Nelson Price, Jerry Vines and Pierre the Mormon

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. Good morning, welcome to The Dividing Line.

Got a little early start there, did you notice we got a little early start there? We're about 20 seconds early. The clock's off. I just checked the atomic clock on mine and, you know, see ya.

Hey, I synced that up before, you know, on the internet thing, the, you know, the atomic clock kind of sort of thing there.

Yeah, but it didn't work. I synced it up just before we started, so I don't get it. It didn't work. So which one is truly correct, or is the internet 20 seconds behind?

It's the internet's 20 seconds behind. You know, global warming could cause that. That's, yeah. Line one's been ringing for quite some time, by the way,

I just thought I'd let you know that. Hey, it's the professional guys on the radio. Never let you know that they're flying by the seat of their pants, and that's, that's what makes

The Dividing Line, The Dividing Line. You'd think after doing this, we need to go back and find out when the very first Dividing Line was.

It was sometime, it was well before 86, so we've been doing this for over 20 years with some breaks, but we've been doing this for a long, long time now, and we haven't gotten much better.

So I don't think there's a whole lot of, I don't think you have to worry about us becoming a stuffy, professional -sounding webcast at all, because that's just not our thing.

But anyway, I was just sort of looking around at my various RSS feeds, and I saw a note from Tom Askle on the

Founder's Blog, and he was talking about an article, and I clicked over to the article, entitled

Evangelical Calvinism is an Oxymoron, by a fellow by the name of Nelson Price out of Marietta, Georgia.

And I read the article, and I was duly unimpressed. I mean,

I don't know how many times we have to repeat the same thing, and that is that one side tilts its straw man and does not even attempt any type of fairness or accuracy, does not, from my perspective, does not have any concept of what it means to honor the truth.

These folks are the very same folks that spell Mormon, M -O -R -M -A -N, and I'm serious, they are.

They're the ones who will accept any kind of apologetic literature as long as it's supportive of their position, whether it's good literature or bad.

They are the folks who allow the folks who write bad books about Mormonism or Roman Catholicism or Jehovah's Witnesses to write bad books about these things, because they're the ones who buy them, because they don't have any concept of the idea that you have to bind yourself to the highest standard in your representation, even of those who will engage in falsehood, or if you refuse to do so, you are betraying the truth.

If you will use one standard for the defense of the truth and another standard elsewhere, you're being a hypocrite.

It's just, it's not being obedient to the command of Christ to follow after him who is the truth.

You're not honoring the truth when you're using double standards, and this obviously is very important apologetically, we've talked about it many times, we've talked about people who will write things, and when you hold to at least major elements of the truth but you use horrible argumentation against the other side, examples,

Farms, Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies out of BYU, what do they love to fill their publications with but examples of where conservative, evangelical, even fundamentalistic

Christians will basically believe anything about the history of Mormonism as long as it reflects badly on Mormonism, and then they can come along, they blow that away, they demonstrate that that's foolishness, that's silliness, and that becomes their apologetic.

Now does that mean they've actually responded in a meaningful fashion to the real critiques of their system?

Of course not. But that's how they sell books, that's how they make themselves look like they're actually providing a response, and a lot of folks will hear us on that and go hey, yeah, there's an example of where we need to, you know, utilize the proper standards and be very fair, etc.,

etc., etc. But when it comes to this issue, all of a sudden, the issue of Reformed Theology, all of a sudden all bets are off and all we are hearing is a drumbeat of falsehood, a drumbeat of falsehood.

I have queued up, as I promised, the Jerry Vines sermon from First Baptist Church Woodstock, and we'll get to it, but I'm looking through my

RSS feeds and I'm reading about this Paul Nelson guy, and then I follow that over to another article, and here, lo and behold,

Nelson Price, I'm sorry, Paul Nelson, who in the world is that, I don't know, was he in I Dream of Jeannie? I forget who that was. Major there,

Major Nelson, it was Major Nelson, Tony, Tony, something like that, I don't remember.

I ran across that recently, way up at those high -end cable numbers, you know, 88 or whatever it is.

You know you're really old enough. He's got cable now, folks, and he's like, oh, there's all kinds of channels here, where do they get all this stuff?

I saw Gilligan's Island recently, it was like, yes, I have a picture of me with Gilligan, his hat and everything.

Yeah, this is when he was actually still living, but anyway, boy, talk about getting off track there.

Yep, fell right off the side. Let's put this thing back on the track here. So Nelson Price, who wrote this horrible little article that's just filled with straw men and stuff, just preached, guess where?

At first, Baptist Church Woodstock. Now, why would you have Jerry Vines, and then one month later,

Nelson Price, and both of them clearly have been asked to attack Calvinism?

Is First Baptist under assault from a huge wave of Reformed theology, or is

First Baptist just trying to take the lead in attacking without a scintilla of accuracy or concern for the truth?

