Adam Harwood's Presentation

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:12

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line.

00:19

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.

00:27

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

00:33

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

00:43

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

00:50

James White. And good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line on a Thursday afternoon. We're actually doing it at the normal time.

00:57

That's twice in a row. Twice in one week, actually doing it at the time we're supposed to do it, which has probably confused people like Wonky and other people that just expect it to be at some other time.

01:10

Unless you're still working on the daylight savings time thing that just happened. I don't know. Well, we'll see.

01:16

Anyway, I had the opportunity yesterday of listening to Dr.

01:24

Adam Harwood's presentation at the John 316 Conference, thanks to those who sent in the

01:31

CDs of the John 316 Conference. And I only found out just a little while ago that I didn't need to do that.

01:40

Nope. Didn't need to do that because I had a little booklet from the

01:46

Free Church Press, which is also known as Peter Lumpkin's, called Born Guilty, A Southern Baptist View of Original Sin, which, guess what, happens to be the exact, you know,

01:59

I just looked at this. I don't think it says that in here, but it happens to be the exact transcript of what was said.

02:09

And I don't know which came first. Maybe Dr. Harwood just read this. It sort of felt a little red, like it was being read or something like that.

02:19

But I thought maybe it was just the way he spoke, I don't know. But interesting stuff.

02:25

Very interesting stuff. And I guess the one advantage was, in listening to it, he actually plays a clip from John Piper.

02:38

And once I got the book, then I was able to find the clip myself and do a bunch of other stuff, which we'll be doing later on in the program.

02:47

And we'll respond to that. We'll look at it. And it was a very interesting presentation.

02:53

We will take a look at that. But before we get to that, I have,

03:00

James Swan points me to very interesting things regarding the

03:06

Roman Catholic Church and Catholic answers. And a couple of days ago,

03:15

I think it was yesterday or the day before, I don't remember what number it was. Anyways, he directed me to a clip, and he's now posted it on his blog, of a person from the

03:25

Catholic Answers Forums calling Steve Gregg.

03:31

Steve Gregg? Yeah. Remember, we had a debate on the Doctrines of Grace long ago.

03:36

He has a radio program, The Narrow Path. And so you've got, and he had

03:42

Tim Staples on, I think for like five days, they did a debate thing. And the funny thing is, Tim Staples talks about that debate, markets that debate.

03:51

For some odd reason, Tim Staples doesn't market the debate that we did on, you know, anyway.

04:02

I just find that sort of funny. But I want to play portions, not all of, just a little less than half of this phone call.

04:12

And it's interesting what, I believe the fellow's name was Adam, had to say, a lot of Adams, Adam Harwood.

04:19

Now, I think this guy's name was Adam. I think it was. And also,

04:25

Steve Gregg's response to what was being said. So it's rather interesting.

04:30

So let's take a listen to Adam from the Catholic Answers Forums calling in to Steve Gregg's program.

04:41

Let's talk to Adam. You know, that's not going to work well unless I plug it all the way in. Remember, I had moved it over to the other side, so let's try it one more time.

04:48

Here we go. Let's talk to Adam from Seattle. Adam, welcome to The Narrow Path. Hi. I just had a question, and you said you couldn't find certain

04:57

Catholic doctrine in the Bible. How do you explain you can't find it, but people like Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Karl Keating can find these doctrines in the

05:08

Bible? Well, let me tell you. With 38 ,000 different denominations, it seems like there's a lot of confusion.

05:17

Now, people are saying, it's not Adam, it's Adamski or something. Well, he says Adam, so he identified him as Adam, so that's the name he gave.

05:25

The number keeps growing. It's now from 33 ,000 to 38 ,000.

05:35

Oh, when, oh, when will these folks ever stop lying about this?

05:42

It's just amazing. Now, I'm sure Adam actually believes this. He's heard his heroes repeat it over and over, and he just doesn't question them, so he just repeats it.

05:51

But it is amazing to keep hearing that bogus number. It would be a mistake to just grab the number from the national debt.

05:58

Yeah, go right along with it. The debt clock goes up that many Protestant churches are born. Yeah, 16 trillion plus Protestant churches, soon to be 17 trillion

06:04

Protestant churches. Sadly, one of those two numbers is a real number, and the other is a myth.

06:15

But anyway, so Adam wants to know, how come

06:20

Steve Gregg can't find these things in the Bible, but Tim Staples can? Well, it's pretty obvious why that is, actually.

06:28

I think rather obviously. But the point is, of course, that there are not 38 ,000 denominations, and it would be really nice if these folks would actually do a little homework and discover that for themselves, but it just rolls on.

06:42

And there is, you know, Episcopalians marry gay people, Baptists don't drink. You know,

06:48

Episcopalians, well, y 'all... If we had a radio -free

06:53

Rome or something, that would be a great line. Episcopalians marry gay people and Baptists don't drink.

07:00

There is a... Promote birth control as of 1930, but it seems like there's lots of confusion.

07:09

So it's only one church that really doesn't change their teaching. There's lots of confusion, there's only one church that doesn't change their teaching.

07:18

How many times have I said this is the mindset of the Catholic Answers Forums? It's a very insulated little place where everybody just pats each other on the back, and, oh, we've got the one true church, and isn't it wonderful, and let's listen to Catholic Answers Live, and whatever they say must be true.

07:37

It's scary. It is really... It reminds me of some of the Fundamentalist Baptist Forums.

