Read my book on BAM Reviewed

Introduction to the Dividing Line and the Upcoming Debate Response

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 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Good evening fellow womb doomers. I Just thought I'd scroll by in the channel. I thought it was great womb doomers I hadn't seen that one before but I know where it came from. We all know where it came from womb doomers.

That's a good one. Welcome to the fighting line. Oh Boy, I tell you, you know that the people that complain about angels cartoons his angelic Responses evidently do not listen. Yeah, I need to find it and find whatever that thing is and mute it.

There it goes there went evidently do not listen to the dividing line very often because we always have found the program while almost always and therefore the the cartoons fit in absolutely Perfectly with that and if you have not seen the front page you Really need to go see it after angel sent that to me for Make a long story short.

My system ended up saving a file on top of a file. I didn't have his corrected version of us. I had to call him on the phone. And his first time we'd ever talked and he about choked on a piece of chicken when I told him who I was.

So we had it we had a great discussion and I tell you those those cartoons, I've got a low-tech blog. Let's face it folks. I don't have comments I don't have all the shadowy thingies that you know in the superfine fonts and all the rest that Stuff that other people have but I have angels cartoons and nobody else has them.

So that's just all there is to it and that makes it that makes it cool. So gotta catch the blog and the current cartoon. In regards to the the Dave Hunt Charles Haddon Spurgeon dispute I think Spurgeon finally won this one and we can all thank Angel Contreras for that.

Why the Bible Answer Man Debate Matters

I Wanted to play some clips on the program today. Obviously, I I think it would be best For this conversation to be ongoing with with with both sides at the same time, but we get a lot of folks The Bible Ants Man broadcast and our webcast reaches a lot of the same people were involved in apologetics.

We're involved in in dealing with a lot of the same issues so therefore the fact that Calvinism and the the Sovereignty of God and the purpose of God in creation and all those things Come up and have been coming up very regularly ever since the debate took place, which by the way, I had not listened to I had not listened to the Bible Ants Man broadcast of the debates.

I listened to days two and three when they're reaired. I had just come back from the trip and there wasn't a whole lot of me left and so I was looking for a clip that I'm gonna play here in a moment and I ended up hearing sections from both.

Well actually from all three hours and I It is interesting to hear it after having experienced it. It was Especially in light of a phone call that I'm gonna I'm gonna play here. That's um many people heard and many people asked me to comment on.

In regards to the debate itself. And so since I'm the one being mentioned and people asking about me, I think it's perfectly Fair for me to get a chance to respond what's being said in a national level.

Especially when it's talking about about me individually. So the first thing I'm gonna play. And I'm gonna need to stop and start this because it's nine minutes and 21 seconds long. That's a that's a major section of the hours broadcast because you only get 40 about 42 minutes of airtime.

Maybe 45 minutes of airtime after you do the beginning and the ending and the commercials and all the rest that stuff. So that's a that's a good chunk. About 20 of a program was dedicated to this one call and many people heard the call.

It was a call from a fellow whose brother goes to Southern evangelical seminary. Remember that I've said many times before I truly honestly believe that dr Norman Geisler's appendix in the second edition.

Second printing the second edition of chosen but free in response to the potter's freedom was primarily written by undergraduate students at SES and So this guy's brother goes there. And so he was talking about the whole Bible answer man thing and some of the statements that were made in the course of answering this question left many of us simply breathless and amazed at what was what was being said and also a number of Assertions were made that I go wait a minute.

We addressed that in in the program. And I would think if we're going to go back to that point that that my point should have been Refuted at some somewhere along the line if it's not refuted then why are we going back to this things like that?

So we are going to play the sex this this call this segment of the program and We'll just stop and start it and and go on from there. That's the lovely thing about a digital file is don't have to worry about things like that.

How did people do this before you had everything in mp3 or wave format? I've never quite figured that out. But anyway, let's go ahead and start. I think this was Three days ago. The three days ago was a Friday.

I think this was yeah, this is Friday. I think it's Friday. We had this call on the Bible answer man broadcast. Let's talk to Daniel in Palm Beach, Florida. Hi, Daniel. How you doing?

