March 16, 2004

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

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of alpha the mega 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, it's 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.

Those are the words of Dave Hunt as he spoke at a Brethren Church in Springfield, Illinois on I believe it was the 22nd of February of this year just a few weeks ago Dave Hunt spoke there. I had spoken at in Springfield, Illinois just a few months earlier and I had mentioned and at the request of the of the church itself that.

Well, I've been discussing the subject of Calvinism. I addressed issues regarding Calvinism. Not just that. However, I addressed other issues as well and. So one of the things I mentioned was of course the fact that Dave Hunt would not engage in a public debate now.

We had some problems with the audio at the beginning. Let me try playing that again. So maybe you can make out what was being said. Sounded a whole lot better when I played it before. I don't know why it sounds as badly as it does now.

But maybe we've got adjusted now, so we might be able to understand it. Let's let's try it one more time. That's not a whole lot better. He mentioned me by names that I've been going around saying that he would not debate me.

Well, of course he won't. And context is evidently something that that Dave struggles with a lot and Whether it's in scripture or in what someone else is saying because obviously what I'm referring to I wasn't denying the existence of the book.

I wasn't denying the existence a book called debating Calvinism. But obviously as I've mentioned many times before mr Hunt had agreed in the past to debate me publicly and I have wanted to include That public debate along with the book as a rather fully orbed discussion of the issue.

But instead he he says it's not true. Well, actually what I said was true in the context in which I stated it obviously now mr Hunt went through a number of other things. He talked a lot about The debating Calvinism book and Stuff that to be honest with you.

I did not know about I Guess there was a time when the book was in danger of not being published. That the publisher did not like the tone of the book and. And that in fact there were questions concerning some of the statements in fact the material was run by attorneys and they sort of flagged things that they felt might Trigger bad responses legally.

None of my materials did that because anyone who has read the book knows I'm just simply dealing with the exegesis and dealing with Mr. Hunt. I'm not going after all sorts of other folks. You won't find me sitting there taking shots at at Armenians in various positions of leadership and.

So my materials didn't didn't click on any of that but his did and I was unaware of that. I was not informed of any of this until I inquired about it and so Some of the comments and and this is this is you know he's making these public comments.

He's he's going around saying these things Evidently are the basis of what various and sundry people are saying On certain web boards you see on my blog People saying that I convinced Malt Noma not to publish Dave Hunt's book and all the rest is silliness I'm only discovering all this stuff second hand.

It's not like moment could really care less what I think about anything, but anyway. He talks a little bit about that. I've got a couple more clips here. Let's listen to what he says about that. Okay, let's start that one over again here.

We go.

Well we're helping you helping me, but then he'll be upset. Why don't you help him? Furthermore you're not helping me. You're cutting out important things and The Lord is very gracious. I often say to people I could prove the existence of God by who he sits me next to on airplanes.

And generally it's a non-christian. Well the Lord sat me next to a man from Portland to Chicago today. On his way to Israel. Way to Israel. For what. For a board meeting. He's an Israeli. He's a very wealthy businessman back and forth lives in both places.

But anyway. It looks hopeless. Because I I said well, okay. I mean I can't fight you can't fight City Hall. Because if you don't publish this book it will never be published. Because James White will not want this in print and he and I would have to agree on a new publisher.

So I'm asking this. So the next day who the Lord sit me next to let's be an owner of Multnomah on the airplane. And I was able to educate him a little bit about Calvinism. But anyway and the Lord worked some things out, but so that book we have some copies of that.

So there you have the assertion this this book almost did not get into publish publication he said and that he sat next to the owner of Multnomah and Educated him on Calvinism that but I would love to have heard that particular conversation wouldn't you.

I think that would have been very very interesting. But did you catch the assertion the amazing assertion? Made by Dave Hunt that if Multnomah did not publish this Then it was not going to get published.

Why. Because I didn't want to see this book in print. Let me play that section for you again, so that you can actually hear.

That being said because if you don't publish this book it will never be published. Because James White will not want this in print.

James White will not want this in print. Why? We we we are selling of the book and I'm very happy with the response the book. I mean let's let's face it I'll be straightforward here the response the book from thinking people has been that wasn't the debate.