07:43

I have stumbled into it a few times in the past, where it's just this narrow little world, and there's nothing outside of this narrow little world, and we don't want to run into any of that kind of stuff.

07:53

It's really scary. And I'm sure he actually... Our teachings never change. Now, the fact that if you were critically listening, even to some of his favorite people,

08:04

I found very interesting. There's this ongoing conversation right now, and I think there's a little bit of fear among some people, that you're going to have...

08:12

There's a lot of discussion of the fact, or the theory, that Francis I was runner -up last time when

08:24

Ratzinger won in the votes amongst the

08:30

Cardinals. And they have very different views of things. And this may be coming out rather quickly, especially because there's all this discussion.

08:40

I just love people who are constantly talking about how the one true church helps you to escape from the trap of solo scriptura and all the rest of this stuff.

08:48

But there's this constant discussion about, well,

08:57

Ratzinger gave us an authoritative interpretation of Vatican II, or certain documents in Vatican II.

09:07

Well, why do you need an authoritative interpretation of what's supposed to be an authoritative interpretation?

09:13

And doesn't the authoritative interpretation now need another authoritative interpretation to understand what it actually said? I mean, the epistemological circularity of the entire

09:25

Roman Catholic claim is just... It's so obvious to people outside of it.

09:30

But those inside of it just don't seem to get it. And I think a lot of people are afraid that the authoritative interpretation given by Benedict is going to be contradicted by the authoritative interpretation provided by Francis.

09:43

And what do you as a faithful Roman Catholic do? You have to accept what Francis has to say. Yeah, but two years ago you accepted

09:50

Benedict. So what? So what used to be A is now

09:56

B. Just the way it is. Gotta go there. Gotta go there.

10:03

There you go. So no change, anything like that. And so Steve Gregg replies.

10:10

No, that's not true. The Roman Catholic Church. Oh, no, the Roman Catholic Church has changed. They're teaching a whole bunch. Haven't you studied

10:15

Church history? Well, I spent thousands of hours. Okay, we've got someone here who has spent thousands of hours studying the early

10:24

Church Fathers. Thousands of hours. Thousands of hours. And I suggest after your radio show, everybody turn to 10 .50

10:32

a .m. and go to listen to Catholic Answers between 3 and 5. You know what

10:39

I honestly think? You know what scares me here? I think for Adam, the thousands of hours of study is listening to Catholic Answers Live.

10:48

Now, the scary thing is, I listened to Catholic Answers Live once. Well, sometimes it's more interesting than what's on the other stations.

10:56

I need to get that sound clip from Frazier. Tell me. What color is the sky in your room?

11:02

I have that. I have that. We need to use that more often. I really do have that. I have it in my

11:08

Merc setup here. It's one of my favorite clips. But anyways, I'm scared that what Adam thinks is study is listening to Catholic Answers Live.

11:16

Because I listen to Catholic Answers Live. Once in a while, it's an interesting call. But most of the time, it is the same old thing repeated over and over and over again.

11:25

It's just like, okay. Well, they can do that. I've actually had Tim Staples on my show five days in a row.

11:32

Actually, for a whole week. So, I mean, that's fine with me if our listeners go to Catholic Answers.

11:39

But I would say they should judge as they should judge what they hear here. They should judge there by Scripture.

11:44

Anyone can find anything in the Bible. Did you catch that?

11:51

Anyone can find anything in the Bible. Wow. There is a really honoring, believing understanding of Scripture right there.

12:06

And the immediate thought across my mind when I heard that was, Okay, you spend thousands of hours studying what?

12:15

You've been studying something other than the early church. Because where did they say that? Where do you find in the early church?

12:22

Well, anybody can find anything in the Bible. I could bury you under quotes from the early church fathers saying,

12:30

No, there is one truth in the Bible. But anyway, we won't go there.

12:35

How many seconds into his call did it take him to attack the Bible? One minute and 25 seconds before the

12:43

Bible has been thrown under the bus. And you can find anything you want to find in the

12:51

Bible. It's sort of like the spiritual Rorschach test, I guess. But then we,

12:57

I'm going to skip through. There's only two other sections I want to play here. I think many denominations have done that.

13:03

It's obvious the Roman Catholic has done that back throughout history. I mean, when you find the Pope used to say,

13:10

Okay, but when you find out that the Pope used to say that anyone who's not subject to the

13:15

Pope is going to hell. And now, since Vatican II, they say no, not necessarily.

13:21

They've changed their mind about that. They've changed their mind about lots of things. Well, and he's exactly right.

13:27

And we've had an article up in the Roman Catholic section for years where I document this kind of change.

13:35

We had a debate. Wow, you know, I've forgotten the guy's name. He was a real sort of quiet, reserved guy.

13:46

And we debated the section in the Catholic Catechism about Muslims worshipping the same

13:53

God. It was sort of inclusivism in Vatican II. It was in the Great Debate series.

14:00

But he was just sort of, I don't know, he really wasn't a… Algo will post it here in channel here in the next 30 seconds.

14:09

Bill Rutland, thank you. Wow. Wow, did you see how fast Algo got to that one?

14:15

Oh, yikes. I mean, we call him, he algoed that one.

14:20

That was good. Bill Rutland, yes, thank you. Every once in a while, people just pop into the channel and go,

14:28

What is this channel thing? It's really weird. What is that? Well, it's 1983 technology, actually, that just keeps on going.

