Radio Free Geneva: Soteriology 101, God’s Glory, then the Unbelievable Panel on Theodicy and Grace

The Glory of God Versus Human-Centered Salvation

You can absolutely hear people that are Calvinist harp on this. Bah! Bah! God's suffering! God's suffering! Bah! Suffering! Suffering! Suffering! They just keep repeating it, and they repeat it so much you start to think it's a Biblical truth.

Jesus stands outside the tomb of Lazarus. He says, Lazarus, come out! And Lazarus said, I can't. I'm dead. That's not what he did. Lazarus came out. Do you mean to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ?

And then you take lessons from Judas White and Jeff Durbin. It shows in this kind of sequential format.

Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things? Um, no.

Some new Calvinists, even pastors, very openly smoke pipes and cigars just as they drink beer and wine. Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief.

Verse like that to him, you know what it would sound like if he were listening to it? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It wouldn't make any sense to him. A self-righteous, legalistic, deceived jerk.

You need to realize that he's gone from predeterminism. Now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to...

I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge.

Then don't beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it.

You're not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat. There's a reason to have the choice of that meat.

From our underground bunker deep beneath the faculty cafeteria in New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, safe from all those moderate Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and reread George Bryson's book, we are Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to save for his own eternal glory.

And greetings. Welcome to The Dividing Line on the last day of 2019. And we got the right Radio Free Geneva going there. We got Gene Kim doing his gagging, puking thing. But still, as funny as that one is, nothing will ever, ever, ever beat the middle knowledge one.

I mean, significance wise, so are you using the same type of exegesis that we use, the Trinity, the beauty of Christ, resurrection? Are you using that for what you're teaching here in Romans 9? Or actually not in Romans 9, but elsewhere?

No, not really. That's the most important thing. And that will come up a lot, especially as we will, not today, but we'll be getting into our response to Dr. David Allen's three-part series. In regards to Romans chapter eight.

And we will get into it today in that we are going to be looking at some comments from John Lennox and his book, Determined to Believe, and some comments that he made at the recent unbelievable conference over in California.

And so that does come up and properly so, I think, at that particular point in time. In fact, I need to make sure to bring that up so we can get to it later in the program. But we begin with a, and I suppose, well, I don't know.

Do we really need to do that? As far as demonstrating, I suppose I can just read it. I don't think we really need to see it. It's in here someplace. Dee-deed-deed-deed-dee-da-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee.

Ah, there we go. I even knew what the cover looked like. What was the date on this? Two days after Christmas. Two days after Christmas. Layton Flowers, Soteriology 101, posted a tweet. Evidently, there is an article that underlies this.

But sometimes when you express something succinctly, you really lay out what you're really saying. Sometimes you're able to sort of soften the blow when you've got lots of words to use and then other times not.

But the reality is that there are two fundamentally different ways of looking at salvation in the Christian scriptures. We have been saying this since we started Radio Free Geneva. I probably said this in the very first edition.

I don't know when that was. We need to find out. I wonder when we first started calling this Radio Free Geneva because I remember I was responding to, oh, what was the Southern Baptist, big Southern Baptist guy.

I think that was the first program we did where I went through someone who was really, really well known. Adrian Rogers. Yeah. OK, so we haven't quite gotten to two full decades, but we're not far away.

We're coming at it fast, Radio Free Geneva. And I would imagine in that program in 2003, 2004, somewhere around there, I specifically made reference to the reality that there are two. There is a theocentric and an anthropocentric way of looking at what the Bible teaches about salvation, a man-centered way and a God-centered way.

And obviously. There are many people who object to that because, well, that's that's poisoning the well and gaslighting and all the rest of these phrases that are now used today by people who don't want to think seriously.

But the fact is that. We see this over and over and over and over again, and if. Your central ordering principle. The lens through which you read scripture is God's self-glorification in the creation of this universe and the wrapping up of all things, the summing up of all things in Christ.

If this is primarily about him. And his glorification and his vindication. Romans, chapter three. Then that lens is going to. Cause you to see ambiguous texts in a particular fashion. If, however, you start with mankind, if you start.