Test Everything by Scripture, Not Philosophy

Nice to talk to you. Hi. Okay. My question has to do with the debate that you had on your show a couple of weeks. Ago, yeah with James White and Bryson. Yes. Okay, my brother just to give you a quick quick question.

My brother goes to a Southern evangelical seminary with Norman Geisler. Yes, so obviously, you know, I called him because James White apparently is countering or trying to counter Norman Geisler a lot.

So I call my brother up and ask him questions and about the debate. My question is this I am having problems now because even though it's mentioned that it's an in-house debate. It is a hard topic to discuss because I think that both are hitting each other saying You can't have the right gospel believe in one way and you can't have the right gospel believe in the other way.

James White made points Bryson made points, but one of the points that My brother told me and he said basically that five-point Calvinism is repugnant to God.

Now that that is exactly what Norman Geisler says. We need to understand that and some of you are are new to the program and maybe you haven't gone back into the archives. It's amazing. I just got a An email from someone who was asking a question about an article.

Actually that the answer was fully explained in an article right on our website. There is a search function on the website folks. Try the search function first. Anyway, if you go back to the archives on straightgate .com, you'll see that when chosen but free first came out.

We did nine weeks a nine week response to it on our program. Which that time was only on Saturdays. It was on kpxq and Phoenix and we also webcast at that time, but We gave a full response to it. And one of the things that we referenced at that time was the strident language That is used by dr. Geisler now, of course in comparison to Dave Hunt's book not strident language at all, but you do have the assertion that that Calvinism as it's historically been defined not as as Norman Geisler feels.

He has the right to redefine it. Is abhorrent to God? That it is sub-biblical and that there's a whole list of things and I included them at the beginning of the Potter's freedom in regards to the things that Norman Geisler said so.

Certainly, I have a feeling that's what the students that southern evangelical are being taught is that it's abhorrent to God. It's not that it's just a in-house debate hungman to God.

So that being said nothing can be right about five-point Calvinism, especially when it has to do with That God if I poke I was right that God would be the author of evil. Can you just tell me a little bit about that?

I mean, I know I think that's what we.

Attempted to discuss in that debate, but I think the very fact that we have on two men. Both of whom I've endorsed over the past. I've not only endorsed but I've Written endorsements for the book of.

One of James White's books. That's the King James only controversy, by the way.

So I certainly believe that this is an in-house debate. And I would disagree with Calvinist who draw on the ring so tight that it include Excludes some non Calvinist like Armenians. I would also on the other hand Say the same thing with regards to Armenians or non Calvinist who want to draw on the ring so tight that they They exclude Calvinists, I think both are wrong, but.

Doesn't moderate Calvinism kind of contradict itself.

Well as far as the debate is concerned, I think it speaks for itself. What does that mean?

Moderate Calvinism does contradict itself. It's an incoherent system. I mean, it doesn't really exist as as I documented the book that in reality What he calls moderate Calvinism isn't moderate Calvinism.

It is it is simply Arminianism that redefines all the terms. But that's the only answer you're gonna get is it speaks for itself. In other words, I don't know. Go ask a moderate Calvinist. Ain't me however.

My point is in response to your question I do believe that people on in both camps are part of the body of Christ and that's why I think and what we tried to demonstrate on the air is that this is a collegial debate an In-house debate among brothers.

Neither George Bryson nor James White would suggest that the other Was not a believer and I think that's the level In which we should conduct this debate. Now, is it a serious a debate important debate?

Of course, that's why we had it on the air. Do both men feel passionately about their position? Of course. Does Norman Geisler believe that James White is wrong? Yes. Does James White believe that Norman Geisler is wrong?

Yes. So yes, it is a passionate debate. But I think that iron sharpens iron in this case and that we're not talking about On the one hand unbelievers and the other hand believers debating one another this this is a debate.

Amongst the brethren Is there a way to know which is the the closest to the truth?

I mean, yes, I think that you have to test everything in light of Scripture. Now, let's stop it right there now. Is there a way to know which one is right? And Then notice the response. Yes test everything by Scripture.