The response from thinking individuals has been that wasn't fair. It's exactly what I told. The publisher this was loyal publishing when I was first contacted to do this particular this particular debate I Said look you're gonna take a lot of heat for this.

You're gonna take heat for this because Dave Hunt cannot stay on one subject. You're gonna take heat for this because Dave Hunt cannot do exegesis. You're gonna do heat you take heat this because Dave Hunt is not a theologian.

He's going to say a lot of silly things. He's gonna get caught making a lot of errors, and he's just got to duck him and You're gonna take heat for all this they said fine. That's wonderful. That's all to your advantage and of course that publisher then sold the project to Multnomah when that whole one loyal was bought up.

We'll hear later on that so mr. Hunt says that that is all due to us Calvinists we Calvinists are the terrible horrible nasty folks that we control everything. We've got a conspiracy going here and evidently mr. Hunt's fans like conspiracies, and so there's a conspiracy going on to get Dave and all the Calvinists are behind it and We're gonna hear more about that, but anyway I told them all these things and the people you go, and you you listen to folks who?

Have taken the time to look at the book and examine the argumentation from a any type of rational perspective and You discover that the vast majority of them are saying this was not much of a debate. Because one side presents a an exegetical case the other side wanders all over the planet refuses to answer direct questions.

And as I mentioned on the log just just this past week I happened to read one of his closing statements in which he thought that my ex-jesus of Matthew 23 37 where I point out that Jesus in Matthew 23 37 is talking about and when he says how often would I have gathered your children Under my wings, but you would not I pointed out.

This is not a verse you can use to try to undo the irresistible grace of God. This has nothing to do with it at all. This is a condemnation of the Jewish leaders the Jewish leaders those in control in Jerusalem those Pharisees and scribes who were who were being absolutely ravaged in Matthew 23 for their hypocrisy.

This is a condemnation of them. And it is referring to the people of Jerusalem over against their leaders. He actually understood me to believe in my exegesis this shows How little he's actually read of what I've actually well read or understood of what I've written.

That I was talking about children. That I was actually talking about non adults little kids as if Jesus were attempting to set up the Jerusalem vacation Bible school. I mean that is how how absolutely disconnected with With with anything mr.. Hunt has been on this project and so That is what people have been saying.

They see this they recognize this they see that. It's a very one-sided affair. And that hence the only real meaning to the work is the fact that it gives you the answers. How do you respond to these kinds of standard evangelical? arguments and If you have a Dave Hunt fan in your family, how do you respond to a Dave Hunt fan in essence?

To say that I didn't want this in print. Obviously from his perspective. He thinks he just just ran me over like a freight train in this particular debate. We obviously believe the same thing about each one.

I just leave it up to you all to find out which one switch. Read for yourself go to the text and and find out which one which one is which it is truly amazing to see that. Let's play another clip here and also regards this issue of the debate and then we'll Jump back over to Matthew 23 37 for just a second as well.

So here's John Piper. What made me think of that was they didn't want me to quote John Piper. In the debate, I'm only quoting him. That's right. They all over the world. I'm really calling people. They said if I didn't say it don't blame me for quoting them.

If that's what they said and that's what they believe they ought to be happy. I'm giving broader distribution To what they said, I don't know why people get upset because I quote someone. But one of the people they didn't want me to quote John Piper he seemed to be a special favor there.

Listen to what John Piper right now most of you know that John Piper Is a molten. Oh, it's actually he's a crossway Author and the whole idea that is being promoted here by mr. Hunt is that there's this great concern Conspiracy and see John Piper's a Calvinist and therefore we don't want to offend Calvinist see and we'll hear more of this as we go on now.

Listening to these tapes. I didn't listen to all of my listen to two hours worth of them that was all I could take literally the folks and channel last night will tell you I Even said I'm getting a headache listening to this.

I think part of it was the quality is not all that good as you can tell but most of it is just You would think You would think that by now and I remember this is only this is after the book comes out.

This was just a few weeks ago. We would have had these earlier, but we had a lot of trouble getting hold of tapes. By now if there is any Integrity and that's the term I'm going to use if there is any integrity and Dave Hunt's attack upon Calvinism this is if this is anything more Than just simply a the an emotional vitriolic traditional attack.

