Dividing Line from London

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

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States.

It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

London Update and the Week's Debates

Going without the net this evening, you might say, or this morning, depending on where you are. It's evening here in London. And I'm looking at the channel, it says, stop, silence, we'll just keep going here until I hear from the powers that be.

But anyway, it's nice and dark here, but pretty much where you are, if you're listening live in the United States, middle of the day. And we've got a lot to cover today, so I will not dilly-dally, shall we say.

If you're expecting a lengthy discussion of the current situations involving Ergin Canner and Peter Lumpkins and Timothy Rogers and so on and so forth, I would much rather talk about the ministry that's taken place here in London over the past five days, and then walk through Brian Brodersen's attempt to respond to the things that I said on the Divine Line a few weeks ago, than to waste a whole lot of time there.

I said what I needed to say yesterday. It is, I will simply say that it's been a sad display of hero worship and superstar worship on the part of many within the Southern Baptist Convention, where people are allowed to say what they want to say without any responsibility.

And the very kind of reactions that I frequently get, well, from some Muslim critics and some Mormon critics and atheist critics, I'm getting from Southern Baptists. That is, don't deal with what he said.

Don't deal with the documentation, the facts, the reality. Attack the person, throw dust in the air, and these by people who call themselves Christians. It's reprehensible, it's wrong, but I think most people see it as well.

And so that kind of an attitude is not going to get people very far. So, I would like to say that it's, I just noted that after Peter Lumpkin's hit article that he put up, a lot of people tried to comment on that, and I just read where Peter Lumpkin says he's deleted no one.

But he actually deleted a couple of comments, including from the Muslim, the young Muslim who actually produced the videos that have been the topic of discussion. We know that he deleted those, but I was just commenting in channel, well, that's a sort of a cannerish response.

He says, I've deleted no one. He didn't delete the Muslim, but he did delete the comments, so maybe that's how he gets away with it. I don't know. It's a sad, sad thing to observe what's going on there.

But as it may, I'm still waiting for Dr. Cannon to get back to me on a series of questions that I've asked him about his claims. They're very straightforward questions, and I haven't gotten my responses yet.

I'm going to write one more time and ask him to, for example, explain why it is he claimed to have debated Abdul Salib, Nader Ahmed, and Shabir Ali. He's admitted that he misspoke about claiming to debate Shabir Ali in Nebraska.

I have some questions about how you can misspeak about who you debated in a particular place when you didn't debate anyone in that particular place. But even more interesting is how he's going to explain how he debated Abdul Salib.

Abdul Salib is a Christian. In fact, that's not even his name. Abdul Salib means a servant of the cross, or a servant of the crucified one. So how did you debate Abdul Salib, and he brought up the argument against the cross at the end of the debate?

These are questions that inquiring minds want to know. And since these are statements that were made in public, I think we require a public response. So I'll let you know what we hear back on any of those particular issues.

Very quickly, I would like to once again thank the folks at Trinity Road Chapel for all the work they've done since I've been here in London. We had a great weekend. I will tell you this. The folks at the church who attended the conference that we did beforehand, as far as the presentations they did on New Testament reliability, the canon, Gnostic Gospels, all sorts of issues like that.

Those folks have been commenting on how important that was in listening to the debate and in talking with Muslims, because lo and behold, the stuff I talked about is the very stuff that they brought up.

How could that be? Maybe because I've actually debated these folks before, and recognized these were important. And of course, Doug McMasters, the pastor of the church, went with me to Premier Radio for the two programs recorded yesterday.

And once again, not the one with Sir Anthony Buzzard, because we were primarily just discussing the deity of Christ and getting rather in-depth on that, but certainly the one with Adnan Rashid. Over and over again, the things that we talked about in those particular presentations were brought up again and again and again.

And so I'm glad that we're obviously talking about the things that need to be talked about. I would like to thank Abdullah Al-Andalusi for the debate that we had. It was, I think, one of the better debates that we've had, in the sense that the spirit in which it was done was the right one, it was done respectfully, without compromise.

I will be perfectly honest with you, there were a couple times I did not understand the point that Abdullah was making. And maybe that's due to me, but I was working hard at it, and so there were a couple times that I did not feel like I was able to interact with what he was saying, because I just did not understand the point that he was making.