14:39

But anyways, yeah, we have an article there that demonstrates the evolution and the obvious clear change in Roman Catholic teaching on subjects like that.

14:51

And Steve Gregg was exactly right about that. But here's another interesting discussion. Religious organizations have some sincere people in them, too.

14:59

Now, you asked me a question, How is it that Scott Hahn and Tim Staples can see

15:06

Catholic doctrines in the Bible that I can't? I asked myself that very same question, which is why

15:12

I studied Scott Hahn and Tim Staples, to find out exactly why they did think they found them.

15:19

And you know what I found out? They didn't know their Bibles very well. I mean, it's really true. I've listened to both of them give their testimony about how they were converted.

15:27

Scott Hahn was a Presbyterian theologian, he said. Tim Staples said he was an

15:32

Assembly of God youth minister. Both of these guys told how they became convinced

15:38

Roman Catholics. And they told the process. They said, OK, I had this problem with this scripture.

15:44

This Catholic guy explained it that way. The light went on for me, and I knew they were right. And then there was this other scripture they brought up, and I couldn't answer it from my

15:53

Protestant point of view, so I had to accept the Catholic point of view. And it was one thing after another like that. And as I listened to Scott Hahn and Tim Staples give their story,

16:02

I think, what? What kind of Protestant ministers were these? Scott Hahn was supposedly a

16:07

Presbyterian theologian. His lack of understanding of the scriptures was incredible.

16:13

I mean, when the Catholic would explain a scripture to him, I mean, the mistake that was being made in the exegesis was transparent.

16:23

It was totally an agenda -driven interpretation the Catholic was giving. And Scott Hahn, if he was any kind of a theologian, should have known his

16:31

Bible well enough. I could have refuted it when I was 12 years old. And I don't know what was wrong with him.

16:37

And the same thing is true with Tim Staples. And I'm not saying these aren't good men. I think they're probably good men. I think they're nice guys, perhaps.

16:45

Tim Staples seemed like a nice guy when I debated him. But being a nice guy doesn't mean you understand the scriptures very well.

16:52

So there's Steve Gregg's explanation. I have commented on both of the conversions of these gentlemen in the past.

17:03

I won't go into that right now. But that was his response. And he did most of the rest of the call.

17:10

Adam had one brief comment toward the end, as I recall. I forget what it was on. They wanted to get into another argument there.

17:16

What was it toward the end? I want to catch it. Hold on a second. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

17:22

He wanted to talk about apostolic succession. And I thought Steve Gregg's response was fairly good to that one.

17:28

But there's actually a thread, I believe, on the Catholic Answers Forum. And for some reason,

17:34

James Swan got out. Can you get the merits in the Catholic Answers Forum, something like that?

17:40

He got dinged or cited for something offensive. Oh, he said for joining

17:45

Rome. And you can't say that. You have to say for joining the Catholic Church. Because you have to confess, you have to admit their claim that they are the universal church, if you're going to talk to them, despite the fact that they're not, rather transparently.

18:02

But, yeah, that's just sort of how that works. Well, it looks like we've got the phone lines open.

18:10

I was going to go into this next thing, but we'll try to get through these as quickly as we can and then get to that portion in regards to the

18:21

John 316 conference and Dr. Harwood. But we've got a couple phone calls here. We'll just take these two, and if we've got some room toward the end, maybe some more.

18:30

But I have a feeling we probably won't. So let's try to handle them fairly quickly here and talk to Robert. Hi, Robert.

18:36

Hey, Dr. James. How are you doing? Doing fine. All right. I'm just wondering if there's a really big difference between Original Sin in Catholicism and in Protestantism, besides the fact that Catholic Original Sin can make you a

18:50

Protestant, like yourself. I'm not following you, sorry. Oh.

18:57

Is there a difference between Catholic Original Sin and Protestant or Biblical Original Sin? Well, if you're talking about the discussion of concupiscence and original grace or some issues like that, is that what you're asking about?

19:17

Or are you just talking about relationship to Adam or what? I'm really not sure where you're going.

19:23

Well, I've never looked into this before, so maybe the first one. Okay. I'm not sure what you mean.

19:34

I think I'm asking for an overview. I've never really looked into the differences before.

19:40

Yeah. Well, obviously, modern Roman Catholicism doesn't travel too far away from where Augustine was, and so there would be a lot of similarity.

19:55

I think what you find over the years is the development of concepts of merit and a semi -Pelagianism within certain elements of Roman theology.

20:08

But again, it's a difference between the historic beliefs and modern beliefs.

20:15

I think all across the spectrum, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, I don't think the vast majority of people in any area anymore actually believe in original sin.

20:31

In fact, that's what I'm going to be talking about when I talk about this Adam Harwood presentation. I don't think the vast majority of people really do believe in original sin.

20:41

Obviously, Rome has played with that in regards to the issue of sacramentalism, in regards to Mary.

20:50

There's all sorts of later developments, but I don't think the vast majority of Roman Catholics, even practicing

21:01

Roman Catholics, really, really, really believe in it. And even then, when you can somehow get rid of it through infant baptism,

21:10

I don't think you're really recognizing the tremendous impact it has upon the actual nature of an individual.

21:18

And there are very few people who I think really profess to recognize and to act in light of the idea that that which is unclean is detestable in sight of a holy

21:30

God. I don't think a sacramental system where God's grace is doled out over time can really long hold to deep concepts such as that.