If there's anything more to it now, we'd start to see it. I mean We we had the first discussion long ago now on KPX Q radio between Dave Hunt and myself and we Have had the opportunity of interacting in letters.

We have Done the book. We have gone back and forth between You know all these rounds in the book I have responded to many things that he said. I have actually met with mr. Hunt briefly within the past number of months and After all of this If there is any essence if there's if there's any Integrity if there's any meat to what mr. Hunt is saying by now.

We should start seeing the the development of his arguments. We should start seeing that he's been listening to what's being said he understands what's being said and he begins to make his arguments more cogent and more accurate and more Truthful in light of this tremendous amount of study that he has done in regards to the subject of Calvinism.

But that is not what we hear unfortunately, for example. What started all this? Well, there was a there was a Missing miss citation of Matthew 23 37 and mr. Hunt's newsletter back in May of was it 2001?

I think it was May of 2001 and I've gone over this. I've sent him tapes where I've gone over this. I've gone over it in letters. I went over it in the book Matthew 23 37. How is Dave Hunt now dealing with Matthew 23 37, I mean to be honest and To show integrity, how would we have he would have to be dealing with the distinction?

From the context itself between the scribes of Pharisees Sadducees Jewish leaders and those they had control over leadership over he'd have to discuss the difference between you and your children and He would have to do so in such a way as to defend his exegesis, right?

Well, let's listen to Dave Hunt answering a question just a few weeks ago less than a month ago about three weeks ago this past Sunday at a Brethren Church in Springfield, Illinois on Matthew 23 37 well.

Jesus says how often would I remember? That's interesting. That is a claim to deity because the New Testament only Records this once. But he wept over Jerusalem and he says he did it often. Where did he do it often?

He's Yahweh. He's the the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who wept over his people often. Pleaded pleaded. So it's a claim to deity. And what does it mean? I would but you would not. Well, it's pretty clear.

He wants them to be saved. He wants to forgive him. Why aren't they. Because they rejected. And we have that all through The Old Testament, I would have said you were the finest of wheat with honey out of the rock.

I would have satisfied you but my people would have none of me, you know. So this is all through to the Bible. God's desire God's passion. And if we say well, but Christ, how could he be weeping over people for whom Christ didn't die?

So that he is already predestined to eternal torment and so forth.

Well, there it is. There it is. Not even the slightest hint or Indication of a concern to deal with the text and the issues in the text that have been raised him. Not one word nothing. No indication whatsoever that there has even been the first bit of concern about this.

If you have the book. You probably are aware of the fact that. On page if you've got the book it's a bunch of you do if you look on page 110 page 110 I wrote the following words. Hunt repeatedly asserts that election is never unto salvation.

But only to privileges and blessings. This assertion is repeated in his book and in talks He has given over the past few years yet. Amazingly despite its obvious centrality the entirety of his position.

Mr Hunt does not provide an explanation of this text and I quote 2nd Thessalonians 2 13. Which says we should always give thanks to God for you brother and beloved by the Lord. Because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Then I said Paul speaks of God choosing the believers of Thessalonica from the beginning for salvation. There is a direct refutation of a claim hunt makes. Repeatedly the text shows the work of the Spirit and our faith in God's truth are the result of that eternal choice.

God ordains both the ends and the means just as we form. Theology is taught all along. No reference is found to 2nd Thessalonians 2 13 in the scripture index of what love is this? Well, here's a verse hunt repeatedly says.

Election predestination is never to salvation. It's only the blessings and I've heard him make that statement many times. It's found in what love is this? Well when he responds page 113 of the book he says.

This very first paragraph I show the Paul does not say that every evil event on earth is willed by God. But is allowed in the council of his will a huge difference. I deal with 2nd Thessalonians 2 13 elsewhere.

That's all he says. Well, where would that be? Well one of the problems this book is there's no scripture index. But there is now if you go to our website, you will find a scripture index. Thank you mark Ennis to debating Calvinism.

I posted it last evening and There is a link off of my blog for that and I forgot to link it off the reform theology page. I'll try to remember to do that. But anyway, and if you look up our handy-dandy scripture index.

There are only two other references to 2nd Thessalonians 2 13 in the book. Page 370 of the book has a brief discussion of this page 370 and here is Dave hunt saying Yes Paul tells the Thessalonians God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through Sanctification the spirit and believe the truth.