He may have been hurrying too much, I'm not sure. Or maybe I'm just getting older and slower or something, I don't know. But it was an excellent debate. We have a lot of video recording of that debate.

I think right before it started, I saw about six video cameras. The Muslims had a high-quality video camera, they did interviews afterwards, they interviewed me afterwards. It'll be very interesting to see that.

But I had my high-quality camera with me, and its battery died right toward the end, right at the end of the closing statements. And as I mentioned in my blog, Nick from here in London was taking pictures and sort of watching the camera, and he thought real quick and pulled the SD card out of my camera and stuck it in another camera that can do video, recorded the questions and answers, and stuck it back in my camera.

So I've got everything. So we will definitely be able to put together a good presentation, and especially if we can get the video from the church, too. We could have literally a four-camera angle on this.

I'm sure Rich is right now rolling his eyes like, oh, great, wonderful, I'll really enjoy trying to put all that stuff together. And who knows, we can get the stuff from the Muslims. We could have this the most, and in fact, at one point, the Muslim was moving around getting audience shots and stuff like that.

So if we can get that and sort of put that in, that would be great. But it was a very good debate. Once again, I look forward to encountering Abdullah again in the future. He showed himself to be a gentleman in the debate, and so I look forward to having future dialogues and conversations with him as well.

Unbelievable Radio, Adnan Rashid, and Anthony Buzzard

And as to the Unbelievable Radio programs, I highly recommend subscribing to the podcast. I subscribe to it. And the first one that will be up will be the discussion with Adnan Rashid. If you've listened to on YouTube, and we finally have the video of the debate with Adnan from 2008, you know that Adnan doesn't listen to his opposition, and he didn't again, and I think that lessens the value of those encounters by a long shot.

Certainly, it still illustrates how to respond to these things, but he does not listen to what the other side is saying. He has his conclusions, and he's come to those conclusions. He's firm in them, and that's pretty much it.

That's all there is to it. But we did get to discuss a little bit on Surah 4, 1 -7, a little bit on the transmission of the text that we put on. I was lectured about how ignorant I am on these things, but you know what?

I let the audience sort of decide for themselves which side's reading relevant material and which side doesn't understand what they're reading, so I'll leave that up to them. Then, as far as the Anthony Buzzard encounter, at the end of the program, I asked Sir Anthony about the possibility of doing a full public debate there in Georgia, and I would still like to pursue that.

He didn't feel like his side would be able to do that, but I think we could find churches in the Georgia area that would host that. In fact, we've had a church in the Georgia area that's already said they'd be willing to host the debate with Michael Brown.

I sort of wonder if they would be interested in maybe doing two and allowing me to debate Anthony Buzzard, because I think that was probably the most in-depth well, maybe some of the Richard Baucom ones, or his in-depth discussions on the subject of the exegesis, especially the subject of the preexistence of Christ and the deity of Christ I've ever heard.

So I think you'll find those interesting, but somewhat frustrating because they're so short. We weren't able to go as in-depth on each thing. That's why I want to do a debate with Sir Anthony Buzzard, especially on Psalm 110, 1, and Hebrews 1, 10 through 12.

We touched on those things, but I think if we had more opportunity, we'd probably be able to go even more in-depth on those things. So a great time. I'm looking forward to doing Revelation TV tomorrow night.

I put a link up on the blog last evening where you should be able to watch the interview tomorrow evening on New Testament Reliability that will be live here in London. It'll be 9 o 'clock London time, but back there it'll be like 2 o 'clock in the afternoon.

And so if you'd like to grab that URL, then it'd be great to have you watching and pray for that. And then we're going to be doing some street ministry in Leicester Square. There's going to be a number of Muslims that come out there on Friday.

So then we head back on Saturday, the Saturday that becomes a 31-hour day. So it becomes a long day, but hopefully we won't have any flight delays and everything get home in one piece. With that, I think it'd be very valuable to spend the rest of our time looking at the attempted response given by Brian Broderson, who some people have told me is sort of the heir apparent next in line in Calvary Chapel, in the hierarchy of the Calvary Chapel movement.