Who on the debate. Was focused upon the text of Scripture. Who wanted to exegete? Passages of the Bible. Who wanted to talk about John 6. Who want to talk about Romans 8 and 9. Who want to talk about Ephesians 1 Genesis? 50 20 and Isaiah 10 and Acts 4 and all those other passages.

And who wanted to do anything. But talk about the subject of the scriptures themselves that that was the constant refrain from everyone. The contacted our ministry was was one side went to the Bible one side went to philosophy and would not touch the Bible.

With a 10-foot pole. Now this next section probably have to play more than once because.

John 6, Presuppositions, and Real Exegesis

This this gets a little bit important here. Now. Sometimes people will say look here's a particular text I haven't had an answer on this text yet or something like that. I mean what you have to do then is go to that text and find out whether you're reading your Presuppositions into that text or whether that text really has anything to say about the issue which you're discussing.

So there are cases in which texts are mentioned more in debate fashion as a rhetorician would. Then actually looking for an answer on the other hand now that. That bothered me.

The reason that bothered me is is that's talking about me and that is talking about the fact that I Very frequently raised John chapter 6 verses 35 through 45. And I made the comment and this wasn't on the air.

I made the comment that I had never heard a Reformed a consistent Reformed exegesis of the text and Hank couldn't believe I would ever make such a statement like that and George Bryson likewise when I talked about John 6 at one point during the break said that may the verse I bring up are just rabbit trails anyways, and they're irrelevant and so what was just said and Interestingly enough when I when I first heard this and I heard it live I did not catch that part.

I don't know if the phone rang. I don't know what. But I didn't catch that part and that is that that is a direct reference to me. That I raised John 6 as a rhetorician would That I'm not seeking the truth of it and that I have not examined my own presuppositions now folks.

There are only a few passages in Scripture That I have examined to the depth that I have John chapter 6. I have translated the passage. I have gone through the grammar of the passage the syntax of the passage and I have examined what you know a number of times I and I suppose we could do it this week, too.

But I have had books piled next to me where I've been ready to go through what these various authors have said about John chapter 6 and demonstrate I've gone through with Olson and Vance and and Corner and Geisler and Hunt and and gone through all of these different perspectives and have demonstrated That on a a simple exegetical level.

You they they aren't touching the text. They are not walking through the text that the the grammar of the text contradicts what they're saying. So if let's put it this way if if I'm if I have not examined the presuppositions I'm reading into this text and no one has shown me where I'm doing this.

If I have not examined the grammar of this text if I have not looked at then I've looked at nothing in the Bible. I haven't looked at the Trinity. I haven't looked at deity of Christ. I'm look to King James only controversy justification anything like that at all.

So I missed it the first time by let me let me just replay it one more time.

Now sometimes people will say look here's a particular text. I haven't had an answer on this text yet. There's something like that. I mean what you have to do then is go to that text and find out whether you're reading your Presuppositions into that text or whether that text really has anything to say about the issue what you're discussing now.

Let me stop it right there. Can we imagine John chapter 6 in? Which we have discussion of. Coming to Christ faith. Salvation resurrection on the last day. The purpose of God in drawing people to Christ.

Belief and unbelief. That this is not relevant directly to the question of God's sovereignty. Man's Responsibility. Man's deadness and sin. The sovereignty of God in the matter of salvation. The relationship of God's decree to man's faith.

We have the discussion of man's inability in John 644. What what more could we need for John 6 to be relevant? The reason the only reason anyone could ever have to say it's irrelevant is because the fact that they don't have an answer for it.

They haven't done the work. They haven't done the study. It goes against their traditions and therefore it's dismissed that that's the only Reason I could possibly see this is this passage is certainly and clearly.

Directly relevant to the issue at hand. So there are cases in which texts are mentioned more in debate fashion.

Debate fashion. What is debate fashion? Obviously if you're debating the issue of the sovereignty of God and You have you know of a passage and in my debate with George Bryson George Bryson Collapsed on John 6 the audience was laughing now.

