh, just about one minute segment here, maybe a little bit longer.

The historic position of Christian theology, the historic position of the church up until the 17th century, the end, toward the end of the 17th century, the, uh, or toward the end, sorry, toward the end of the 16th century.

The historic position of the church was universally that Christ died for the sins of all people.

The only exception to that was a ninth century monk by the name of Gottschalk.

Now, he's certainly correct. The Gottschalk, uh, it was consistent with Augustinianism, but I'm sorry.

Um, to, to say that, that his position is the universal position.

Um, and so as to create a contrast of these are the new kids on the block.

No one ever believed this prior to this. Uh, what about the ransom to Satan theory?

Uh, what about Abelard and Anselm? Are you seriously suggesting that substitutionary atonement theory was the universal theory of the primitive church?

Now, now maybe he's just limiting himself to this particular subject, but it still would not be accurate no matter how you slice it.

That is an incredibly surface level statement that the universal view was that Christ died for every single human being.

I'm still wondering, I would still like to know, does, and we had a brief discussion about this in, um, uh, the, the chat channel, uh, after the last program.

But, um, does, does Dr. Allen believe that Christ's death was substitutionary for people before the time of Christ being a, my assumption is he's a dispensationalist.

And if he is, maybe he has some way of dealing with that. But, um, there were a lot of different views and the reality is the first full length treatise on the atonement that I'm aware of that is written in the history of the

Christian church is by Athanasius in the fourth century. So how do you even ascertain, for example, what the perspective, um, on the specific question of the intention, extent and application of the atonement is in that order would be for someone like, you know, whoever wrote the epistle to Dionysius or, or things like that.

How do you even know? So how can you make the claim of a universal position in light of the fact that for many, it wasn't a substitutionary penal satisfaction.

You had ransom to Satan theories and things like that. I just don't know how you make that kind of a statement seriously in regards to church history.

It leaves me completely befuddled as to how you can make that argument.

Now, I do not argue that my position is a majority position.

I mean, given how degraded the doctrine of atonement was at the time of the reformation,

I, I don't want a medieval Romanism, uh, as a precursor in my belief, uh, because it had, it had moved so far from any kind of, of biblical foundation, especially because, and I've, I've explained this before, but let me just briefly mention it again.

Once you have origin, once you have allegorical interpretation, once you have the

Old Testament becoming a closed book, the book of Hebrews, which is in my understanding, the fullest discussion of the intent extent and application of the atonement would likewise become a closed book.

You cannot begin to understand, um, what the book of Hebrews is attempting to communicate.

If the Old Testament is not a book of that, that's greatly familiar to you. So, um, there you go.

I, I, I, I don't want anyone to think that what

I'm saying is no, no, no. Mine was the, uh, was the, uh, universal. There was no universal viewpoint.

There were lots of, and Selman Abelard demonstrated, there were lots of different views as to the nature of the atonement that would impact intention, extent, application, et cetera, et cetera.

Uh, so I think it's, it's important to keep that, uh, that element in mind. Eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one.

Oh, so, uh, hey, I'm in the, uh, the color isn't very crisp on the camera.

I think it's just because I'm not very crisp on the camera. Um, probably, you know,

I'm wearing a gray sweater and a, and a gray shirt and, uh, it's a gray day and I'm talking slowly because I have to be able to breathe between phrases and things like that.

Oh no. Thanks, Sam. We appreciate that. Do a little adjustment there.

Did he, uh, a little tiny little tweak. The lava lamp's lobbying.

You never use that camera anyways. I, we should just turn that back toward you because you don't, you never use it. Well, if it turned back towards me, all you see is the reflection off the window.

I'm sure, I'm sure there'd be a way to change that. I'll, I'll, I'll hold flashlight. Yeah. Thanks.

All right. Yes, I did, Scott, make reference to that. All right, let's, uh, man,

I need to get teleporter working again. Uh, because I, I can no longer control stuff.

This is not, this is not good. All right, let's, uh, start off, uh, I believe with, uh, Andrew and I'm, hello,

Andrew. Hello, Dr. White. Um, once again, thank you for your ministry. It's been very, very helpful and just continue with what you're doing.

Um, coughing, uh, being, having my nose completely stuffed up. Is that what you mean?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I think I will be able to do that. Awesome.

Well, um, the question is, and, um, it's one that I often try to talk to my friends and my family about the doctrines of grace.