Reformed theology is that it exists in Reformed churches and amongst

Southern Baptists who take the time to actually read their founding documents. It must be a terrible thing when these founding documents, they're put on the internet, because then people can go like, use

Google and find out that, hey, you know what? Southern Baptists used to believe something differently. I mean, they even talked about the errors of Arminianism, and they talked about particular redemption, and wow, how did this ever happen?

Because we know Baptists don't believe that, because Brother Johnny Hunt told us so. What's going on?

Don't know. But just before the program, I was recording some of this sermon from First Baptist.

I just want to play just four sections from this, then go back to Vines, because in reality,

Vines sounds good in comparison to this, but they're both preaching the same pulpit.

Now, I would like to think that the result of that would be there's all these discerning people sitting out there in this massive church, and they're going, hey, wait a minute.

That's not what the other guy said. Wait a minute. The other guy was much more careful. Unfortunately, I don't know that that's the normative response for many people when this kind of preaching takes place.

I want to play some of these clips from Nelson Price, and again, you say, yeah, we heard this from Dave Hunt once, too.

Well, there does seem to be this, like I said, there's a template. Here's the things you say.

The first thing, for example, one side approaches the issue of the atonement, and by the way, this sort of feeds into something

I want to remind you of. Next October, when we do our cruise, and I know

October sounds like a long ways away right now, but could I mention something just really quickly to those of,

I've been hearing from a lot of folks, and there's a lot of excitement about the class slash cruise next

October, and as well there should be, and you've got to be pretty odd if you're excited about spending four hours a day in class with me.

But you know what? It would cost you more, I think, to, especially for credit, to take a class like that through seminary than it would the way we're doing it, and you get wonderful food, and you get to sail in the

Inside Passage up there in British Columbia. So one thing

I wanted to mention, I know it sounds like it's a long, long, long, long, long time from now, but there's something really basic and fundamental you need to understand here.

We have to reserve what's called in the industry inventory, in other words, cabins, space, and the cruise line wants to make sure that that ship is filled with people when it leaves.

That's how they make their money, and so there's all sorts of people, oh man, we are so on next year, boy, oh yeah.

The problem is you only have so long before you either have to pay for your inventory or give up your inventory.

I really, really, really, really, really want to have 400 people in our group on that ship. I really do.

I want to have 400 people in our group. I want to have 200 cabins. I really do. There's no reason why that should not be a reality.

I mean, that would be at least 200 people of that group in the class, maybe more.

Because I realize there's going to be people who want to come, but they're just four hours of seminary level lecture each day, despite all the food and everything else, just it's too much.

But I want to have that many people there. Here's the point. If you're going to do it, do it.

Don't put it off. Make it a Christmas present to yourself, whatever you got to do, but you need to do it now because time comes when we've got to start giving up those cabins and the availability goes away.

So I slipped my mind that I wanted right off the bat to let people know, I know

October, we just got done with October. And as you get older and older, it just goes faster and faster, starts spinning really quickly.

And so it's sort of like, ah, you don't have to worry about it. No, there's only so much space.

And now's the time to get the screaming deal. And what is it, 50 bucks? I mean, that's not much to put down.

Now's the time to do it. And let's get it done. So what we're going to be doing on that cruise, however, is an illustration of just why this type of thing that I'm about to play for you bothers me so much.

We're going to be taking time to read entire books. We are going to be taking the time before the cruise.

We're reading entire books. We'll be looking at the Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, for example, one of the texts we're going to be using.

And we're going to be dealing with issues like what propitiation means.

What was the seat of atonement? What are the forms that are used of these terms?

We want to accurately handle the Word of God, especially when it's touching upon such vital things as the atoning work of Christ.

And so that's how we do things. We're going to be doing an entire four hours a day on this one subject, the

Historicity and Theology of the Cross. And so I think that's one of the means, not the only means.

I mean, you can do that. And if you don't have passion and if you don't let that touch your life, then you're dishonoring the truth.

But I don't believe you can profess all the passion in the world. But if you don't have the personal discipline and concern for the truth to delve into these things,

God has given us such a rich revelation. And people just ignore this. Yeah, well, whatever, you know,

John 3, 16. Yeah, that's all I really care about. That's not showing honor for the truth.

That's not even respecting the Holy Spirit who's given us the Word of God and preserved it for us. And so with all that in mind, our side takes the time to listen to the objections and read the objectors and provide responses and do the lexical studies and all this stuff.

That's what we're all about. Listen, as Dr. Price presents, evidently, you know, all these people are going to hear on the nature of the atonement.

Second point, unlimited atonement. There are those today who are saying there is limited atonement.

Christ's death on the cross is applicable only to those that God elects to take to heaven.

That's a spurious doctrine, and that's referring to it with all grace and restraint.