With the idea that man is the central. Element. Of the biblical narrative. That what is going to happen with man and the. The centrality of rescuing man and providing to man opportunities and provisions and things like that, if if that is central to your thinking, then those same ambiguous texts are going to be read in a different fashion.

And you are going to either see or not see. Connections between various teachings and scripture. So if you are theocentric. Then you are going to consider the internal harmony of the divine persons to be central.

At an absolutely overridingly important reality, if you're if you're centered upon man, then man's free will. Is going to be significantly more important than how Jesus's role as high priest relates to the atonement.

And so. There are there are two approaches. Now, I obviously believe that this is not. Well, you just need to pick your your approach and then run with it. I don't I don't believe scripture allows that.

I believe what we see, especially today, and I think this is extremely clear when you see. The anthropocentric, the man centered. Position in predominance. Then you are going to see a diminishment of emphasis upon certain aspects of the divine text, and so.

The the text in scripture that lay out God's aseity. God's uniqueness. How unlike man God is, how perfect he is in of himself without the assistance of man, how God is sovereign over human affairs, and that he frustrates man's plans and he hardens men's hearts.

Those types of texts that focus upon the sole glory of God and refer to man as a grasshopper. Are put off to the side, and therefore, those texts where God judges. And wipes out entire people groups. Justly.

Those are going to be explained away, and that's what we exactly we see today. We see many people teaching that God did not command that an entire people group be wiped out, but it was just a certain group of people.

That time, and it wasn't all of them. And this is all hyperbole and and you know, and the reason being that an anthropocentric focus. Is going to put God in the dock and say, well, what's most important?

What's really, really, really most important is to. Defend God's honor and character. But the parameters of defending that character are not biblically derived. They're derived from mankind's understanding of what justice would be.

Outside of biblical revelations of justice. So you have these external standards that you place upon God, and if God does things that violates that, well, we have to find a way around that. And that's exactly what we see today.

This also explains why you can have. Incredibly intelligent men who, when it comes to this one subject, are completely inconsistent. So you will have men who will recognize the importance of systematic theology, of how systematic theology is derived from a pancanonical, all of scripture, sola scriptura and tota scriptura, a pancanonical view of drawing concepts together consistently with one another to come up with the doctrine of the Trinity, to come up with the deity of Christ, a hypostatic union, all the high revelations of who God is, that we consider to be absolutely foundational to our faith.

And then when it comes to salvation and the will of man, all of a sudden, no, you Calvinists are all wrong in thinking you need to have these overarching concepts like the Trinity. You need to just look at individual texts that seem to speak against something like limited atonement.

You can't be talking about how the Trinitarian persons have to be in harmony with one another, and you can't talk about the purpose of God and the incarnation and the atonement and the grand schemes of God's self glorification.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Individual texts that aren't even on that subject need to take priority over a pan-canonical understanding. And I just have to go, you are a Trinitarian, right? Have you ever thought through what the biblical evidence for that is?

Because if you take the position that you're taking, you are fundamentally denying the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity. And I know they don't realize they're doing that, but it happens. It happens.

Now, what I was referring to is this tweet from 947am. Is that in your receipt time? Or I don't know. But sometime on the morning of December 27th, which I think was last Friday, Calvinism suggests that God's glory is best manifest by putting his own exaltation first, whereas the example of Christ reveals just the opposite.

It is through giving up his glory by putting the needs of lowly undeserving humans first that he is most abundantly glorified. Now, I want you to hear this. It is important that you hear this. Here. How's that?

I've decided. Let's make sure. Calvinism suggests that God's glory is best manifest by putting his own exaltation first, whereas the example of Christ reveals just the opposite. It is through giving up his glory by putting the needs of lowly undeserving humans first that he is most abundantly glorified.

So, Teriology 101, that is Leighton Flowers. Now, there were many, many, many responses to Dr. Flowers' statement, obviously. And for most of us, the initial response is just, really? Now, for many others, it's like, oh, that sounds nice.

So again, how you approach scripture is going to sort of determine how you respond initially to a statement like this. But hopefully, most of us have, upon thinking about it, recognized what the real problem and the real issue here is.

The real problem and the real issue here is that Dr. Flowers has placed God into the context and into the category of human exaltation. That's what he did. He has taken the example of Jesus in humility that Paul is presenting to us in Philippians chapter 2.