Second Thessalonians 2 13 the meaning of from the beginning is the question. Paul uses this expression three other times who knew me from the beginning acts 26 5 from the beginning of the world Ephesians 3 9 and In the beginning of the gospel Philippians 4 15.

None of these expressions is related to predestination from eternity past. The beginning of the gospel is associated with Macedonia. Perhaps because Paul received a unique call to that region in a vision of man saying come over into Macedonia help us acts 16 9.

Thus from the beginning of the gospel in Macedonia the Thessalonians as part of that region were chosen to hear it yet. Their salvation came only by belief of the truth not by Calvinism's regeneration before believing the gospel.

Now there's the only attempt he makes to respond to it. It is again a classic example of scripture twisting and eisegesis. It's it really rivals anything that Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons do and just completely ignoring any meaningful methodology of interpreting the Bible first of all the phrase from the beginning and needs to be Interpreted within the context of which it is found.

What's more is if he had bothered to look a little bit more closely at What was found in in the text itself? he would discover that in reality there is a Textual variant there which I have addressed elsewhere.

In fact as I recall if I'm recalling correctly I addressed that In the potter's freedom, but there is a textual variant at that particular passage. That impacts the specific way in which you would interpret What is said there because it can be as firstfruits rather than from the beginning, but that's not the point the point is that The very assertion he constantly makes that this choosing this election is press nation is never into salvation is under salvation here and.

So when he gets around to doing this he just simply connects from the beginning. To completely separate contexts that have nothing to do with this passage assumes the connection with Acts chapter 16 verse 9.

And then completely flies off into some utterly disconnected response by saying. The Thessalonians as part of that region were chosen to hear it. It doesn't say chosen to hear it's chosen to salvation.

Their salvation came only by belief of the truth not by Calvinism's regeneration before believing the gospel. Well, you may not like that, but that has nothing to do with the text itself. The point is that they were chosen to believe they were chosen for salvation.

Just just deal with the text. He doesn't deal with the text. There's only one of the place that appears and that's on page of 424, which is right at the very end of the book. In fact, that's two pages from the end of the book page 424 and There it's just it's just run by very very quickly.

White relies on a few passages of arguable interpretation. Well, of course anything is arguable to mr Hunt his strongest case the God predestined only elect salvation comes from Acts 13 48 and second Thessalonians 2 13.

Okay, are we ready for the Huntsman response to any exegetical presentation here it is. Yet his interpretation does not fit God's character as so clearly established throughout all of Scripture. Hundreds of scriptures I have cited scores of them declare in the clearest terms that God loves and desires the salvation of all.

Some of these white explains away by interpreting world as elect and all men as classes of men. Whoever suffers a similar fate along with God's love. But dozens of scriptures to which I called his attention won't allow such mishandling.

So he neither respond to them in this debate nor refer to them in the Potter's freedom. In other words, I don't have a clue. I have no way of interacting with these. I can't do exegesis. So I'm just gonna simply say well, it can't mean that because of all these hundreds of verses that in my tradition in My tradition mean XY or Z and that's what everyone saw throughout every time we would get to a specific passage a Specific argumentation boom.

Well, it can't mean that because there are Hundreds of verses. Well, there's hundreds over here. And so then when he start listing them and I start showing where he was wrong. Well, okay. It's really not important with that versus because there's hundreds of moors and scores over here.

It's just you know, you cannot refute such a position. For the obvious reason that there's no substance to it. There's there's no substitute. So After all of this you would think having having written an entire book What love is this without ever mentioning saying this one is 213 and then having given such a weak Silly response is that that maybe mr. Hunt would learn That maybe he should stop using That phrase that election is never unto salvation.

It's only unto blessings. Well, guess what we heard from Springfield, Illinois, let's listen in. There it is, let me just play that last section just so we hear it all again. You want to you see tradition cannot be refuted and when all you have is tradition.

You just have to keep going back and saying the same things over and over again. And here's Dave saying Predestined elections never into salvation. Doesn't matter what second Thessalonians 213 says we just Ignore that and I figure most the places I'm gonna be speaking that no one is probably ever Going to call me on that evidently that's that's what what it means.