But the very matter of unlimited atonement, for whom did Jesus die? Let me share with you

God's Word, what it has to say about it. For example, in 2 Corinthians 5, chapter verses 14 and 15, one died for all.

First Timothy 4, 10, who gave himself for all. First Timothy 4, 10 again, who is the savior of all men.

Hebrews 2, 9, he by the grace of God might taste death for everyone. First John 2, 2, he himself is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but for all who believe.

John 1, 29, behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

So there you have the quick run through. Not a single verse is even quoted in its entirety.

There is no even attempt made to define context, to define the extent of all.

Why doesn't all mean Satan and the demons? Well, of course, when we go into the Bible, when we actually provide a context, when we actually get serious about this, is that what we're saying?

Yeah, that seems to be what we're saying, but just throw it out there. Show not the first recognition that every single one of the texts

I'm presenting there has been dutifully, honestly, and in depth addressed by people from the other side.

Don't even show the slightest familiarity or a desire to be familiar with what anybody else is saying.

And that's supposed to be good. And the result? Well, listen to the result of that kind of rat -a -tat -tat, acontextual, let's not get past the most shallow understanding of a text type of presentation.

Hang on to this, don't run off and leave me before I finish it. Technically, sin is no longer the issue.

Jesus took care of that. He died for all the sins of all the people of all the world.

That does not mean all are saved. What it means is anybody can be saved.

The issue is, what will you do with Jesus Christ? Now you can hear, hopefully, in that, as I'm using the

WAVE broadcast here, so it's nice and high quality. That's right, that's right, that's right, that's right, that over and over again, all the amening going on.

Sin is no longer the issue, folks, aren't you all glad about that? Sin is no longer the issue. And Christ died, not to save anybody in particular, but just simply, well, isn't this exactly what

Norman Geister said? Isn't this what his seminary is putting out? What's the death of Christ for?

It's to make man savable. Not to save anybody, but to make man savable, depending upon what man does.

There you go. Um, preach is real good until someone on the other side gets up and says, so what you're saying is savable.

Hypothetical. And do they ever, wouldn't, if, you know, if I held this viewpoint,

I would feel such a, a crushing weight to consistently, every time

I've enunciated it, give a response to the most pressing objections against what

I've just said. I could not, I cannot begin to understand the mindset of someone who can not feel that pressure to give a response to, for example, answering the question, all right, if what you're saying then is all sin's been dealt with, except for unbelief, isn't unbelief a sin?

And if these people are punished, what are they going to be punished for? Talk to me about Chorazin and Bethsaida. How can there be any gradations of punishment if sin's no longer an issue?

Hitler was redeemed. And how is that different in any way, honestly, from a story

I've told many times, years and years ago when we had offices, uh, in a different location, uh, over on the

Camelback Road, we would, we had this one room where we had enough open space where we could have, uh, meetings.

We could have a fairly small number of folks, maybe, I don't know how many, we might have been able to fit 30, 40 in there, maybe

Sir Graham, I imagine, in that room, I would imagine. We did a seminar on the atonement once, and a

Roman Catholic fellow came, an older Roman Catholic fellow, uh, traditionalist Catholic, just virulent.

Roar. And during, while I'm speaking, I'm making statements about redemption.

He's going, Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse. Remember that? Remember, remember the Mickey Mouse, uh, situation? And afterwards,

I sit down and talk to this guy, and he says, you just don't get it. We've all been redeemed.

Uh, but we haven't been forgiven. The redemption is because of the death of Christ, and then we, we receive those benefits through the sacraments, see.

And so the, the price has been paid, but, but we have to obtain that through what we do in regards to the sacraments.

And I remember going to Ephesians chapter one, where Paul uses construction, where he talks about redemption, that is the forgiveness of our sins.

That is. It's, it's identification. It's, uh, that's Mickey Mouse. That's Mickey Mouse. Is that what it says? That's, that's, you use, that's why you need the church.

That's why you need the church. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, how can Price, uh, argue against that?

What, on what basis can Nelson Price argue against that viewpoint of a

Roman Catholic? Because they both agree on the hypothetical nature of the atonement. That's what

I've said many, many times. The argument that I present in the fatal flaw in regards to perfection of the atonement cannot be used by an

Arminian. And that is the argument against the mass and against the whole concept of transpantiation and sacrifice of the mass, the whole nine yards.

Can't do it. Can't do it. They do not have a sufficiently biblical, consistent, vigorous doctrine of atonement to even be able to do that.

Well, you aren't going to expect, I would imagine, that Nelson Price is going to define

Calvinism overly accurately. And, well, he didn't disappoint. God doesn't want anybody to perish, spiritually die.

2 Peter 3 .9. He's not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Underscore all. 1 Timothy 2 .4. Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth.

Now, I want to refer to this doctrine that is permeating certain congregations today. I'm presently ministering to a church where it has come in.

And it is a doctrine called Reformed Theology, sometimes called Calvinism. It's known by a number of titles.