Calvary Chapel, Synergism, and Misreading Scripture

And if that's the case, I'm a little bit concerned because this rather lengthy response would give anyone, I think, reason to be concerned given the nature of the response. I do note immediately that Brian Broderson never mentioned my name in the entirety of this article.

I don't understand that. I've mentioned his name and played his comments and quoted him directly, but we see no direct quotations of me, and not even once mentioning my name. Now, I know why Patrick Madrid does that.

I know why the Roman Catholics do that. I know why Mormons have done that. Why is this? You know, it really makes you wonder. We know that back in 2006, you know, Eric Cantor made it very clear he thought I was a heretic, but at least he mentions my name.

Why would Brian Broderson just call me a, quote, reformed, end quote, apologist? That's all I am, is just a, I'm not even a person, evidently. It's very, very odd, but I'll be reading from Brian's response.

I linked to it so you can read it for yourself. In response to that clarification, Brian Broderson said, a, quote, reformed, end quote, apologist accused me of not understanding what the Bible says about the heart of Jesus and insisting that I've invented a sentimental Jesus who wants to save everybody but can't.

He also accused me of being a syncretist, one who seeks to blend different religions or philosophies, of being entangled in tradition, of refusing to allow all of Scripture to speak, of misquoting and misinterpreting Scripture, and essentially of being unbiblical because, according to him, only Calvinism has the true biblical understanding of who Jesus is, what he did, and what his purposes are, end quote.

First and foremost, of course, I never accused him of being a syncretist. I accused him of being a synergist. A synergist is obviously a person who believes that there are multiple powers or multiple forces involved in bringing about salvation, that we cooperate together with the will of God to create salvation over against a monergist, you know, like monergism .com, who believes that God saves completely.

And so he evidently is not familiar with this theological terminology, which is fine, but it does reflect the Calvary Chapel anti-scholarship kind of thinking, that, you know, you shouldn't really, it's not very spiritual to spend time making sure you understand these words or use these words properly.

And, you know, studying Greek, it's sort of like the Dave Hunt thing, you know, you're a Greek elitist and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, the reason that you actually learn these things is so that you can communicate accurately and tell other people what you believe and deal with other belief systems in a proper fashion.

That's why you study these things. And so I would say if Brian Broderson is going to engage in attempting to provide responses, then he might want to show the respect to others, other than naming their names, of knowing what terminology they're using.

And so I think that's an important point. He clearly proclaims, remember, this is a man who said that Calvinism is Christianity without Jesus. Yet he objects to Calvinists actually believing their interpretation is correct.

See, he wants synergism to be the default position, and anyone else is guilty of dividing the body if they dare say anything against that. He's not dividing the body by saying that Calvinism is Christianity without Jesus, but we're dividing the body if we respond to it and point out where he's misquoting scripture.

There's a whole lot of this kind of really bad argumentation going on in the net right now in this and other areas. I go back to quoting. Now, according to this apologist, Jesus does not want to save everybody.

He never intended to save everybody, and I am greatly misrepresenting him by suggesting he does. He only ever intended to save the elect. Therefore, he only died for the elect. At the end of the day, those who are in heaven are there because they were predestined to be there, and those who are in hell are there because they were predestined to be there.

End of discussion. He's a rather dogmatic fellow, end quote. So Broderson isn't a dogmatic fellow. He's dogmatic in insisting that Jesus' death alone cannot be salvific without the addition of human free will, that Jesus has to try to save but fail to save.

Many of those for whom he dies, etc. And that is not dogmatic. Now, of course, once again, notice the little... It's almost a Calvary Chapel type thing because George Bryson does it, and I think most of these folks are trained by George Bryson.

So we're seeing George Bryson. It's almost like the last installment of The Matrix where, you know, now it's just George Bryson has taken over the entire city instead of Agent Smith, which is a rather frightening thing to think about when you go back to the 2001 debate we did.

But you have this equal ultimacy claim, and that is that those who are in heaven are there because they were predestined to be there, those who are in hell are there because they were predestined to be there.

They absolutely insist upon creating just a simple equation, just an equal sign between the two, no matter how many times we say it's not an equal sign, no matter how many times we say that we're talking about justice, the demonstration of God's wrath and holiness in the part of one, that everyone who is in hell not only chose to be there but would never choose to bow down and worship God over against those who are in heaven who never would have chosen had it not been for the radical act of regeneration.