And more often than not, the most common question is, is that, does that not make

God the author of sin? Now, the most common thing that I use in a response is, well, we know that the killing of the sinless son of God was done by God.

We know that. Absolutely. There's no question on that. However, they ask, but okay, so that, how does that not make

God the author of sin? Then I have used some arguments, but, and I know you said by secondary means,

I was just wondering if you could expand upon that a little bit. Well, yeah, it's, um, obviously a very important subject and one that I've addressed many times.

And, um, uh, I actually did a series.

Um, I, I think it was about a year and a half or two years ago, uh, in response to some very serious questions that were sent to me by a young man on the subject of the odyssey, uh, specifically the justification of God in light of the existence of evil.

And we have a number of times, uh, gone over, uh,

Genesis 50, Isaiah 10 acts four. Uh, and I'm assuming you've, you've already gone through those in the

Potter's freedom and things like that. Right? Yes. And that clearly shows that God is in control of sin.

I mean, there's, I mean, me personally, and I think many people would agree the killing of the sinless son of God is enough proof in and of itself that God is in complete control of sin.

Right. Except some people would say, well, that's, that's how God accomplished salvation. So that's different.

What you have in Isaiah 10, for example, um, is in the judgment of Israel.

And yet at the same time, the judging of the Assyrians based upon the attitude of their heart. So what the

Assyrians did, God decreed to take place. And in fact, it was a fulfillment of his own, um, promises in giving the covenant where he gave the curses and the blessings.

And when he gave the curses, he said, if you, you break my covenant, these are the things that are going to follow. And the

Assyrians come and do the very things that, uh, God had said would follow upon the breaking of the covenant.

And yet they are then judged in light of the attitude of their heart.

And so you have one action and that action is holy and just and good in God's sight and in God's purpose.

But at the same time, the individual acting is judged on the basis of the intention of their heart.

And so what that illustrates is that in one action, you can have pure motivations on God's part.

His bringing it into fruition is a part of his perfect plan and decree. It's in, it's in perfect harmony with his, um, with his will and his, uh, revelation at the same time, um, have evil intention, the part of mankind, um, and hence the proper judgment of that person based upon their intention, which of course, then you go back to Genesis 50 becomes very personal in the example of Joseph and his brothers and being sold into slavery in Egypt.

They wanted to do worse. They wanted to kill him. God restrained, um, their, uh, desire to kill him.

Uh, and yet what they did, God intended for good and they intended for evil.

And so without, without question, those three texts do establish a biblical pattern that God has the right to judge someone or something that he has sovereignly decreed to take place based upon the intention of their heart, based upon what they wanted to do.

Um, and the God has the right to keep us from sinning as he restrained evil on the part of Joseph's brothers.

Uh, he restrained the King from, from taking, uh, Sarah, uh, and, and so on and so forth.

So God has the right to do all of those things. But the, the real question comes down to what is the mechanism of that?

Well, yeah. And if, and if someone wants, uh, an absolute mechanism for how

God's decree works out in time, I don't know that we could understand such a mechanism if it were given to us because of the a or trans temporality of such an explanation.

We, we, we live, we speak, we think within the context of time.

And as such, ours is a tensed discussion and God's actions are not to be limited to a tensed understanding.

Um, especially when we start talking about the relationship of an eternal decree and it's working out in time.

But, uh, what we have to affirm is that God causes all things to work together for the good of them, love

God, them, or the call according to purpose. And that he is the God, um, who has, who is described in Ephesians 1 11 as, as by his predestination being behind all things.

And so people shrink back because, well, God is not the author of sin.

Well, what is, what, what do you mean by author of sin? If you mean that sin comes forth from the desire and being of God, that God delights in sin or that God, uh, forces someone to sin, uh, against their will or desire.

No, of course, all those things are, are, are not the case at all. But you have to, at the same time, recognize how many times the

Bible says, you know, if calamity comes upon a city, uh, who has brought it, but, but Jehovah.

And in Isaiah, you know, creating darkness and light, evil and good, um, these things are, are all there.

There is a very, very high view given of God's absolute sovereignty.

And so unfortunately people want to prioritize these things, um, in such a way as to functionally eliminate one element out of fear that someone might misuse a certain truth.

Well, you know, I understand that. I've had people say, well, you can't, you can't teach doctrine

X because someone went imbalanced on that. And therefore we don't, we can't teach that.