It deals with such things as election, foreknowledge, predestination.

If you study your New Testament, you'll find that it teaches election. It's throughout the New Testament. The issue is, what does that mean?

The confusion is over what is meant by election. The word election is used as a synonym for the word chose.

Choose or chosen. What does it mean that God elects individuals to be saved?

It means this. God had a will. And in his will, he gave you and me a free will.

It's his will that all should be saved. But he's given us a free will. And whether or not we are saved depends on how we respond to him.

So election doesn't mean God says, I like you and I don't like you. I want you in, but I don't like you.

Again, you're almost left speechless at this kind of acontextual, eisegetical, pull something out of the air.

Don't bother giving a foundation. Don't bother saying, and I get this from this particular.

Here is the consistent lexicographical information that demonstrates that my use of eclektos, whatever, put it in a context someplace.

Here's where in this text, this is where election means that God in his sovereignty gave man a free will.

Please pull that one up out of Ephesians 1 for me, please. Let's, could we, could any, would any of these people even try to do what

I did in my Sunday school class over the past number of weeks? We went through Romans 9 and you can spend a lot of time if you're actually letting the text speak, digging into what's there.

They don't, they don't even make a connection there. Don't even, don't even try. It is so frustrating to recognize that this man is standing in front of thousands of people in a multi, multi, multi -million dollar facility.

Television cameras, this, this stuff's available all across the world. And yeah, it is frustrating to sit here and to see that and to go, why, why is this shallow, inaccurate stuff considered to be worthy of all the amening going on in the background?

It's just, it's just, there's no way to substantiate what was just said, but that's not going to stop the amens.

In fact, he goes on with an illustration and it has got to be the worst illustration

I've ever heard. I, I almost feel compelled to write, even though certainly, you know,

I just saw on channel that Johnny Hunt at the end of the sermon called

Price a prince of a preacher. Oh, great, wonderful. Spurgeon would have had just really some nasty things to say about what this fellow has said, but be it as it may,

I, I, I almost feel compelled to write though. I'm sure other people have. And so my email probably wouldn't even get a response, but I feel compelled to write because this, this isn't even, this isn't a matter of inaccuracy.

This is simple dishonesty. I mean, it's, it's just, it's that bad.

And Nelson Price may just have never done enough serious study to even address this issue.

And if he hasn't, then he shouldn't be standing in front of people addressing it. But, you know, maybe he's just really, really ignorant of this.

I can't believe that's the case, but this illustration is, is, it just, it crosses the line.

It's not, it can't be excused. It's dishonest. It's, it's completely wrong. He may think it's accurate, but he would have to be exceptionally ignorant to think it was accurate.

It's just that bad. I, it's just, it is hard to, to, well, here, listen for yourself.

How about this? For example, all of mankind is standing in a great bus stop. It's called the late great planet earth.

And here comes a bus. It's the eternal bus line.

Right on the front of the bus. You see the sign that is there. Heaven bow. Bus pulls up, door opens, people standing all around.

Who is the driver? God himself. God says all entitled to get on, get on.

Come on, please, please. But not you stand over here, please. Come on. You do you, you were the children.

Wait over. I don't care if you say you profess Jesus is your savior. I didn't choose you. And you stand over there.

I know you serve me as a missionary in a foreign country for all your life, but I didn't choose you.

Those I've chosen come on board. Well, how about us? We want to get on board to catch the next bus door closes.

Next bus. Captured right over the front of the bus. The hell bound bus.

Is that God? Is that the God of the New Testament? No, and that has absolutely positively nothing to do with anything, even semi related to reform theology either.

Unbelievable. That is that when I made that clip. I called it bus stop lie because it's a lie.

There's no there's no reason to mince words here. Anyone who would knowingly and that's why

I just have to assume that this this gentleman hasn't a clue what he's talking about. He's he's only listen to one side.

He's never read a single book representing the other position, because if he did, then he's lying. And it's it's pure dishonesty, pure dishonesty.

And I don't want to believe that someone would stand in that pulpit and just lie. That that blatantly just shocking to me.

Where in the world do you get? This kind of capricious.

Viewpoint of election. Where do you where in the world do you get this idea that there are people who want to go to heaven and God saying no to them?

Is it not the most basic assertion of reform theology that there's nobody who wants to go there in the first place?

There is no God seeker. We're all enemies of God. Is that not the most basic assumption that's made right off the top?

That God has to take out the heart of stone and give us a heart of flesh? Isn't that the main objection

Norman Geisler gives that we have to be rewired by God? If that's the most basic objections there, how can you then turn around and go out there?

There's all these people that want to go to heaven and God saying, no, I don't. You may have you make believe in Jesus, but I'm not taking anybody who, you know, you can believe in Jesus all you want, but it's only the people

I choose. The whole point of reform theology is the only people who truly believe in Jesus are the people that he has redeemed from the slavery of sin.