21:40

But if you're looking for a historical development of the concept of the original sin in Roman Catholicism, that would take me quite some time to dig through, because it's never been something that I've actually gotten into or debated on any level.

21:53

So I would have to be doing a lot of work to dig up anything more on that. So, sorry, not really where I'm going this time.

22:02

Thank you for your call, Robert. And let's real quick try to get James in here. Hi, James. Hi, Dr.

22:08

Wyatt. Thanks for having me. So foreknowledge and foreknew, a lot of people like to say, you know,

22:16

God looked down the corridors of time, 1 Peter 1 -2, elect according to the foreknowledge,

22:22

Romans 8 -29, those whom he foreknew, he also predestined. How would you explain that that is not saying that God looked through the corridors of time, and what does it mean?

22:34

Well, if you're talking about 1 Peter 1 -2 or Romans 8, because Romans 8, it's a verb.

22:46

It's something God does, and it's in parallel with all the other verbs of what God does.

22:52

And so you have to start there, I think, and say, well, what does it mean for God to actively foreknow someone?

22:59

And then once you have that, then when you just look at—and

23:05

Romans 8 is a didactic section. It is specifically teaching this is what God did, this is the basis of our confidence in what

23:15

God has done, etc., etc. And then 1 Peter 1 -2 is an introduction to a letter. And it, in passing, makes reference to, having discussed those who reside as aliens scattered throughout

23:28

Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by the sanctifying work of the

23:34

Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ, to be spring of His blood. Well, what do you have there? You have the

23:41

Gospel being defined as triune. You have the work of the Father. You have the sanctifying work of the

23:46

Spirit. And you have the propitiatory work of the Son. And so when you look at prognosis, the term that is used, what does that mean?

24:03

I mean, does that mean that God passively takes in knowledge of future events? Or, given that there is a verbal form of the verb—and this is where we struggle, because, really, in English, when we say foreknow, we have a certain idea of what that means for a human being.

24:23

It's sort of like a forecast, or something along those lines. But we cannot do what that verb says.

24:34

We are finite, temporal beings, so we can't do, we cannot choose to enter into a relationship of love with someone who does not yet exist.

24:43

So it's outside of our realm of experience. So what we do is we try to retranslate the concept into something we can do, and so it's the corridor's idea.

24:53

But when you simply say, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, all that simply means is, since that's the actual choice of God to lovingly engage with those that He has created, as He does in the golden chain of redemption, then that's what it's referring to.

25:12

Just in the same way that the sanctifying work of the Spirit is something that the Spirit does, the foreknowledge of God is not just something

25:19

He happens to stumble across, or happens to— If it's not in the context of salvation,

25:25

Acts 2 .23, He was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge.

25:31

Oh, I would certainly think that it is. I mean, I would certainly think that that is in the context of salvation,

25:38

I mean, the giving over of the Son. But yeah, again, the parallel there in that particular text— though again,

25:46

I wouldn't—just because the term is the same doesn't necessarily mean that it's being used in the same way.

25:53

But notice that you have boule being used in direct parallel with prognosia there.

26:05

So, this Jesus delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God. So, again, this is something

26:13

God chooses to do, but He does so before that event.

26:18

It's really—when you think about what the will of God is, it's the outworking of that will in time.

26:27

It's what God chose to do, just as we have in Acts 4, the exact same phraseology is utilized when it talks about Jesus being delivered over that you have here.

26:39

And it's there in the prayer of the Church. There it's expressed in these words, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

26:53

There you have boule, exact same term as in Acts 2 .23, but now the parallel is proerizo, which is predestined.

27:01

So, whatever foreknowledge is, it's never passive. It's never

27:06

God taking in knowledge of something. It's God choosing to act, and He chose to act on the basis of His own will before the events take place in time.

27:18

And so, again, if you allow these contexts to speak to each other and to inform things, it makes a very, very strong case that looking down the corridors of time argument, which turns

27:32

God into the passive observer of events in time, has no basis whatsoever in the text of Scripture.

27:40

Okay, may I please ask one more quick question? Sure. So, in Ephesians 1 .11,

27:48

He works all things after the counsel of His own will. Is it a stretch to say, in Ecclesiastes 3 .1,

27:55

there is an appointed time for everything? Is it a stretch?

28:00

Am I reaching? If I take that to mean everything, me blinking my eye, everything that happens, it was appointed at the time that it happened?

28:11

There's an appointed time for everything, or is that a stretch? Is that reaching? Well, I do think that that is an appropriate understanding of God's sovereignty in relationship to His decree and the fabric of time.

28:25

I believe that God foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. That's certainly what my confession of faith says, and I think that really that flows from the theology of God derived in Isaiah and Jeremiah and places like that, and is really brought to fruition in Ephesians 1 and its description of God as having done all that.

28:45

The only reason I wouldn't necessarily go, I think what Ecclesiastes is saying in a poetic form is that the author understands that God is ultimately sovereign over all things.

28:57

And I've had a lot of folks, I remember years ago, I haven't seen this guy in years, but I was driving back from, where was

29:05

I driving back from? It might have been Salt Lake, I forget where it was. It was one of those many, many, many trips down I -17.

29:12

And I was talking with this guy, he's going, you know, I really like this Reformed stuff, and I understand, it's great, but don't you think that there's some stuff that God just doesn't really care about?