Well, I've seen people get imbalanced on every element of the doctrine of the Trinity, but I can't stop teaching the entirety of the doctrine of the

Trinity. Um, Paul recognized and warned over and over against, uh, over and over again about people becoming imbalanced on grace.

Shall we continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be. Why is he bringing that up? Because there'll be some people go, oh, saved by grace.

This is great. Let's just go do whatever. So I, I, I understand the motivation, the concern, but our, our highest standard in the creation of Christian theology, in the, in the formulation of our understanding of Christian theology, not the creation of Christian theology.

God did that when you wrote the scriptures, but has to be what honors the entirety of God's revelation, not what is functionally best, um, for a certain situation, less someone run off and, and get imbalanced or something.

I, you can't, you cannot order Christian theology on that basis.

And so when I, when we speak of God's ordaining the ends and the means, then we have to be very, very clear that the end is exhaustive.

The end is that God will be glorified in all of what takes place in creation, that he has ordered all things, uh, unto his own glory and for his own purpose and ends.

And that the means that he uses, um, including secondary means, including the restraining of the wild impulse to sin on the part of man, et cetera, et cetera, also means that there has never been a situation where God has had to force someone to commit evil.

Um, well, from my understanding, I mean, this is kind of how

I formulated it in my mind was that all sin, I mean, we are obligated to always obey the commands of God, but God is not obligated to constantly extend that, what you,

I guess you could call the restraining common grace. I mean, God didn't have to, um, restrain

Pharaoh from, you know, taking Pharaoh. So in the same way, anytime where we sin, um, it is

God pulling back that common grace and because we have a fallen nature, since we have nothing restraining us, we, um, simply fall back into that.

Well, you know, that's a, that's a possible mechanism. I don't, I don't think scripture gives us a specific, um, formula for the mechanism that, that God utilizes.

I think we are given guidelines that we need to make application. God is holy. Well, doesn't it say that God gave them over to the desires of their heart and the desires of their heart are always sinful?

Well, that, that's true, but that also would, would mean that, well, when it says given over,

I think in those particular texts, it's given over to a particular kind of sin, not to all powers of sin.

No one has ever been as evil as they could be. Um, I think that that's what hell is going to be.

I think hell is where all restraint is taken off and the great suffering of hell is an image bearer, uh, destroying himself.

That, that to me is the greatest suffering of, of hell. But anyway, um, for me, the, the primary concern is, um, there are those who will try to say that there are aspects of what takes place in time that God is not, has not, it's not a part of God's decree.

That to me raises all sorts of questions about the origin of God's knowledge, omniscience, um, all, all, all those related areas that, uh, become very, very, very problematic, um, at that point.

But what we have to affirm is that in anything that God has decreed, there is an ultimate purpose that resounds to his glory in the final analysis, whether we know how that works at this time or not.

And the idea that there are, uh, adiaphora, that there are, uh, things that don't matter.

I, I have a real hard time with that because if there are such adiaphora, um, then did

God come to know them only after creation? Did God learn? That's, that's a big issue for me.

Yeah. And, and, and I guess in that sense, it takes more faith to be a Calvinist than it would be to be an

Armenian or some other perspective. Well, you know what? I, I wouldn't put it that way for this reason.

Uh, I think that the problems facing the Armenian are significantly, significantly more challenging, uh, because, uh, fundamentally you, you know, if you just take a simple foreknowledge view where God gains knowledge, how he gains knowledge, why he created, if he knew the future, that's why

I've said over and over again, what's the only consistent Armenian? An open theist. Um, so those who are not open theists have,

I think, absolutely insuperable, um, uh, objections because they have to explain how

God knowing what was going to happen, created the way he did without a specific purpose in the individual events of sin and evil.

And, uh, that's, that's pretty tough to deal with. Very much so. Well, um,

Dr. White, I really appreciate your time. Um, I'm going to be listening to the rest of this. You have a great day and God bless.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Bye, Andrew. Oh, I really need to get teleport working.

I'm going to jump down to Wendy real quick and then we'll come back to Justin. Is that okay? Uh, hi, Wendy. How you doing?

Hi, Dr. White. I'm doing good. How are you? Well, I've been better, but, uh, we're, we're fighting through.

Okay. Just wanted to real quick. Thank you again. I've been listening to you for another year and I've learned a lot and will continue to.

I pray for your health and when you travel and I listened to you last week on wretched with Mr.

Todd for you and I admire how your church, um, comes together quietly before service is a time of meditation.