It's just it couldn't get any worse. They couldn't get worse. I'm a little surprised

Dave Hunt hasn't picked that one up because it could not possibly get any worse than that.

It is just so frustrating to hear that kind of gross characterization, completely inaccurate, completely wrong.

I would like to think that there was someone there who went up to him afterwards and said, that's just not true.

But I know how a lot of Southern Baptist churches work and people like that, especially in a megachurch, are pretty well protected.

So I don't know what happened. But it's just so frustrating to see that kind of thing.

It's just terrible. So just a gross, gross, gross misrepresentation.

It needs to be viewed for exactly what it is. Just, just, just horrific.

Well, I promised you some of the Jerry Vine sermons. So we need to, we need to get to that. And like I said, in comparison to what we just heard.

Wow. This, this sounds like a scholarly treatise in comparison to what we just heard.

Anyway. Let's talk about these for just a moment. T, total depravity.

Now, when we talk about total depravity, we mean for the most part that, that man is born with a sinful nature.

Though man is not as bad or as sinful, as depraved as he could be, every facet of our being is stained and damaged by sin.

Every area of our personality, we believe, has been touched by the stain of sin.

Total depravity. Psalm 51, 5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Jeremiah 17, 9. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.

Now, so far, I think most of us would agree. If you've ever taken a look into your own heart,

I think you would agree with me, that every area of our being has been touched and stained by sin.

But now, the Calvinists go a step further than that.

When they talk about total depravity, they mean something in addition to that. They mean total inability.

They mean not only is your will touched by sin in every area, your personality is touched by sin in every area, but that your will is dead, and you are totally unable to respond.

Now, a quick correction, obviously. Once again, if any of these folks would take the time, read

Piper, read Sproul, read Calvin, read somebody, read something other than Hunt and Geisler, they would know that we do not deny the existence of man's will.

We do not even deny that man engages in spiritual activity, but it is always as what?

As the slave of sin, as the enemy of God. And as a result, as the

Apostle Paul said in Romans chapter 8, what did he say? Those from the flesh cannot please

God. They cannot submit themselves to the law of God. And I would suggest to you that Arminianism and its various less consistent forms, as seen in Dr.

Vines and in many in the Southern Baptist Convention today, cannot survive without a very low view of God's law.

Cannot survive without a very low view of God's law. In other words, that section of Romans 8 cannot submit itself to God's law.

Well, why should we worry? We're not in the law, we're under grace, right? Complete mixture of contexts, complete misunderstanding.

Why should anyone be overly concerned about us submitting ourselves to God's law unless we want to live in a way that is pleasing to him and God has revealed the way that is pleasing to him.

And they go to Ephesians chapter 2, verse 1, where it says, And you hath he quickened, the word means made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.

They say man is spiritually dead. And we know that is exactly what the Bible teaches. Man is spiritually dead.

And so they say man is spiritually dead. Therefore, how can a dead man repent? How can a dead man have faith?

So he has to be regenerated. And that's correct, just as long as once again, the misapprehension that that death means inactivity rather than lack of true spiritual life.

That's the balance that is frequently missed in these less than robust representations of the position that they are allegedly refuting.

He has to be born again. He has to receive life before he can have faith.

Now, this is very important right here. In the Calvinist system, regeneration precedes faith.

You have to be regenerated, made alive before you can exercise saving faith.

Now, that brings up some interesting questions. For instance, if you're born again before faith, what does faith accomplish?

Um, how is that an objection? Because, for example, even in his own Ordo Salutis, you would be born again before experiencing practical sanctification.

So what does sanctification accomplish? I mean, sometimes you listen to these objections and you just, you again want to sit back and go, is anybody listening to this?

Do these folks not have someone they can run these things by to go, excuse me, but that didn't, no.

That's not a really valid objection. Is he asking, what does faith accomplish from the person's?

I don't know. In other words, what is it that the person has done in a backhanded way?

I mean, is he seeing this as a work? So what is your faith done? Because God did it all for you.

Maybe he'll explain. Which means then that if you are born again before faith, that means that by grace are you saved through faith.

That means then if you're born again, you're born again before you're saved. Did I miss something there?

Yeah, I think someone's a bit confused as to the position they're responding to here.

It's just difficult for me to think that someone who has actually sat down maybe with Piper or sat down with Sproul and actually, you know, wrestled with these things is the person

I'm listening to. Sounds to me like I'm listening to someone who starts the presupposition, these people are wrong.

And so I'm going to read what somebody else said about them that proves they're wrong. And therefore, I'm going to feign confusion because actually,

I am confused because I really don't know the original sources at all. I know I'm just from the country, but does that make sense?

Isn't that a common one? That I'm hearing a lot amongst the Southern Baptists. I'm just from the country,

I ain't one of them smart intellectual folks, you know. And that's what this Calvinism is, smart intellectual folks. I'm just from the country and I get it.