There's a vast difference between the two. One is the extension of unmerited favor, it's grace, it's a powerful work of the Spirit of God. The other is the demonstration of God's justice, but they just want to put an equal sign between the two because if they don't, then most of their objections, in essence, collapse.

Quote, he went on to propose a series of questions to me that I would like to respond to, not because I think that my answers will have any effect on him, but because I believe it's important to show that the Calvinists are guilty of the very things they accuse others of doing, i .e. imposing their unbiblical theological views on scripture and conveniently ignoring or spinning biblical texts that don't fit their theology.

Well, I certainly have been noting with, between now Peter Lumpkins and Brian Bruterson, I've been feeling the love over here in London. It's been wonderful. Quote, the emphasis of this apologist was on Jesus rejoicing that God had hidden these things from the wise and prudent.

This is speaking of Matthew chapter 11. I had quoted that text of scripture in Matthew 11 where Jesus specifically refers to the judgment that God is bringing upon individuals, and he rejoices that God has hidden these things from some and revealed them to others.

Quote, implying that Jesus took special delight that God had himself prevented these men from receiving his message and being saved, thus proving at least from his point of view that Jesus not only doesn't want to save everybody, he delights in damning certain people, end quote.

Wow, that is truly amazing. Amazing indeed. What I was pointing out is that Brian Bruterson only preaches a part of the truth about Jesus. He doesn't preach the part where Jesus is a righteous judge, where Jesus rejoices in the holiness of God, where Jesus rejoices in God's judgment in the sense that that is an illustration of God's continuing providence and rulership in the universe, and that in fact Jesus will be the final judge.

And he is the one who will say to men, depart from me for I never knew you. He has a Jesus that only has one side, and what I was saying was you need to recognize that Jesus also rejoices when God brings his just judgment, and that is something that Christians are supposed to do.

Again, I think this illustrates how many Calvary Chapel folks really downplay the authority of the Old Testament scriptures, because I don't know how you can preach through the Old Testament scriptures without seeing this theme over and over again, especially in not only the history of Israel, but in the prophets themselves.

I continue on, quote, I find that interpretation difficult to accept in light of verses like Ezekiel 33, 11, where the Lord declares he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, or Isaiah 11, 8, where the Lord cries, how can I give you up for your freedom?

How can I hand you over to Israel? My heart churns within me. My sympathy is stirred. That hardly sounds like one rejoicing over judgment. I don't deny that what is being described here is a judicial blindness upon the wise and prudent, but the bigger question is, why were they blinded?

Was it the result of the decree of God in eternity past, or was it the result of their refusal to receive the one who came to save them? I believe it to be the latter, end quote. And so, once again, you don't have an exegesis of Matthew 11.

That's where this eisegesis by tradition comes in. When you see someone immediately leave the text, quote other texts, don't interpret those texts. Just throw them out there and say, this is the default understanding.

And then you create this, you know, it's Dave Hunt's dozens and dozens or hundreds of hundreds of verses type thing. And then you just insert into those verses your understanding, your perspective, and then you utilize that as the foundation of your exegesis, or in this case, eisegesis of the text.

He doesn't answer what Jesus is saying in Matthew chapter 11 at all. He just simply throws that out there. Now, there are obviously, you know, you can go back to Ezekiel 18 and Ezekiel 33 once again, the proverb that Ezekiel is arguing against where people are saying there's no reason to repent because we're suffering for what our forefathers did and et cetera, et cetera.

We can go back to those. But notice the real fundamental argumentation here. Was it the result of the decree of God and eternity passed, or was it the result they refused to receive one who came to save them?

The answer is, of course, both. And that's what they will not allow. But it is interesting to see that this thinking is turning upside down. What we have in the scriptures. Consider with me, if you just will, for a moment, John chapter 8 once again, and consider what is being stated in verse 43.

How would Brian Broderson respond to Jesus' question in John 8, 43? Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear my word. Why is it that you do not understand what I am saying?

Because you cannot hear my word. His answer would be, why is it you do not understand what I am saying? Because you don't choose to. You have the ability, but you don't choose to. But Jesus' response is to place this in their incapacity, in their inability to hear Jesus' word.