And he is extrapolating from that. So, the obedience of the Son, his humility of mind, he's taking that and he's extrapolating that out to an ultimate category into which the triune God as a whole is placed along with man.

So, by putting the needs of lowly, undeserving humans first. So, we're in the same category. Jesus was, but he was unique. He was the God-man. But the purposes of God, now, again, I don't get the feeling that there is any meaningful ground in Dr. Flowers' theology for any type of divine decree or intention from eternity past to begin with.

So, but what you have here and what you should see as extremely problematic is the foundational assumption that is made. And we have had to over and over again emphasize on Radio Free Geneva, you must think clearly as a believer.

God has given to us the capacity to reason and to think. And so, you must think clearly as a believer and recognize the foundations of arguments. The foundation of this argument is flawed. It is making an inappropriate extrapolation and violating categories in the process.

So, let me just remind you of some foundational truths from Scripture. God, in speaking to his people, Israel, in Isaiah, said in Isaiah 4325, I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions. Now, what is that?

Wiping out your transgressions. This is a soteriologically relevant statement. It's about salvation. It's about God acting in mercy. It's about God dealing with sin and human rebellion. I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.

For my own sake. He doesn't place himself in the category of his creatures and say, hey, let's sing Kumbaya and I'm going to put you first and you and me are buds. And this is not the God that we read of in the Hebrew Scriptures.

He even says, I have dealt with your transgressions. I will wipe them out for my own sake, not for yours. Oh, you benefit, that's for sure. But as anyone who is the beneficiary of grace knows, you are always the debtor.

You are always the one dependent upon the other. You are never in a position of equality in any way, shape, or form. And this comes out when you really listen to what the Scriptures say, just as a reminder to all of us.

I think all of us, we live in such a humanistic world, such a secular world, such a world that does everything in its power to diminish God and to exalt ourselves. Could we remind ourselves of this incredible text from Isaiah chapter 44?

We have this divine sarcasm and a lot of people use this as an excuse for them being constantly sarcastic, but God does it really well and most of the time we don't. So, listen to this divine sarcasm.

Beginning of verse 9, Those who fashion a graven image are all of them futile, and their precious things are of no profit. Even their own witnesses fail to see or know, so they will be put to shame. Who has fashioned a god or cast an idol to no profit?

Behold, all his companions will be put to shame. For the craftsmen themselves are mere men. Let them all assemble themselves. Let them stand up. Let them tremble. Let them together be put to shame. So, you have these craftsmen who make idols.

And of course, this was the temptation being brought before the people of God. Go after these idols. So, listen to what God does. The man shapes iron into a cutting tool and does his work over the coals, fashioning it with his hammers and working it with his strong arm.

He also gets hungry and his strength fails. He drinks no water and becomes weary. Another shapes wood. He extends a measuring line. He outlines it with red chalk. He works with planes and outlines with a compass and makes it like the form of a man, like the beauty of a man, so that it may sit in a house.

Surely, he cuts cedars for himself and takes a cypress or an oak and raises it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a fir and the rain makes it grow. Then it becomes something for a man to burn.

So, he takes one of them and warms himself. He also makes a fire to bake bread. He also makes a god and worships it. He makes it a graven image and falls down before it. Half of it, he burns in the fire.

Over this half, he eats meat as he roasts the roast and is satisfied. He also warms himself and says, aha, I am warm. I have seen the fire. But the rest of it, he makes into a god. He's graven image. He falls down before it and worships.

He also prays to it and says, deliver me for you are my god. What an incredible picture. What an incredible picture of idolatry and the foolishness of man and how man can use the gifts of God, his ability to design and to form and to fashion and to use fire and tools and metallurgy and everything else and doesn't recognize God.

Doesn't recognize where all of this is coming from. They do not know, nor do they understand, for he has smeared over their eyes. They cannot see in their hearts. They cannot comprehend. Oh, we want to skip that part.

I want to skip that part. No one recalls, nor is there knowledge or understanding to say, I have burned half of it in the fire and also have baked bread over its coals. I roast meat and eat it. Then I make the rest of it an abomination, a toeyvah.