That's true. But it's used as a false idea of humility.

If you're going to have true humility and your real point was, I don't feel adequate to address these things, why are you staying in front of a couple thousand people doing it?

That's the big question that I would have to ask. Now notice, I don't think this is what the

Bible teaches. Let me give you a couple of scriptures which make it very clear. Galatians 3, 26.

For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

By faith in Christ Jesus, you are God's child. You are born again. You are regenerated.

John 1, 12. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up the truck and again, explain to me, before you run off to John 1, 12, what you think that means?

You think that means that that somehow has something to do, where was regeneration in there?

I missed it. And again, here, this is the, you know, the

Dave Hunt, throw out a verse about faith, show something that we can temporally make subsequent to that and therefore, as a result, make that subsequent thing equal to regeneration and therefore, you've proven your point.

That seems to be what's going on here. I don't really necessarily follow that along.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power or authority to become the sons, the children of God, even to them that believe on his name.

Okay. Yeah, that's that. In fact, I go on from there. I actually let the text continue because it says who were born, not of the will of the flesh or the will of man, but of God.

So, hmm. I don't know. Seems to me like we're getting a whole lot of isogenesis being thrown out here in, rather than a whole lot of substance, unfortunately.

Well, while we were playing Nelson Price's comments, we got a phone call.

And so, I want to take time to address those things before we get too far.

Though again, right now, I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference between the two in their presentation or the accuracy thereof.

But I will say this. Having listened to all of Vine's presentation, there's nothing as bad as the bus stop illustration in what

Vine said. So, that becomes the new benchmark for the bottom of the barrel.

And so, we'll see what develops from there. But frequently, as we discuss the issues of Reformed theology and the

Bible, we get a call from Pierre. Hi, Pierre. Hi. How are you doing?

I'm doing all right, thank you. So, please don't tell me that you found anything overly interesting about Nelson Price's bus stop illustration.

Well, I realized that you may not find it... I mean, obviously, you didn't find it very attractive.

I mean, accurate. I mean, that would be similar to my saying that you worship Joseph Smith as your

God. That's how accurate that would be. So, would you appreciate it if I said that Mormons worship

Joseph Smith as their God? No, but I think it does... As I listened to what you've said over the past month or so with the various people that you've put on,

I guess there's a lot of confusion that comes out of it. Because on the one hand, you seem to indicate that God punishes individuals for their sins.

And yet, on the other hand, you talk about predestination. You mean like Isaiah 10, Genesis 50,

Acts 4, those biblical passages where compatibilism were taught, right? Well, it's not so much compatibilism as just simply the idea that people...

It sounded like you were saying at one point that people are being punished for their sins, and that's why they go to hell.

Yeah, that's why people go to hell. Would that be your position? Yep, I've said that probably for what?

25, 30 years easily now? The reason I bring it up is because that seems to be inconsistent with the teaching of predestination.

Because if we're predestined, then obviously the destiny occurred before the action.

And that's why we have explained hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times the basis of God's judgment, the relationship between God's decree and man's actions, the fact that man is judged for his love of his sin.

And we have taken people to these passages, to Genesis 50, Isaiah 10, Acts 4, where God judges men for doing things, for their desires in doing things.

And yet in the very same text, God says that he predestined these acts to occur. So if you believe that the

Bible is the word of God and you don't supersede it by texts from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, and if you don't deny its inspiration consistency, then you have to deal with these texts.

And that's how sound Christian theology has done so, is to recognize that they fit together, that they're not contradictory to one another, and that there is a clear balance that is presented to us in Scripture.

Well, that's precisely why I'm calling is because I think there's an inconsistency. I don't think that is sound theology at all.

There's a great inconsistency in that thinking process. Because if you create a pig, you can expect that it's going to behave like a pig and not like a hummingbird.

And you're assuming that God is forcing men by the nature of their created being to be sinners.

And that is, once again, where you would be wrong. It's not, no, there's no forcing involved. You know, if you create a pig, it does what a pig does.

So if you create a sinner, obviously it's going to sin. You know, if people behave, if sinners behave like hell bound individuals, that's because that's their destiny.

They are hell bound individuals by the divine decree of God before the foundations of the world.

And how can you expect them to behave any differently? Well, I don't expect a sinner to behave any differently.

The sinner loves his sin. That's why he is judged for his sin. He doesn't have any desires for God.

He doesn't desire to turn from his sin. And so unless God extends grace to him, he is going to continue doing exactly what he desires to do.

But what we haven't, what would really help, I think, the people in the audience would be to hear where you explain those texts that I gave to you.

Because are you saying, yeah, okay, that's what the Bible says, but I just reject that? No, I don't reject it at all.

Okay, so when Joseph's brothers sold him to slavery, the Bible teaches that was an evil act.