29:25

I mean, you know, does God really care about the color of socks that I wore today?

29:31

I mean, aren't there just some things that are just, you know, just left out there? They don't have any meaning at all, and therefore they're not a part of God's decree.

29:41

And so I told him a story, and I said, what if you were going downtown

29:50

Phoenix, you were going for an interview at one of the high -rises in downtown Phoenix, and you're in the elevator, and the door opens, and you've had your interview, the door opens, and this guy walks in, and lo and behold, you're both wearing the same tie.

30:08

The exact same tie. And you look at each other and go, man, if we were ladies, we'd be really upset about this, but, you know, we're guys, so we don't really care, where'd you get yours?

30:18

And you end up, you know, you tell the guy that you just had an interview there, and it's lunchtime, so he invites you to lunch there in the building, he knows where it is, and so you go with him, and you end up talking to him.

30:32

Long story short, you end up, because of this, having the opportunity of presenting the gospel to him, and this man is saved.

30:40

This man is saved. Now, was the choice of your tie that morning outside of God's sovereign decree?

30:47

Well, you'd say, well, because of that special situation, but as has been pointed out, even the smallest, tiniest little things can have a huge impact upon the entire course of time itself.

31:03

And I followed that illustration up with the story of my son and I were up in Salt Lake City years and years ago, this was before his growth spurt, and he was just a little squirt at the time, and this was during the days when

31:18

Rush Limbaugh was still making his ties. And I have a huge Rush Limbaugh tie collection.

31:24

In fact, I own one of the few Rush Limbaugh bow ties in the world. He never made a bow tie.

31:30

But my favorite bow tie company, you can send a tie in, and they will turn it into a bow tie.

31:37

So I have actually sent one of my Rush ties in, and I have a Rush Limbaugh bow tie, which is absolutely, positively, completely outside the realm of this conversation.

31:46

So anyways, I would buy these little 14 -inch zip -up

31:54

Rush Limbaugh ties for my son. I don't know how many I bought him, two or three of them.

32:00

And so he was wearing his Rush Limbaugh tie. I was wearing a Rush Limbaugh tie. And we were passing out tracks at the south gate of the

32:11

Mormon temple during the general conference. And so I look, this would be toward the east, and I see a tall man, really nicely dressed, striding toward me.

32:29

And the funny thing about Rush Limbaugh ties is you see the Limbaugh tie and recognize it long before you recognize the person that's wearing it.

32:36

I mean, they're just that bright. And it was funny because I could tell that he was wearing a

32:43

Limbaugh tie, and he could tell that I was wearing a Limbaugh tie, and that my son was wearing a Limbaugh tie.

32:48

So when he got close, he's smiling, and we're smiling, and because of that, he took my track.

32:56

You know who it was? Senator Orrin Hatch. It was Senator Orrin Hatch.

33:03

Now, I could have worn a different tie that morning. I could have avoided wearing a Rush Limbaugh tie. My son might have just not even wanted to wear a tie.

33:10

I don't know, but I got to give the man a track because of the tie that I chose to wear that morning.

33:19

Now, there are people who want to say, well, it just bothers me or something.

33:26

I don't think it should bother you. I think that when we're talking about God as the one who creates all things, including the fabric of time itself, that includes his interaction with us, and that includes our creaturely actions in time, and God is big enough to handle that even if our minds are not.

33:48

We can't even remember what happened yesterday, let alone have knowledge of tomorrow, so we're really not in a position of judging

33:53

God on that. I agree. I believe that. Is it a stretch if someone told me or if I was to tell someone, right here, the

34:01

Bible says there's no point in time for everything. I would go with the

34:07

Ephesians text. I think that is what Ecclesiastes is saying, but it's

34:13

Ecclesiastes. Read the whole book. The thing you'd run into with Ecclesiastes at that point is that it also talks about the fact that everything is futility.

34:23

Well, not everything is futility, but it's talking about a particular context and a particular worldview. You have to put it in context.

34:29

I don't think the writer of Ecclesiastes would have had any problem with what

34:35

I just said, but I would go with Ephesians 1 as the real strong point at that point.

34:41

Okay? Okay. Thank you. All right. Thanks. All right. God bless. Bye -bye. Okay. I was surprised

34:48

Vicky Ann hadn't heard that story before. Algo, of course, ruined it, told everybody on the channel before I got to the punchline, because Algo actually is my brain, which was removed years ago.

35:00

I just plug in once in a while, and that's how that works. It's a frightening thing.

35:06

Okay. Anyhow, get back to what I'm looking for. Here we go. All right. Now, we're out.

35:13

We've got 25 minutes. This is going to be tight. As I said, I had a very long ride yesterday, five and a half hours

35:23

I was riding, and got a lot of stuff done. By the way, finished Sahih Muslim.

35:28

I am so thankful to have finished Sahih Muslim. I had started it a couple years ago.

35:36

I had done the theological stuff first, and then now I just got through the really not theological stuff.

35:42

And on a five and a half hour ride yesterday, I finished Sahih Muslim. So I've now done Sahih al -Bukhari,

35:48

Sahih Muslim, the Muwatta of Malik. And if I'm going to do another one, I've found that Sunan Abu Dawud is almost completely online now, so I can start working on that.

36:00

But I may be taking a little break from it for a while. I don't know. I'm not sure if I can remember how to ride a bike without listening to Muslim Hadith, but after I did that,

36:09

I listened to some Justin Lee, who I'll be debating in less than about three weeks.