I don't see much churches doing that anymore. And I really admire that. And it's all, it gives more reverence and respect,

I would say. And, um, I just wanted to say thank you, sir. Yeah.

We mentioned that on the program and, um, I, I've, I've no one, including

Todd Freel has any earthly idea why we end up discussing the things that we do. Um, and, and it was, it was painfully obvious, uh, from the start that he wanted to get to certain topics.

And then just in the way he introduced me at the beginning, it was like, uh, squirrel and off he goes and, uh, we, we'd spend 15 minutes and never get back.

So that's just, um, that's just Todd Freel. He's, um, he's fascinating. And I, I mentioned on Tuesday that I was really hoping to get to attend his

Sunday school class because my daughter is in his Sunday school class. And so I, I preached at the church.

Well, I spoke at the church, uh, Sunday morning. And then my plan was to plot myself down right in the front row and just sit there with a very smug look on my face and see if there'd be any way

I could completely throw Freel off his game as he tried to teach. But as I mentioned, four more missionaries walked in, uh, right as the service started.

And so as soon as service is over, I made a beeline for the missionaries. And so I never got to attend

Freel's class, which I think he was very, very happy about. In fact, I would not put it past him, uh, that he maybe even called the missionaries, you know, called, called the old district.

Hey, could you send some missionaries over to my church? I could use their, their assistance. Maybe that's how it happened. I don't know.

Probably. Yep. Yeah, it does. Again, I just wanted to say thank you, sir.

You've been a blessing to my family. And, um, I, I just want to say thank you, sir.

Okay. Well, I appreciate it, Wendy. Thank you very much. Thanks for your call. Where are you in Florida? Um, I'm in Jacksonville.

I think, um, we, when we had moved last time I called you last year, I was in Pensacola. I moved to Jacksonville.

And I think, uh, my pastor, when I looked at, when I was looking at churches, the first church

I clicked on, when I clicked on his website, after one whole year of listening to you, Dr. White, the first thing

I saw on his website was AOMN ministry. And that, yeah, it was, I didn't even bother.

Well, I'm not, you know, I don't know my Florida, uh, geography all that well, but in, uh,

March, I'm going to be in Pensacola and Orlando. So we're doing, we're doing, uh, one, one or two debates in Pensacola.

Two. You'll be doing a Islam debate, um, I believe at RTS, uh,

Friday night, the 21st. Yeah. And then 23rd, you'll be doing the debate we'd mentioned earlier. That's in Orlando.

In Orlando. Yes. How am I going to get from the one to the other? That's a long ways.

Uh, all I know is the folks there are going to make it happen. And, uh, in between, uh, the following three days, they're going to be running you all over the place.

And then on Wednesday, you're... Yeah, I think you're supposed to be coming to, um, our church if I'm, well, from what

I heard, uh, it's Salvon Grace Family Church, the pastor Dr. Keith Bosky. I hope you're able to come.

I believe I remember seeing that on the list. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. So... Well, something tells me,

I'm going to be doing a lot of driving. Something tells me we're doing a lot of driving. Yeah, they'll be doing, they'll be running you around a bit.

Yes. Do you go, uh, near, um, other places in Georgia? Because next month we're moving to Moody Air Force Base.

My husband is, he's, um, yeah, he moves a lot, like every year. No, I, I, I have to stay within range of Cumming, Georgia.

That's where my, uh, my son -in -law, daughter and granddaughter lives. So it has to be within driving distance of Cumming or I can't go there because then

I don't get to see Clementine. So... I'm being facetious, but, uh, yeah, that's what, that's what, that was our, our focus this last time.

So maybe we'll get to see you, um, on one of the, one of the stops here in, uh, in Florida. Hopefully, hopefully.

It would be a blessing. All right, thanks, Wendy. All right, God bless. Bye -bye. All right. So basically you're saying that, uh, the

Friel show is, is essentially like the first 10 minutes of the Dividing Line, just all the time. Just, but, but much more intense because you and I just sort of chat about stuff, but, but I told

Friel, I said, you are the most intense interviewer I know. No one, no one is, is, uh,

I remember doing a, a program on Mormonism with him on the phone once. Oh, it was on a, it was on a ship.

I was on a cruise and I called in or Skyped in or something.

I forget what it was, but I remember I was in my cabin and got done with that interview and it was just like, it makes you work.