Is it an evil act to sell your brother into slavery and to fool your old father into thinking he was dead? Would we agree that's an evil act?

Yes. Okay, and so after his death, then the brothers come before Joseph, and they're scared to death that now that Papa's gone,

Joseph, being a powerful man he is, is going to wipe them out. And this is what Joseph said. I want to understand how you understand what

Joseph says. Genesis 50, 20, As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result to preserve many people alive.

So you've got one action. You, my brothers, meant evil against me.

God meant it for good for a specific purpose, and that is to preserve many people alive.

So one action, the brothers meant to do that action. God meant that action to take place.

God's purposes are perfect and pure and good. Man's desire in that situation was evil.

They're sinful because they're evil desires. God is holy because of his holy and just will.

How do you understand that? Well, of course, for me to explain how

I understand that passage, I would have to approach it from the LDS position because I believe there is no other.

Well, how about the position of Genesis 50, 20, which was written, what, 3200 years before Joseph Smith was born?

Yes, but of course, you have to realize that we believe that they were under the same gospel that was preached by Joseph Smith.

Well, I understand you believe that, but didn't Genesis 50, 20 have a meaning when it was written? Oh, yeah.

Okay, so what does it mean? Well, anyway, the point of that is that God uses men, which is what is also taught in Romans chapter 9 very clearly by Paul, and that is that God has the right to use men as he sees fit, and he gives them assignments here upon this earth knowing the kinds of people they are, and therefore he shapes history through the use of men, but he allows them to exercise their free will.

He does not have to make them do the things that they do.

They choose of their own free will and choice. God knows and understands who they are. He is able to look down the corridor of time, and he assigns individuals to different positions in life, each in accordance with their character, knowing the kind of choices they're going to make, and thereby the history follows a pattern that God has chosen to follow.

Well, wait a minute, Peter. How does that work in this situation? We have a specific incident in history that, according to Genesis 50, had to take place for God to preserve many people alive.

Could Joseph's brothers, who you say had free agency or free will, have chosen not to do what they did?

Absolutely. So if they had chosen not to, then God would not have been able to preserve many people alive, right?

If they had chosen that path, it would have been a different historical line, absolutely. So God doesn't have any capacity to preserve many people alive because man has free will and God will not do anything that would in any way impact that free will, right?

No. I think you missed my whole point. Well, you said two different things.

You said, well, God knows people, and so he puts them in a particular place. So did God know that the brothers would do that?

Yes. And so he put them there, but then you said, but they might not have done that.

Which is it? Well, that's right. They might not have. They weren't predestined to make that decision.

Nevertheless, God knew looking down the corridor of time that these things would be so. How does

God look down the corridor of time? I have no idea. I'll have to ask him when I get on the other side.

Doesn't the book of Isaiah tell us that God does so because he created time itself? Now, I know your God could not create time because he is bound by time.

So if he's bound by time, how can even God know future events given your viewpoint of libertarian free will?

I don't know how he does it, but that doesn't mean that it's not possible just because I can't explain it.

Okay. Now, would you admit that your interpretation of Genesis 50 doesn't really have much to do with the text itself?

I mean, how is it that the brothers meant something in their action and God meant something in the exact same action?

If the action came solely from the free will of these brothers doing something evil, then how can

God mean something in the same action? And it's good if it's not a part of his... Did God mean for the brothers to commit the sin of selling

Joseph into slavery? No, I don't think so. But I think he knew that they would and therefore he used that to his advantage to save the people.

So you cannot believe what the Bible says when it says God meant it for good. No, I do.

He did mean it for good. You just said that he didn't mean for them to do it. If I mean to do you good,

I'm not talking about afterwards. It's not, well, God used their evil for good. That's not what Genesis 50 says.

If they meant it for evil, that means that the intentions in the action were evil.

God had an intention in the very same action. All you're telling me is after the action took place, he tried to make some good out of it.

No, God intended that action to take place. Yes or no? Exactly. Yes. He did intend for them to commit that evil act.

Well, I think what he intended to do is take advantage of the fact that he knew what they would do and turn it for the good of the people is what is happening here.

And you think that's what Genesis 50 is saying? Yes. Okay. So I think we can let the audience determine who's handling the text there.

Another one that I think people would find even more relevant because it's better known to people is Acts chapter four, verses 27 to 28, where the

Bible says, for truly in this city, they were gathered together against your holy servant, Jesus, whom you anointed, both

Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur.

So is it your viewpoint that Elohim simply knew his offspring so well that he knew that Herod was a nutcase?

He knew Pontius Pilate was a coward. He knew the Romans would do whatever Pontius Pilate told him to do.

And he knew the peoples of Israel, that is Jewish leaders, would be consumed with jealousy of Jesus. And so he sent his offspring at a particular point in time to a particular place so that they would betray

Jesus Christ, the Jews to the Roman leaders, and Pontius Pilate wouldn't stop it, and Herod wouldn't stop it, and the

Romans would do it. That's what's going on in this text? Yes.