36:16

Yeah, three weeks from now. Three weeks from today. And I've been somewhere in the wilds of Montana, as long as the plane gets me there and the sequester doesn't cause me to not be able to get there or they close the airport or the state.

36:30

I don't know. It's a possibility. Anyway, and then I listened to James Boyce's, and this is the old

36:39

Boyce, as in Southern Seminary Boyce's, presentation on the fall of man, relationship to Adam, federal headship, etc.,

36:46

etc., to hear a good historical Reformed understanding from a

36:52

Southern Baptist perspective of those things. And it was good stuff. And then I listened to Adam Harwood's presentation from the

36:59

John 316 conference. And as I said just a few moments ago, I discovered only today that the small booklet in my hands from Free Church Press called

37:14

Born Guilty, A Southern Baptist View of Original Sin is basically just the transcript of that.

37:19

Or this came first and he just read this. I don't know. I can't tell.

37:26

But it's nice to have that in both forms. I found it very interesting.

37:35

There were a number of interesting, especially the historical stuff was interesting to realize how many

37:42

Southern Baptists have held to a view that I obviously find to be very much traditionally driven and things like that.

37:51

But what really caught my attention was he played a clip of John Piper and he used it as an illustration.

38:05

And at this point, I would have to agree with Dr. Harwood. I'm going to be disagreeing with John Piper.

38:14

Not the first time I've done that. I've done that a few times. But he played this clip.

38:21

And one of the reasons I'm... And he then said, after he played the clip, that Dr.

38:29

Piper then went on to... Well, here it is. Instead, let's see.

38:39

This condition could be covered by... Okay, here. Piper acknowledged this in a footnote in his recent book

38:45

Jesus, The Only Way to God. Must you hear the gospel to be saved? How does Piper think the work of Christ is received by these unaccountable people?

38:55

He speculates that infants who die will mature after death and confess

39:00

Christ. And I went... I remember, again, I know exactly what road

39:07

I was on. I know which direction I was going, about what the temperature was. It's just a weird...

39:12

I'm a weird person. What can I say? So I'm like, really? Hmm, interesting.

39:19

So I'm going to play the clip. And then what happened was, since I found out this book has information, then

39:24

I was able to find the reference. I went online today, bought the Kindle book. Unfortunately, the references in the transcript are to the printed edition.

39:34

And the Kindle book has taken the footnotes. And they used to be numbered per chapter.

39:40

Now they're just one big group. So I had to actually read all the footnotes to find...

39:46

But I found it. And I will read you what John Piper says here.

39:51

But let's start off. This is the very clip. Well, it has to be, because it's one little short video.

39:57

I don't even know how long it is. It's not very long. But there's one little short video here. And this is a clip that Adam Harwood played.

40:05

Here's John MacArthur... John MacArthur. I'm sorry. Have I been saying MacArthur? No, John Piper. Good. First mistake.

40:12

John Piper answering the question, what happens to infants who die in infancy? What happens to infants who die?

40:22

I think they're all saved. The reason I think that is...

40:28

In other words, I don't buy the principle of covenant life that says children born into covenant families are secure and children born into not covenant families aren't.

40:45

I don't go there. My reason for thinking they're all saved is because of the principle in Romans 1 where Paul argues that all people know

41:01

God and they are without excuse because they do not honor him or glorify him as God.

41:09

And his argument is that they are without excuse because they know things.

41:19

As though accountability in the presence of God at the last judgment will be based at least partly on whether they had access to necessary knowledge.

41:36

And God says they've all got access to knowledge because they can look at the things that he has made and they see his power and deity and they suppress that knowledge instead of submitting to it and therefore they're all condemned.

41:54

So I ask the question, is the principle being raised there that if you don't have access to the knowledge that causes you to be held accountable therefore you would not be accountable?

42:11

And I think that's the case and I think babies and imbeciles that is those with profound mental disabilities don't have access to the knowledge that they will be called to account for and therefore somehow in some way

42:29

God through Christ covers these people.

42:34

So that's in a nutshell why I think all children who die in infancy are elect and that they will be through Jesus Christ saved in ways that I may not know how as God honors this principle of accountability.

42:53

Now the first thing I have to say there is you get to the end. Okay, I understood the argument.

42:59

The argument is they're not suppressing knowledge therefore they're not accountable. Okay, what did strike me was but what about original sin?

43:07

What about being fallen in Adam? What about the fact that the very fact that they die in infancy is due to what?

43:16

Why would death reign over them except that they are in Adam?

43:22

And this is one of the problems I have with Adam Harwood's position too is he'll talk about well we have a sinful nature we have a fallen nature.

43:29

How is that not reprehensible before a holy God? How can you have a corrupt nature that is...

43:37

How could a holy God have a person with a corrupt nature in his presence?

43:45

You know, I don't follow any of that. But, and again if I could just in passing say to Peter Lumpkins who evidently publishes these things stop with the italics!

43:58

Okay, I mean it's the second one second book I've gotten they're all in italics. It's like seriously? Anyway, see this is what he says

44:06

I am not suggesting that John Piper denies inherited guilt. He affirms inherited guilt. My point is this when asked about the eternal destiny of infants

44:13

Piper appeals to Romans 1 -2 to explain that infants and the mentally incompetent are not accountable to God.