Oh my goodness. You, you can not, he, he wants, and I can watch,

I've gotten used to him. I can. Let's get those answers, answers now. I can watch him and I can see the countdown going on in his head as to how much time

I have left in this answer before he's gonna, he's gonna take off into the direction. It's just, yeah, yeah, it's, it's wild.

All right, let's, uh, let's talk with Justin in Washington. Hi, Justin. Hi, uh,

Dr. White. Um, I have a question on infant salvation. Just wanted to clarify a little bit on that.

Um, just been kind of thinking and musing over and wondering what your opinion was.

Of infant salvation? Or just, you know, do babies go to heaven or hell or, you know,

I don't, I don't even know really what it's called, but my dad and I have been, um, talking about it and yeah,

I'm just wondering. It's a very, very common, uh, question. Um, get all the time at conferences and, uh, and things like that.

Uh, we've certainly talked about on the program a number of times. Um, it's, um, certainly can't be treated as a theological football because of the, uh, tremendous, um, impact that it has upon many people.

But at the same time, most people's conclusions are derived far more from wishful thinking and emotion than they are from application of meaningful theological categories.

Um, there are obviously leaving aside, uh, Roman Catholicism and things like that, any work salvation systems or, or, or things like that.

You have those who would say that all infants who die in infancy are saved.

Um, most of those who have a very weak, non -functional, uh, doctrine of original sin, uh, and who have a, a concept of age of accountability, uh, would say, well, up until the age of accountability, whatever that might be, um, there is no personal sin and therefore, um, salvation would be obviously granted to these individuals.

Actually, it wouldn't even be salvation. I mean, if you don't have a personal sin, I suppose. Of course, the problem with that is that it ignores the reality of original sin, that we, we are born, uh, in a fallen state, that we are born in a, in a state that makes us reprehensible before a holy

God. And as such, um, the, the idea that we have no sin would make it very difficult to explain why we would die since, uh, death is, uh, is the wages of sin.

And so, um, others would say, no, uh, there is a universal salvation of infants, but it's based upon a universal application of the merits of Christ.

Upon what basis? There really isn't anything said, because let's be honest, there are very few, very few texts in the scriptures that shed light upon this.

I mean, you've got David's brief mention of the death of his son, um, and that's pretty much it.

Uh, you've got, you know, before, before someone knows to do good or evil in Isaiah.

Um, that's another one that's, you know, these are, are brought to bear, but they're not overly helpful in really answering, uh, answering the question.

Amongst Reformed folks, you will have Reformed individuals who will say, uh, that, that,

God, by his grace, uh, saves all individuals who die in infancy and all who never obtained to sufficient, um, cognitive development, uh, the mentally retarded and so on and so forth.

Um, just based on, that's just, uh, what the judge of all the earth would do.

There are some who would say, um, this is the result of the fall. This is the result of sin.

And as terrible as it is, it should teach us how terrible it is. And that doesn't change. The one way of salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ.

And so they would say that there have been some who would say that, that infants, uh, are lost, uh, because of, of sin.

Um, so then there's my position and that is found in confessional statements and Reformed confessional statements that refer to elect infants.

I believe that God has just as much freedom, excuse me, in the salvation of infants as he does, uh, adults.

And so, um, if in God's, uh, sovereign providence, he chooses to extend the benefits of the merit of Christ in salvation to an undeserving fallen, um, reprehensible child, there is no such thing.

I'm sorry. Um, I know all the grannies in the, um, uh, well, some of the grannies in the audience are getting gonna get all upset with me, but the reality is

I take original sin and our union with Adam. Very, very, very, uh, central. I think it's very, very important for one simple reason.

The parallel of our union with Adam, uh, becomes our union with Christ. And so if we don't take seriously being in Adam, then we're not going to take very seriously being in Christ and hence having his righteousness, et cetera, et cetera.

And so I take that very seriously. And so I believe that, that there are elect infants, that God is free, uh, to save an infant.

He is also free to not save an infant. Let me give you an illustration. Um, this sort of comes from apologetics, which shocking when

I would think of something like that, but I remember, uh, years ago debating a, an atheist and he used the illustration of why we can't call

God good. And that is if you're going by a house and, um, you see that the house is on fire and you see an open window and through the window, you see a baby crib, you know, there's a baby in the baby crib.

The fire hasn't gotten the room yet, but it will soon. Um, would we call someone good who does not attempt to save that child?

And if God could save that child and we can't call him good, that was the, that was the argument that he used.