Okay. That God, you know, takes advantage of what he knows about people and puts them in historical time where they will fulfill his will.

And the will, of course, at that time was that Christ needed to die for our sins. And so he had to arrange things in such a way that that would happen without violating the free will of man.

And so these men, exercising free will, did what

God's hand and purpose predestined to occur, except it might not have happened, right?

I mean... I mean... Hello? Yeah, I'm sorry.

I have an internet phone, and sometimes it does funny things. Actually, it doesn't sound half bad, but yeah, sometimes something like Skype and things like that will sort of do that.

But you understand that like open theists or others who try to utilize some of the elements of argumentation that you're utilizing, their problem is that they do not want to say that God's knowledge of an individual can be such that they cannot do otherwise.

And if any one of these groups had chosen to do otherwise... We've got a whole group here.

We've got Herod, we've got Pontius Pilate, we've got the Gentiles, we've got the people of Israel, all sorts of people in here. And if God predestined that Christ was going to die at a particular point in time, how is it that any one of them could possibly have done other?

Wouldn't that mean that God is trying and failing, trying and failing over and over and over again every time one human free will gets in the way?

No. No. Because again, you have a God who knows and understands what's going to happen.

And that's how he makes his decisions of who goes where. And... So you've got a

God who's responding to this knowledge he has. When did Elohim get this knowledge of the future, by the way?

Because he certainly couldn't have had it when he was still a man living on a planet someplace, right?

He didn't, I mean... That's the abilities that gods have that, you know, humans don't.

And we don't understand how that works. But when we get on the other side, these are things that will be taught to us.

And we will begin to understand these things. So at the point of exaltation, is that when

Elohim gets... Well, Elohim doesn't know what's going to happen on other planets, does he? I have no idea.

Oh, I see. Way out of my realm. You know, I have no idea. All I know is that God has all the knowledge and understanding that he needs to accomplish his will upon the earth.

And he does do it. So if Elohim knows what you're going to have for dinner, can you have something else?

No, seriously. That's like asking me, can God build a rock so big he can't lift it? No, it's not.

No, no, I'm sorry, Pierre, but there is no categorical connection between those two statements.

One creates an absurdity. The other asks a very serious question based upon the assumptions that you're making about God's knowledge.

And this is standard discussion in the literature about God's knowledge of future events, is if God has, for example, prophecy.

If God gives a prophecy and it's actually all up to man's will, then how can prophecy exist?

Because man could just simply choose, well, I'm not going to do it. And the farther you go down the road, the more free man is.

God's only guessing about what might happen in the future. He doesn't actually know. You seem to be saying

God actually has infallible knowledge of future events. I think I don't think, okay, so you're taking a stronger position than certainly open theists and people like that would today.

And so if you're saying God has infallible knowledge of the future, then he does know what you're going to have for dinner tonight.

And he could, if he's had some purpose in doing so, prophesy through a prophet what you're going to have for dinner tonight.

So the question then becomes, how is it that you have autonomous free will if in point of fact,

God knows what you're going to do? Could you do other? And the only logical or rational answer is, no,

I can't do other, but that sort of messes with the whole definition of what libertarian free will is all about.

No, it doesn't. Okay. Can you have something other than what God knows you're going to have for dinner this evening?

Well, if I was going to choose, otherwise he'd know that, you see, he automatically would know. And so it's not a question that I can't choose.

I made a choice already where I'm going to make a choice and he knows what choice I'm going to make. And that's all there is to it.

Well, that's all there is to what you want to answer to, but that's not all there is to it because the question goes back to what you've already admitted you don't know.

And that is, how would God have knowledge of what a free creature is going to be doing in the first place? And the biblical answer is that he's the creator, but since you don't have the doctrine of ex -opera,

I'm sorry, ex nihilo creation, ex -operato sacramentalism, either for that matter, but since you don't have that foundation in your doctrine of God in particular, then you're left going, don't know, can't give an account for that.

But the point is that in Isaiah, the very proof that God is

God and idols are not based upon the reality of the fact that God can predict not only what's going to happen in the future, he can also tell you what happened in the past and why it happened.

And how does that make him God? That means he has a divine purpose that he is working out in this world.

It's God's free will, Pierre, that matters, not man's free will, the creature. That's the problem.

Thanks for calling today. We appreciate your participation. And I think illustration of a lot of the issues that come up in these discussions.

We will continue on Thursday, Lord willing, with the discussion. By the way, I'm going to be on Iron Sharpens Iron here in an hour, back there in New York, if you'd like to listen in to that.

And on Thursday as well, same time, one o 'clock my time, whenever that is, an hour from now. Hope you'll be listening then.

See you then. God bless. For the faith of Father Spockmore, we need a new

Reformation day. For the dividing line.