Amazing absolutely amazing. Well, there's more here. Let's sneak this one in before we before we take a break.

Number of times that I took time to encourage him and talk with him and so forth. Then he went to John MacArthur's master's college every line. That this book if they printed it would offend so many Calvinist.

Well, who are the Calvinist that might be offended? Well, John MacArthur would be one of them. Maybe you're not aware of that. These men are coming out of the closet probably ten years ago. You wouldn't.

John MacArthur's a friend of mine. You wouldn't have known that he was a Calvinist. Well, how do you know? Well, you have the MacArthur's study Bible All the way through RC scroll he's on the radio every day AI Packer After the movie church and and so forth, but he's a bunch of men.

You don't want to have a book in your bookstore That is offending them.

There Are so many books and Christian bookstores that offend Calvinist, it's not even funny as if this is relevant. I mean Wow, I Guess again, you know, there's just a certain mindset. But it's just a certain mindset that that that wants conspiracy that wants to believe that there is a conspiracy.

That everyone's out to get you and so our copy editor. He became a Calvinist at Masters College and he fought me on every line. He says Calvinists, you know. They don't want me to see that and he's actually said this these Calvinists can't Handle the truth and so they want to hide they want to suppress my work.

And we've all said from the beginning Dave. We've just been trying to help you man. We've just been trying to help you. We've been trying to help you not make a fool of yourself to not say things that are just simply ridiculous on the level of Well the things that now you will be well known for having said we're just trying to assist you and he's not interested in that Assistance, we're gonna go ahead and open the phone lines.

I've got more clips to play. But in fact, I've got the big duty to about nine ten. Actually eleven more here but hey, we haven't taken phone calls now in full week because last week we did the Adrian Rogers response and So if you'd like to call eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty one.

We'll take your phone call eight seven seven Seven five three three three forty one. We'll be right back.

Such a rarity today. So many stars strong and true. Quickly fall away.

Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior in Their book.

The same-sex controversy. James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including Genesis Leviticus and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner. They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.

The same-sex controversy. Defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at a omin org. Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co-redeemer with Christ.

Elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion. In his book Mary another Redeemer James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic.

He traces how Mary of the Bible esteemed mother of the Lord obedient servant and chosen vessel of God Has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed Queen of Heaven. Viewed as co-mediator with Christ and now recognized as co-redeemer by many in the Roman Catholic Church.

Mary another Redeemer is fresh insight into the woman. The Bible calls a blessed among women and an invitation to single-minded devotion to God's truth. You can order your copy of James White's book.

Mary another Redeemer at a omin org. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 930 a .m. And the worship service is at 1045. Evening services are at 630 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 to 6 grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at PR BC org where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

And welcome back to the dividing line, my name is James White talking a little bit well about various sundry things last last week we Really didn't take any phone calls because we were responding to the Adrian Rogers sermon.

We've got a lot of really positive comments on that. By the way, I think when we put together our uber-duber super Sovereign grace package whatever it is. We're gonna do we're gonna have to include that one because that's really I Don't know.

It just sort of gives you the classic way in which these passages used then again, they're all using the same way I mean hunts doing the exact same thing here and they never can go into depth. It's always just thrown out there.

Sort of at a rat-a-tat-tat way just hope people are going to you know. Hear enough of this that maybe though they won't listen to what the other side saying. They won't ask questions. I don't know, you know, maybe that's just how it works.

I don't know. So anyway, we're listening to some clips from Dave Hunt he spoke about three weeks ago in Springfield, Illinois. And we're taking your phone calls at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

And I think we were supposed to have one call. I don't have a name or anything yet, but I have at least one call of coming in and we'll take your phone calls as well and. But before we do that, so let's go ahead and listen to another clip from Dave Hunt's a discussion.

Their books tell a lot of copies you understand. What I'm saying, that's why this book is out of print at the moment. We will Bring call will bring it back in the print. God willing. Until I can find a secular publisher, hopefully you can pray about that who can't be intimidated by Calvin a.

Secular publisher who cannot be intimidated by Calvinists. Come on give me a break. What love is this? Is that a print because it's a bad book. It's just simply a really bad book. That's the only reason.