I fall down before a block of wood. He feeds on ashes. A deceived heart has turned him aside and he cannot deliver himself, nor say, is there not a lie in my right hand? He cannot deliver himself. Oh, that's one of those other texts that our provisionist friends don't want to look at or they'll explain.

Well, that's just a situation where God's, that's just judgment in that one situation. It's not judgment in general. Remember these things, O Jacob and Israel, for you are my servant. I have formed you.

You are my servant. O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me. I have wiped out your transgressions like a thick cloud and your sins like a heavy mist. Return to me for I have redeemed you. Shout for joys, O heaven, for Yahweh has done it.

Shout joyfully, you lower parts of the earth. Break forth into a shout of joy, you mountains, O forest and every tree in it. For Yahweh has redeemed Jacob and in Israel he shows forth his glory. For thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, the one who formed you from the womb.

I am the make. I, Yahweh, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself and spraying out the earth all alone, causing the omens of boasters to fail, making fools out of diviners, causing wise men to draw back and turning their knowledge into foolishness, confirming the word of his servant, performing his purpose, the purpose of his messengers.

It is I who says to Jerusalem, she will be inhabited in the cities of Judah. They shall be built and I will raise up her ruins again. It is I who says to the depth of the sea, be dried up and I will make your rivers dry.

It is I who says to Cyrus who didn't, wasn't alive yet. He is my shepherd and he will perform all my desire and he declares to Jerusalem, she will be built and of the temple your foundation will be laid.

Thus says Yahweh to Cyrus is anointed, his anointed one. He was chosen whom I have taken by the right hand to subdue nations before him to loose the loins of kings, to open doors before him so the gates will not be shut.

I will go before you make the rough places smooth. I will shatter the doors of bronze and cut through the iron bars. All this is about what God, God, God, God does. Not pretty much everything man does is well subservient to God.

The boasting of the omen pronouncers is made empty by God. It's Psalm 33 all over again. Man plans, God frustrates their plans. God plans, man cannot do anything about it. The sovereign God of these scriptures, I say to you, is the God who stands behind every statement in the New Testament.

And so if you take, if you start here, this is, if you start here, then it's going to be very difficult for you to all of a sudden shift gears and embrace the cultural emphasis upon the autonomy of man.

But many people do not start there. They start with external, I believe, external sources and reference points. And then as a result, diminish, ignore entire passages of scripture. We should, I think, you know, be aware of the reality.

That's not that the New Testament does not plainly address this issue. It does, if you just simply allow the text to speak, we know that the Apostle Paul laid out, blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing and having places in Christ, just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before him.

In love, he predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself, upon what basis? According to the kind intention of his will, for what purpose? To the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the beloved one.

So, where do we get this equality? Where do we get this idea of putting the needs of lowly, undeserving humans first? The needs of human beings. That's not what Philippians 2 is about. That's not what Ephesians 1 is about.

That's not what Isaiah 43 or 44 or 45 or anything else is about. That is humanism. Man's needs. Well, God knows what man's needs are because God is using man to bring about his own glory. And let's be honest, most provisionists don't really believe that.

In fact, I would have to say most Christians do not really believe that. So, when you hear people say, hear it all the time, well, if you take that Calvinistic view, you're a minority. Yeah, you're right.

And there's a reason for that. There's a reason revealed in Scripture. Who are you? A man who answers back to God? I mean, that's the clay in rebellion against the potter. So, the Scripture reveals this is how man thinks.

We think from our perspective up toward God. That's natural for us to do. That doesn't make it right. It doesn't mean that it's not going to lead us into error. It will. But the reality is that God has done what he has done to the praise of the glory of his grace.

He has not done it to meet human needs. And again, if you recognize what Ephesians 1 is saying, that from eternity past, God chose to do these things. And I just don't believe. I just don't believe. Most of my synergistic friends really take seriously the idea that God has a sovereign decree to accomplish his own glory.

They have some vague idea that, well, yeah, you know, it's all going to be worked out and, you know, God's going to win in the end, somehow. But the reality is the messy details in the middle, you know, we just don't know.