I wasn't encouraging him to laugh. But his replies were simply incoherent. They they made no sense. They had nothing to do with the text. Am I not supposed to bring that up? What does it mean to bring something up in a debate fashion?

Well, I think that's defined as a rhetorician would.

Then actually looking for an answer as a rhetorician would rather than looking for the answer. So evidently if you really feel That you have studied a passage that you have worked through a passage and you have examined that passage and You have a strong presentation to make on that passage.

Then evidently you can't present it without looking like you're presenting it in a debate fashion not looking for an answer. What if I already know what the answer is I? Have taken the time to listen to what people say about John chapter 6.

They don't deal with the text. They are ice of cheating things into the text. They don't follow the text itself almost well. Every single one that I know of either flees the text John 12 or someplace else or reads John chapter 6 backwards backwards.

Literally going from the end to the beginning to try to read things into it to avoid. They will use a hermeneutic in John 6 that they will not use anywhere else in the entirety of Scripture. That's been my experience and that experience is growing and There may be many subjects in the field of theology that I would never claim expertise on.

But you'd have a hard time proving that in John 6. That's one area that I've really Shall we say done my homework in and so that? Like I said, I missed that as it went by I must have been distracted by something it happens.

But it was very disappointing to me. Because I knew exactly what was being said I knew exactly what the reference was and That was just that was just those it's very disappointing to me on the other hand.

You have to grapple seriously with text. So when texts are brought up, for example.

In Matthew 2337 now you have to grapple seriously with text. All right. Why didn't we grapple with Genesis 50? Why didn't we grapple with Isaiah? Love that's a 10. Why didn't we grapple with Acts 4? Why didn't we grapple?

With even Romans 9 and actually go into the text itself and. Listen to the ones that are brought up here Matthew 23 37. There is an entire chapter In the Potter's freedom dealing with the big three. Matthew 23 37 first Timothy 2 for 2nd Peter 3 9.

Folks, I don't hear any evidence in what we're about to listen to that. That the Reformed exegesis has even been introduced to the discussion. Let alone that it's been grappled with. No evidence in a Matthew 23 37 the fact that those who are unwilling are not those Jesus was was seeking to draw.

Clearly right there in the language listen and see if there is even the acknowledgement of.

That particular point in what is said where Jesus says Jerusalem Jerusalem you who killed the prophets and stoned those sent to you How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks Under her wings, but you were not willing now at face value.

This seems to suggest that The will is involved.

Who said it isn't. Who said it isn't. The will is involved, but the will is enslaved. How many times did I say on the program? I don't know I lost count. But it seems that there you have Matthew 23 37 should someone have said something along the lines of now.

Reformed exegetes point out that The ones who are unwilling are the leaders of the children. They are specifically Differentiated by the Lord Jesus this is in the context of Matthew chapter 23, which is an extensive and long diatribe Documenting the woes and punishment coming upon the Pharisees and hence the contextual reading would be this.

But you don't you don't hear that. You don't. You don't find that and I see no evidence that that's even a part of the thinking at this point in in a libertarian freedom.

Sense, but that's something that has to be grappled with. You have to grapple with that text or another text like Acts 7 51 you stiff-necked people with Uncircumcised hearts and ears you are just like your father's you always resist the Holy Spirit or and.

Is that one not addressed in the Potter's freedom? Yes, it is. In fact I addressed it in the context of saying this anyone who uses this passage is Demonstrating that they do not understand what irresistible grace is all about and they do not understand the Reformed position.

The passage is not talking about God seeking to bring resurrection life to one of his elect. That's not what the text is talking about. No one says that people do not resist the Holy Spirit. The issue is when the Holy Spirit comes to bring resurrection life is the Holy Spirit dependent upon the will of the creature.

That's a completely different issue, but it is my experience again. That this this debate when it is done in a in a monologue. The other side just won't listen. I mean, that's what that's the that's the primary issue of the cartoon our blog right now is.

People who attack the doctrines of grace do so out of willful ignorance. I I don't want to hear what you're saying. I have my tradition my tradition filters out what you're saying. And so I'm going to interpret you in my way and hence you have something similar to the cartoon previous to that with Dan corner.