44:19

Precisely! If that is the case then in what way are they ever guilty of Adam's sin? Good question.

44:26

Good question. But then he goes on to say I understand

44:31

Piper affirms the atoning work of Christ covers those who die in this unaccountable state. But so do we.

44:37

We being those who deny original sin. The difference is this we don't insist they are guilty of Adam's sin.

44:44

Such an affirmation creates a problem. Why? Guilty people must repent of their sin and believe in Jesus. Because I don't add

44:49

Adam's sin and guilt I don't insist the infants are guilty. Instead they are sin -stained but not guilty.

44:55

And that's where I have to stop and go What? What does it mean to be sin -stained but not guilty?

45:03

That makes absolutely zero sense to me. If you are sin -stained you need to be cleansed.

45:10

If you have a fallen nature you need to be redeemed. The corruption of the nature and the guilt of the sin go together.

45:18

They've divided this. They've cut it apart for reasons I think that are clearly unbiblical.

45:26

And then we have the rest of it. This condition and then he says this condition could be covered by a passive application of the atonement.

45:37

What does that mean? What is a passive application of the atonement versus an active application of the atonement?

45:45

The atonement has its efficacy through the union of a people with Christ. So how could someone be non -actively united with Christ but only passively?

45:58

None of it makes any sense. So I don't see where he's coming from there.

46:06

But when one insists they are guilty then they should repent and believe. Piper acknowledges in a footnote in his recent book, Gee, it's the only way to God.

46:12

Must you hear the gospel to be saved? How does Piper think the work of Christ received by these unaccountable people? He speculates that infants who die will mature after death and confess

46:21

Christ. And that's where I went, I want to see this. And so I got the

46:28

Kindle book. And in the Kindle book, if you get it, and someone in channel who remained nameless even though he's been named earlier was very helpful in telling me, well you know the

46:40

Kindle's got a search feature. Really? Yeah, I knew that. But it doesn't always work and sometimes doesn't include the footnotes.

46:49

Because I did search for some elements of it but he doesn't quote what

46:55

I'm looking for so I couldn't use exact words and nothing came up. So anyways, that's why I had to read all of them.

47:00

It's footnote number 44 for those of you who will be looking for it in your own

47:05

Kindle edition. He says, I state it like this so as to leave open salvation for infants and the disabled who do not have the physical ability to even apprehend that there is any revelation available at all.

47:19

The principle of accountability in Romans 1 .20, God makes knowledge available so they are without excuse, is the basis for this conviction.

47:26

The Bible does not deal with this special case in any detail and we are left to speculate that the fitness of the connection between faith and Christ and salvation will be preserved through the coming to faith of children whenever God brings them to maturity in heaven or in the age to come.

47:45

But let it be clear that the case of an infant and a profoundly mentally disabled adult is not analogous to a healthy adult who has never heard the gospel of Christ.

47:53

The point of Romans 1 .18 -21 is that ordinary adults everywhere all have access because their eyes and ears and minds to God's natural revelation but suppress it.

48:02

Infants and the profoundly disabled do not have the mental and sensory framework for receiving natural revelation.

48:08

For a defense of this view, see Ronald H. Nash, When a Baby Dies, Answers to Comforting Grieving Parents. I think he's actually, when he says for a defense of this view, he's not talking about his view, he's talking about the other view.

48:21

Because, um, but I don't know. Anyways, that's, that is, that is the section and there is the, we are left to speculate that the fitness of the connection between faith and Christ and salvation will be preserved though the coming to faith of children whenever God brings them to maturity in heaven or in the age to come.

48:45

Um, okay. I had never heard that one before. And I know that one of the most popular questions that is asked when

48:55

I sit on panels in conferences, the few that I get invited to anyways, is what do you think about infants who die in infancy?

49:05

And we all know that Zwingli said they're all the elect. Of course, Zwingli may have been one of those who didn't actually believe in original sin either.

49:13

So, that's a question. But, um, uh, Zwingli said they're all the elect. You can't, you can't disprove it and I can't prove it.

49:21

And when, when John Piper says he finished, you know, the last ten seconds of his statement is,

49:28

I believe all the infants are of the elect. I go, nothing that he said up to that point substantiated the assertion they're of the elect.

49:38

He was substantiating, trying to substantiate the assertion that they're not accountable. Not that they're of the elect.

49:44

Why would they even need to be of the elect if they're not accountable? I saw no connection whatsoever between, um, the argument and then the conclusion that was given to the argument that included the concept of election.

49:58

I didn't, didn't see where that came from. That, that totally, totally lost me. Um, but there have been lots and lots of people who have, um, made the assertion that all infants, uh, all those who lack intellectual capacity if they are to die in that state are of the elect and go to heaven.

50:25

And, um, some do that on the basis of some concept of age responsibility and things like that.

50:35

Generally, if we take seriously the concept of original sin, and I was going to spend some time in Romans 5, maybe I'll do it next time.

50:42

I don't think I can get to it today. I'm just not going to have time to. I'd like to go through Romans 5, especially in light of, and maybe

50:48

I'll, I'll go ahead and cue up, because it was very short, very short. In fact, it'd be short enough to cue up and listen to.

50:53

So maybe that's, that's how we'll do it. We'll, we'll play Adam Harwood's comments on Romans 5, because I, I felt that he missed the point of Romans 5 and only looked at pretty much one verse and not the entire testimony of Romans 5 to the concept of our being in Adam.