Why? Because they are their father, the devil. He explains later in verse 47, he who is of God hears the words of God. For this reason, you do not hear them, because you are not of God. But from Brian Broderson's perspective, he who is of God hears the words of God, and everyone else can hear the words of God if they so choose to do so.

And for this reason, you do not hear them, because you do not choose to hear them. That is the Broderson retranslation of John 8, 47. He cannot allow Jesus' teaching to stand at this point. He has to restate it in another way.

Because of his overarching acceptance of this kind of synergism, this man-centered synergism. He goes on to say, quote, these are the ones who would prove not to be his sheep, and therefore not drawn to Jesus by the Father.

But again, the question arises, why were they then not his sheep? Was it because they were decreed by God not to be his sheep, or was it because they were unwilling to believe, and thus not be counted among his sheep?

Again, I believe it to be the latter, end quote. Here you have a direct statement by one of the leaders of Calvary Chapel, that sheep choose the shepherd. Shepherds don't choose sheep. Sheep choose shepherds.

What an amazing thing. I don't know how much clearer the text of Scripture could possibly be. I mean, can you imagine seriously looking out at people and saying, yeah, sheep choose the shepherd. That's the exact opposite of the reality.

Jesus in John chapter 10 talks about these sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know my own. My own know me, even as the Father knows me, and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. You see, I think this is why he asked to go here, because he knows that Jesus says he lays down his life for the sheep.

But this is a directly opposite statement to the reality of the fact that the shepherd is the one who chooses his sheep, and the shepherd saves his sheep perfectly. To maintain synergistic theology and the vaunted free will of man, then Brian Brutterson has to turn John chapter 10 on its head.

It is the Father in John 6 who gives a people to the Son, and he draws those people infallibly to the Son. It is the Father who gives the sheep to the shepherd. It's not the sheep who choose the shepherd.

That's just amazing. Absolutely amazing. He then did attempt to present a few biblical passages, and he used bold italics to, or bold to try to communicate to us his point. He went to John chapter 5. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth, yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you might be saved.

He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a time in his life. Then down in verse 40, 39 and 40, you search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and these are they which testify of me.

But you are not willing to come to me that you may have life. So he bolded, but I say these things that you might be saved, and but you are not willing to come to me that you may have life. And he says, quote, here in verses 34 and 40, we see that Jesus wanted to save these men, and that it was their unwillingness to come to him that kept them from salvation, not an eternal decree by God that they should be damned, end quote.

So where does the verse say that? It says, but I say these things that you might be saved, and he turns that in his mind into I'm trying to save you, every one of you. He changes the fact that we all believe that God's word is used as the means by which we are convicted of our sin, by which we learn of the Savior.

Every one of Christ's sheep, what is it they do? Let me think. Oh, they hear his voice. And in John 8, what was it again? Oh, yeah, they hear the words of God because they belong to God. What was it in even John 5?

They hear the voice of the Son of God. There's this constant theme in John, they hear, they hear, they hear. Why? Because they're of God, not because they chose to be of God, but because they hear because they are of God.

Not everybody has the ability to hear, and then some have chosen, and therefore they continue to hear or something like that. So Jesus has communicated the very words of God. He has spoken the words, as he says, he was taught by the Father.

In other words, there's a perfect harmony between the Father and the Son and the revelation that he has given. And anyone who is saved is saved because Jesus Christ has faithfully delivered the message of the gospel, not only in his own ministry, but then by the ministry of Holy Spirit through his apostles.

And that's all of a sudden turned into, oh, I'm trying to save you. I am, I am trying, but you are thwarting me. And then the statement, you are unwilling to come to me that you may have life, is turned into, well, see, that's our choice.

Yeah, Brian, it is our choice. And it's always our choice, Brian. That's a statement of the depravity of man. You can stand in front of the sinless Son of God, and you are not willing. So Brian, why are you a Christian?

Are you better than these people? Why were you willing? This says you are not willing. I'm so thankful the Spirit of God changed my will, raised me a spiritual life. Remember Romans chapter 8? Those according to flesh cannot submit themselves to the law of God.