And then a corollary argument that he used was, um, if God knew what

Adolf Hitler was going to do, uh, why didn't he cause Adolf Hitler to step off of a curb without looking and get hit by a truck, um, or have a heart attack or something along those lines to, to keep that evil from happening.

Similar illustrations because, well, if God has these knowledge, this knowledge and that makes him accountable for all of these, these things.

Um, and I remember looking at the atheist and sort of smiling and saying, how do you know the child in the crib isn't

Hitler? And he just, just looked at me like, you can't use my illustrations against me.

What are you doing? Uh, you know, you know, uh, it's, it's, it's, that's not fair. Um, but the point is that if, if God knows, um, those things, if he, if he, if he knows the reality of this person's life, um, isn't there actually an element of mercy if he's not going to extend his mercy to this person, which is, which is better to die as a youth or to die as an old man, having now piled up a lifetime of sin, um, which, which is better?

Um, that's a question that we have to, that we have to ask. So, um, I believe God is free to save infants and those who do not obtain to a, a real consciousness of, of morality and so on and so forth, uh, with the same freedom that he has to save, um, adults.

So in, in your view, it would be then that the result of being elect is your repentance, but because the infant does not have the capability to repent, he, it is still elect.

The result of your election is your repentance. Well, there will come a time when

God will grant to you the gift of repentance. He will, he'll regenerate you and draw you to himself.

Yes. Um, but in regards to an infant, um,

I, I, are you asking whether that infant is regenerated in this life? I'm not sure.

Yeah, yeah. Well, again,

I suppose that would be, you know, certainly I will not limit what God can do based upon his grace.

Yeah. Um, but I don't know that that would be necessary.

Um, I mean, he knows when this child is going to die and, you know, one of the things that has concerned me about the other view that just says, well, it's just an automatic stamp.

Everybody who dies in infancy goes to heaven. That turns abortion into the greatest heaven filling device ever designed by man.

Yeah. Um, and so I, I don't, I don't see that. Um, I, all

I can say, I would be completely speculating at that point because we are, we are trying to apply general principles to an area that there just simply isn't any biblical revelation on it.

I mean, um, and I'm just trying to make sure that we don't end up, uh, compromising what there is biblical revelation on such as original sin.

Um, out of a inordinate desire to avoid having to say, well, hard things.

And sometimes you have to say hard things, you know, that's just, that's, that's how it works. Okay. And one more thing,

Todd Freel on, um, Wretched TV, my pastor has watched it and he, he has said that just seems staged.

Like he's just putting on a show. Is Mr. Freel really putting on a show or is that who Mr. Freel is?

Uh, it's all taken place between his two ears. There's, uh, there's nothing, there's nothing, there's nothing staged there.

I mean, I showed up wearing this, uh, almost looked like this sort of, but I quite, um, because he said, let's do some radio.

And lo and behold, we're going to put on TV too. And, um, he did not tell me what we were going to discuss.

Um, every, every segment was different. And even when he said, let's talk about X, Y, or Z, we'd end up talking about something different in the next segment anyways.

So no, it's, it is, that's the way Todd is. Yep. And it's nice when I'm watching Wretched TV, I don't even need to be looking at it.

But I know when, um, the series that you did for them on, uh, the reliability of the

New Testament, I mean, all his other advertisements on there, they have that groovy music, it's all nice. But when you come on, it is, it is suspenseful.

It is epic. And it is just awesome. When you, when you are on that screen, they make it so it's like something is really happening.

I didn't know that. Well, that's news to me. Cool. Okay. All right. I appreciate it, man. Okay. Bye. Thanks for your call.

All right. Bye -bye. Well, uh, it looks like we have, oops, I clicked the mouse, but it's on a different computer.

Uh, looks like we still have callers, but, uh, we're, uh, we're, we're pretty much out of time today.

And, uh, my, uh, I, I've sort of timed my voice, uh, for an hour long program.

So Samuel, sorry about that. We'll, we'll, we'll have to do some more, uh, calls in the future. Calls were good today.

Was anyone smart enough to, to write down what the calls were? Because I never remember, uh, when writing up the, uh, the thing for the, for the blog, we, we really need to start, there should be something in the

Comrex stack that allows us to remember what, uh, topics were or something like that.

That would be, that'd be pretty cool. Thanks for listening to Dividing Line today. Uh, as far as I know, everything's fine through February.

My next trip is to TMAI at, uh, Grace Community, uh, the beginning of March, then end of March, Florida.