51:14

And if you don't see that Romans 5 is presenting a humanity in Adam and a humanity in Christ, and that you get from Adam all you can get from Adam, which is death, and you get from Christ what you can get from Christ, which is life, then

51:30

I, I think you, you totally missed Romans 5. And so we'll, we'll take a look at that at another point.

51:39

But everybody, everybody likes to ask the question. And my response is pretty straightforward.

51:47

I mean, you've got three possibilities, right? You've got the people who say every infant that dies in infancy goes straight to heaven.

51:54

Boom. Now they have different reasons for saying that. But that's one position.

52:00

The other position is the only way of salvation is confessing faith in Jesus Christ. If you do not do that, then you are lost and you're going to hell.

52:12

so there you've got now, when you think about what's the middle position?

52:18

A lot of people don't know there is a middle position. I hold a middle position. And when you think about it, this is very much parallel to the question that my dear, beloved systematic theology teacher back in Bible college presented to a class, and I don't think that almost anybody was catching it but me that day, because they were pretty much asleep.

52:42

They were like, it was one of those classes everybody had to take, so I was like, whatever. And I was just fascinated. I loved it. But he said, when you think about it, there's three possibilities for God.

52:51

He can save nobody, he can save everybody, or he can save somebody. And he wrote these up on the board.

52:59

And he said, in which one of these does God have any freedom at all? Obviously, if he saves everybody, he has no choice.

53:08

If he saves nobody, he has no choice. He has no freedom in either one of those situations. But he does have freedom in the salvation of a people.

53:16

And it's the same thing here. Fundamentally, my assertion is this. God has as much freedom in the matter of salvation of infants who die in infancy as he does in the salvation of adults.

53:32

I do not want to limit God's freedom. I do not think that any of the arguments on either side, since this is pretty much an argument from silence, you have to derive it from other principles.

53:45

And instead of deriving it from principles of, well, David said he'd see his son, but anyways, you know, that kind of thing.

53:53

Or general concepts of God's goodness. Okay. Alright. But I also want to take into consideration the fact that every one of us is united with Adam in his fall, and that's why infants die in the first place.

54:11

That's why death reigns. It's because of the fall. And you can't just dismiss that.

54:18

And I don't think God's under any obligation to save any of the offspring of Adam.

54:26

But at the same time, the judge of all the earth does right. And just as I cannot tell when a child is born, whether it is of the elect or not,

54:35

I would likewise argue that God would have the freedom to save or not to save, and he'll be perfectly just in whatever he does.

54:44

He has the same level of freedom in the salvation of infants as he does in any other. And people say, oh, but you need to be able to tell somebody, how do you know?

54:52

You need to be able to tell that grieving mother, but how do you know? I want to tell them only what I know is true.

54:57

I don't want to lie to somebody. I don't want to lie to somebody. And so that's why you find in the various confessions, you have elect infants.

55:09

That's the terminology used in my confession, elect infants. And what is the only basis of election that I know of?

55:17

The absolute free, gracious will of God. Now if you hold the universal salvation concept, the basis of the election of infants is not simply the free, gracious will of God.

55:36

He's got to elect every infant who dies before, I don't know, because if you really believe in election, the age of accountability thing isn't all that relevant.

55:46

And so there becomes a different basis. I say, if there's ever any basis for election, it's always the free, sovereign grace of God.

55:57

It can't be anything else. Can't be anything else. And I just don't see how people on either of the two extremes can keep that balance.

56:08

So, that's where I come down on this. But I come down, I have to obviously, what you believe about Original Sin will determine at least what element of the conversation you're going to enter into.

56:25

Obviously, Adam Harwood has a book on this entire subject, I have a feeling it is either the condensation of or simply the reprinting of, since it's whip and stock, of his dissertation written under the direction of Paige Patterson on this very subject.

56:44

And I've actually put that on the ministry resource list, if someone would like to get that for me. Which I would sort of like be interested in seeing what the argumentation is, especially on issues like this.

56:57

But, as I said to the caller earlier, I don't think the vast majority of Christians in the

57:06

West today actually believe in Original Sin. I really don't. I question whether the vast majority, who even say they do, actually believe in Original Sin.

57:21

And it's because of our Western individualism, it is because we do not our view of the body of Christ and how

57:32

God deals in covenants and things like that is very much Western, it's not biblical.

57:38

It's not dry from that world view. And so we struggle with it and when push comes to shove death enters into our experience.

57:48

We go, eh, not so much. So maybe next time, depending on what happens over the weekend, we'll do

57:54

Romans 5 and listen to Harwood's exposition of that and stuff like that.

58:00

We'll get around to it eventually. If I forget someone can remind me. Even though I think next week's shortened,

58:05

I think about it. Because, yeah, I fly on Thursday. Yeah, I fly Thursday next week. Maybe we'll see how it works.

58:12

I don't know. I've got so many interviews and flights and everything else I can't even keep track of anymore. But we'll figure it out.

58:18

Thanks for listening to The Vying Line. We'll see you next time. God bless. ... ...

59:09

... ... ... ...

59:17

The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries. If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

59:26

Box 37106 Phoenix, Arizona 85069 You can also find us on the

59:31

World Wide Web at AOMIN .org That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G Where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.

59:40

Join us again next Tuesday morning at 11 a .m. for The Dividing Line. ... ... ...