They cannot do what is pleasing to God. Remember that? The only reason any of us is a believer is because while verse 40 did describe us, God changed us, raised us to spiritual life, took out that heart of stone, gave us a heart of flesh.

I would love to hear how Brian Broderson explains that beautiful prophetic passage. What does it mean to take out a heart of stone, give a heart of flesh? When does that happen, Brian? Do you, with a heart of stone, choose to do what's right before God, and therefore he takes out the heart that you used to choose to do what was right, and then give you a heart of flesh?

What does that mean? I doubt I'll get a response to that, at least not with my name on it, but I'd like to know. Maybe somebody can call in and ask that. Call the Pastor's Perspective Program and say, could you explain what this means?

And then we could all listen to that. Continuing on, quote, we have a similar reference to the will being the determining factor in God's salvation. Did you catch that? Let me read that again. Quote, we have a similar reference to the will being the determining factor in a man's salvation.

There is a statement of synergism for you folks. It's not God's will. No, no, no. Here is man-centered religion in its fullest lack of glory. We have a similar reference to the will. That should have been capitalized, I think.

Being the determining factor in a man's salvation, in John 7, 17, the Jews marveled, saying, how is this man no letters, having never studied? And Jesus answered them and said, my doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me.

If anyone wills to do his will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on my own authority. John 17, end quote. Yeah, again, Brian, I want you to put that together with John 5, 40, and then listen to the biblical testimony that no man is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

And don't run off to John 12. Actually, try dealing with the text without turning into universals for just a moment, and you will see that this text, quite right, I will to do his will. But why do I will to do his will?

Because he's changed my heart. The Father gave me to the Son, drew me to the Son. I infallibly, as a result of the Father's work, have come to the Son. One is man-centered. One is God-centered. Quote again, in chapter 9, Jesus puts the blame for the Pharisees' spiritual blindness back on their own shoulders.

And Jesus said, For judgment have come to this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may be made blind. And some of the Pharisees who were with him heard these words and said to him, Are we blind also?

Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would have no sin. But now you say, We see. Therefore, your sin remains. John 9, 39 -41. Again, their inability to see and thus be saved was due to their unwillingness to humble themselves, not to God having eternal decree, their spiritual blindness.

Their spiritual blindness was due to their sin. They are the fallen children of Adam. And once again, we just simply have to ask, if he actually believes that God knew what was going to happen in the future, these are objections that come to his own perspective.

We're going to see a little bit more later on. I'm looking at the time. I realize I'm going a little bit too slowly here. One last passage. He went to John chapter 10, skips over all the clear sovereignty stuff.

It reminds me of the Mormon missionary that became a Christian once, and he told me, You know, I went back and read my King James Version of the Bible that I carried on my mission, and I had marked all this stuff, but I skipped over all the stuff that would have told me Mormonism was wrong.

Well, same situation here, unfortunately. Skips over all the sovereignty stuff and goes to verse 37. If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me. But if I do, though you do not believe me, believe the works which you may know and believe the Father is in me, and I in him.

Conjure the view of my apologist friend. That's nice. Jesus was clearly seeking to persuade men to believe in him, which leads to the logical and obvious conclusion that he wanted to save people who, in the end, would not be saved because they were not willing.

So you skip over everything about my sheep are my voice. I saved them. No one stashed that out of my hand. And to the Jews, you are not my sheep. And then go skipping into the section where Gia starts talking about the Jews' rejection of him for who he is and make application from there.

There is eisegesis, glowing eisegesis, on the part of Brian Broderson. Let me press forward here. Let me see here. Then we go back to the Matthew 11 text, and he says,. After having supposedly proved his point, verses 25 and 26, he went on to give his take on verse 27, where Jesus says,.

No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. His argument suggests there are some sinners to whom Jesus does not reveal the Father. Rather, Jesus chooses to reveal him only to the elect.

That's quite true. This is not what the passage is saying or teaching. In fact, the passage never says that Jesus only wants to reveal the Father to some sinners rather than Jesus taking delight in hiding the Father from sinners.

A better approach sees Jesus seeking their salvific good when, in this very context, he invites his listeners to come unto me and take my yoke upon you. That is to say, a balanced perspective of Scripture understands the passage in the sense that Jesus only reveals himself personally to the willing among sinners.".