Oh, yeah, yep, the Calvinists are in control of everything where it's the new trilateral Commission. Sorry, it's just. Makes him a lot of money, you know, excuse me. Who's making the most money? Who's making the money out there?

It's Jerry Jenkins. It's the left behind the prayer of Jabez the purpose-driven Church and in case no one noticed. Those are not Calvinistic works. Hello. Oh I'm sorry, but You listen to this stuff for for that many hours and and keep your Keep your.

Let me just play one more and then we'll go ahead and take our first.

We continue on reform faith, what do you mean? Reform faith these are reformed churches. Jay Adams says I'm a reformed Christian. Referring to himself They hijacked the Reformation. John Calvin was eight years old when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg Castle Chapel door and they say Calvinism is Reformation.

You get the New Geneva Study Bible edited by Bill Packer was one of the editors R .C. Sproul another one and they say this is Reformed faith, we are presenting reform faith. They call their churches reformed churches.

He doesn't like the fact that that we use the term Reformed churches as if we have hijacked the Reformation and he uses that phraseology in the book. I love the statement there. First of all the one where we play right just a few moments ago about Calvinist coming out of the closet.

You Know my first book was called the fatal flaw from 1990 and it anyone who could read that and not realize it is absolutely Completely Calvinistic. I've you know, I don't know R .C. Sproul has come out of the closet.

I just I. Yeah, I would love to sort of be in the background and listen and watch faces as people say this then again. At one point he asked how many people in the audience even knew what the five points Calvinism were and almost no one in the entire Room did so they're all listening going.

Wow. There's a lot of weird people out there. You know this there's eating this stuff up have no idea how completely off the wall it is. But I love this thing about John Calvin was just this a 1517 is only eight years old.

I mean he was you know, what do you mean? It's Calvinism, but you know, isn't it fascinating? Isn't it fascinating that some? Just a few years later Martin Luther wrote a book that well, I don't think Dave Hunt likes called the bondage of the will maybe maybe you know, that's a book that that that Hunt likes to attack and and say is he could drive a semi truck through the theological holes.

Amazing absolutely amazing eight seven seven Seven five three thirty three forty one. Let's go ahead and talk to Scott. Hi Scott. How you doing doing good good. Would that be one of any number of my books or a specific one.

For being a very tolerant and forgiving person that you didn't curse in the middle of your book. Editors are for anyways, but.

No, I I anyone in channel. Because I would comment about stuff in channel I even posted sections and and stuff and I would talk with folks and and they'd give me feedback and anybody in channel can tell You that one of the things I did say during the course of the writing of the book was that I just hoped that by the way, I responded to The assertions being made that that would in of itself be The most useful part of the book that I knew and realized that as far as it being, you know The classic debate.

Well, I can tell I can tell folks now There's a new edition of the Steele and Thomas book the five points of Calvinism coming about coming out. That's been re-edited and there's a huge bibliography in it.

Annotated bibliography and the editor called me. Because I had gotten him in touch with Multnomah they rushed him the manuscript of the book. So he was able to read it and include it in the bibliography and he described the book.

He said debating Calvinism. Dave Hunt. James White. Multnomah 2004. This book grew out of James White's response to Dave Hunt's book What love is this in the form of an open letter? And then it says there may this may well be the single most lopsided debate in the history of the church.

That's what it says. So Wow.

Sir, I Go to a church that is the same denomination as Wilson and Schlissel and those guys and I haven't heard it. Might be, you know.

Kind of a response if they do come up that you know, I'm getting a lot of questions about how I would summarize the Auburn Avenue movement, which now is Really going under a new more official name entitled the federal vision or federal visionists now Realize that the Auburn Avenue guys represent Doug Wilson is the CRE, which I'm assuming is what you're referring to.

Schlissel is not CRE. Barrett is Christian Reformed as I recall and The pastor down there. I think that's a PCA Church last I checked so they actually come from number of different denominations. But it's Wilson Lightheart and others that are really pushing the federal visionist concept along with Schlissel.

Even though trying to actually identify Steve Schlissel's systematic theology is sort of like identifying Martin Luther's. They're very much alike in the sense that they're extremely passionate and when they address the subject They address it very forcefully but trying to systematize it is simply next to impossible.