With the straw man in the back and the straw man's getting all beat up. And that's what happens in these situations as well for Luke 730.

But the Pharisees and experts in the law Rejected God's purpose for themselves because they had not been baptized by John now. What does that mean?

This goes back to Psalm 82. Who are these people. They're supposed to be the religious leaders. God sends a prophet. What is God's will when God sends a prophet calling for repentance? He calls men everywhere to repent.

Does that mean that it was God's sovereign will that they be drawn to Christ and believe and become saved and be regenerated? That's a huge leap. But again as long as you won't listen to what the reform position is Then you can think that these passages and I'm dealing with these.

I've already spent more time Dealing with these favorite passages of our minions on this program than we spent in dealing with Genesis 50 10 and Acts 4. From the other side on three hours the Bible answer man broadcasts.

That's that and that that's not how it should be. Is it or Jonah 2 8 those who cling to worthless idols?

Forfeit the grace that could be theirs. Now. These are texts that let me.

Jonah 2 a well, you know, I guess since since folks take the time. You know new America's Terrence's those who regard vain idols forsake their faithfulness, hmm. I've seen this one someplace before and I'm not going to say exactly where I saw it but I saw it on a website of some of some Lutheran folks that I know that's where I saw that before and I don't know what the translation is.

Maybe somebody can look it up, but You know, we don't need to we don't need to use unusual translations. That doesn't that doesn't work to legitimately. We need to wrestle with. Yeah, we need to wrestle with those I just did now.

Can we get back to Genesis? And acts for and John 6 and and things like that.

The same thing is true when you read let's say Romans chapter 9. Romans chapter 9 seems to very clearly. Indicate that people have an opportunity to choose now.

Since since a lot of folks heard that and then they went, huh? What what could someone turn the radio up? I just thought I heard something that didn't make much sense there. That's it said someone. Let's let's let's repeat that one.

Just just one more time. So we we hear what's really being said. Chapter 9. Romans chapter 9 seems to very clearly.

Indicate that people have an opportunity to choose. If you read it in its entirety particularly the last part of the the chapter. Hmm. Hmm.

Well, you know those of you who've read the potter's freedom know that that I expressed some level of Amazement when I was dealing with Norman Geisler's book because he went to Romans Both in reference John 644 and Romans 9.

I believe I'm thinking I've taught my head here. So I believe it was verse 16 Which reads. So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs but on God who has mercy. It's literally therefore it is not of the willing one neither of the running one but of the mercying God, that's the literal rendering of the Greek and so you get the the parallel of the of the the verb the verbal actions there the participles that are used.

I expressed a certain level of Amazement that when Norman Geisler addressed these he could actually turn both John 644. And Romans 9 16 say see we clearly here have the free will of man and I look at these passages that so plainly present the free will of God and I honestly have to ask myself the question how can someone look at a passage like this and Turn the free will of God into the free will of the creature give the prerogatives of The Potter to the pots.

I I Don't understand it. I I confess I Is beyond my my comprehension, but when you read passages like Romans 9 that talks about Jacob and Esau and I know well, we're gonna turn these in the nations when you go back Genesis and so on so forth.

No one has ever been able to and that's why I did manage to get this in thankfully. I Would like to hear if there's someone out there listening to them. And you think you have and I I've met a few there's a guy Johnny Dzzz and pal talk I mean pal talk if you want to find the greatest concentration of theological ignorance in the planet in one place.

Pal talks where you go. Okay, and there's a guy in pal talk and we're talking His stuff on Romans 9 is the greatest example of is a Jesus you'll ever see. I've heard some people who've tried I'm talking about serious people who actually know something about the Bible know something else backgrounds.

I've never seen a serious scholarly response to Piper. Piper's work is so thorough. It's so clear and I managed to get that mentioned in the subject, you know in the in the in the Bible answer man debate and Still the words are so clear.

So then it does not depend on The willing one that even if you wanted to do nations, are you talking about a singular here? That's a nation. It's not on the one willing or on the one running the one trying.

But on the God mercying and you see it's so easy to slip into this humanistic mindset. We're everything in the gospel is God trying and man Allowing God to succeed that we don't see that these verbs have God as their subject.

God's the one who is mercying. See, we don't have that verb in English. We should but on God who has mercy. That's that almost sound. Well, God does have mercy. No, this is a verb. That's why we need to know.

This is this is a participle and it's in direct parallel to willing and running. It's not this neither. Is it this but it's this. It is the God who? Mercies. Are we to set mercying is somehow ineffective?

Without the will of man that is 100 a degrees opposite the teaching of Romans 9 16 directly opposite 100 Well, I'm not. I haven't even finished this this clip and Yeah, I'm doing all right today. Let's let's skip it.

That's we don't. You know, I'm sorry a omen that we won't have your your sterling voice on some of those ads. But we'll we'll get it. We'll get it in there and go man. Go go me. But hey, maybe next week.

We'll have the next time. We'll have a Advertisement for debating Calvinism five points two views. How's that? Huh? Maybe I could mention that coming up soon. Hmm, maybe I maybe I could it can happen it could.

Well one thing we are gonna do I'm gonna let people know now I'm gonna sort of I'm gonna sort of just sort of throw It out there so people know it's coming. Don't buy the book from Amazon. Get it from us.

You know why you want to you know why you want to pre-order? The book from us. The reason you want to do it is if you order it pre-order. You will get it signed. You will get I will sign all of the pre-orders.

I did that with the God who justifies and We're gonna do it this this one too. Once the books come in once we're ready to ship them out we have a big old signing party and I sit there and You know massage my arm every once in a while and just sign and sign and sign and sign.

And so don't get it from Amazon because if you get from Amazon, I ain't signing it.

Okay, that's just all there is so the spot would go something like this. Yes, you too can get a hand-signed copy that you can then sell on eBay for.

Did you see that. Did I send you that link? There's they're selling an old 1990 version of God's Sovereign Grace signed by the author 5995. I'm just like oh, please. That is so dumb anybody bid on it.

I Don't know. I haven't gone back to look to see if they just gave up on it and used it to line the birdcage. Just what. Anyway, I'm sorry. Yes, well Balthazar just asked dr. Oh, can you sign mine Dave hunt?

Yes Balthazar if you'd like me to sign a Dave hunt I can do that. I've you know, it won't it'll look pretty much like my signature, but I can I can go ahead and do that. All right. Let us continue on.

I Lost where I was here in the clip. Let me see if I pick this up at the right spots.

If you read it with a theological presupposition, you may come up with a different answer. Or if you don't understand that Paul is quoting certain Old Testament passages you ah.

Boy, did you catch that if you don't understand the Paul's quoting certain Old Testament passages now remember? More than once Hank was trying to get George Bryson To go into the Old Testament passages and go to Jeremiah 18, so I say see see.

Actually what the potter and the clay is is that is that the potter isn't is Under the control of what the clay does because if they would repent then he wouldn't do with them What he said he was gonna do with him and stuff like that now again folks.

I Taught exegesis of Exodus a couple of years ago. He's not in channel right now. At least I don't think he is but there's there's a fellow who comes in channel and he works with. One of my students from Golden Gate.

I taught it was a second year Hebrew class on the exegesis of Exodus a few years ago. Exodus 33 is the background. That's the key element that Paul is drawing from in the act in the Romans 9 passage and You dig into exodus 33 and you're not going to come up with some man-centered stuff.

You're not going to do it. I've done that and so to even suggest That I haven't Again leaves me as amazed as the stuff on John 6 did. There is rich stuff there there truly is. But you can go to Piper you can read it.

It's all there. It's very very clear. You go the Old Testament passages and the presuppositions are being read into these by those who seek to find a way around.

The clarity of God's Revelation here with a different answer or if you don't understand that Paul is quoting certain Old Testament passages. You may not come up with a good answer. But I think the point here is that this debate is causing us to wrestle with the tax and wrestle with the presuppositions.

Well, I wish that it was. And it is let me let me take that back. It is doing exactly that. I am so thankful I am very thankful for the Bible and spam broadcast of the debate between myself and George Bryson.