God's doing his best. You push them on something like this, and you don't get the clarity that you get from Paul that all things are being summed up in Christ. And that there is this divine purpose and it's all to his praise and his glory and so on and so forth.

You don't get that. You get a really ishy, squishy, mushy type thing. You don't get the type of clarity that you have here in the text of scripture and even the text that is behind Dr. Flower's statements.

Yeah, Jesus humbles himself by becoming obedient to him. To the Father. This is inter-trinitarian obedience, showing humility of mind. As the God-man, he shows obedience and humility, yes. But what is the result of this?

Is it the exaltation of man? For this reason, also God highly exalted him and bestowed him the name which is above every name, so the name of Jesus every knee should bow. Of those who are in heaven and on earth and of the earth and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to what?

To the glory of God the Father. What is the purpose? The purpose is God's glorification. And you never show yourself more deeply infected by the humanism of our age when you find the glory of God to be something other than of utter prime importance, not only in the scriptural narrative, but in your own heart and mind.

I've said many times before when we read Romans 9 and Paul lays out for us. What if God, though willing to bear with patience the vessels of wrath prepared under destruction? What if God was was desirous of revealing his power?

His strength in judgment, and I've asked people over and over again, where does that come in your thinking about God? Do you have any desire that God's power as holy judge be demonstrated? Once in a while, we'll, you know, we'll see a particularly heinous event, a particularly heinous person, and we'll go.

Yeah, I'd like to see it there, but the idea of God's holy wrath being made known, his power being demonstrated, his name being proclaimed through all the earth, through the destruction of the Egyptian gods, the killing of the firstborn, if you were walking down the streets of Egypt in those days, in the shadows of the pyramids, and you heard the wailing of the mothers as their firstborn children, their firstborn sons have died, if you are first and foremost a primarily emotionally oriented person, you're going to go, nope, can't go there.

Yet, that's apostolic truth and revelation in scripture. It's what it says. God was glorified in the destruction of the firstborn. Egypt was an idolatrous nation, and even when faced with the clearest revelation of the supremacy of Yahweh, refused to repent in the person of their federal head, Pharaoh, whom God hardened so that the gods of Egypt could be spoiled.

I don't believe the undergenerate person can say, yes, what God did was right. There will always be an element of rebellion there, and I think there are regenerate people who have not yet reached a point of sanctification, who likewise will say the same thing, but the real issue for me is, is there a willingness to bow and be obedient to God's revelation of the truth of these things?

That's where the dividing line, pun intended, that's what the dividing line is, really is. With that said, I'm just going audio. It's so much easier to use audio because you can click on stuff and stop stuff, and so there is a video of this.

There was a panel discussion. Panel discussions, I've been on more of them than I can possibly count any longer. And sometimes it goes really well, sometimes there's a good chemistry, and then sometimes it's just terrible, and sometimes it's just boring, and sometimes it was a total waste of time.

You never can really tell. Sometimes I've gone to a panel going, oh, this has got the potential of being a real stinker, and it ends up being really good. Who knows? Part of it depends, a lot of it depends on who the moderator is.

Justin Brierley is always a great moderator. He knows how to do a conversation, well, in England. You know, you've got to understand, give Justin his props. They have to be so careful about what they say and how they say things in the UK.

Maybe once Brexit takes place, but I don't know. I mean, the EU is all over stuff, but there's all sorts of folks in Britain that are just like the EU people, so they have to be very, very careful. So he's walking a line that a lot of us don't really realize he's trying to walk.

He's very good at it. Yes, that was that sound you heard in the background was the man behind the glasses. He's really good at that. Yes, he is. So we give him props for that. But we also know, as we have noted on this program, when we did responses, we also know that on this particular subject, Justin is not on our side.

And I've said to Justin, he and I need to do the program together. We can talk about this stuff, but he's like, no, no, no, no. I'm not going to put myself in that position, but I'm open to it, you know, just throw that out there.

Be in London numerous times this year. Anyway, the question was asked. I only cut out. This is a 14 minute and 53 second portion. I already cut out the first part of it. So, you know, maybe 13 minutes.

The question was raised of the relationship of God to man, sin, theodicy. I'm not sure the term itself is used and was thrown out to the people in the panel. Now, Mary Jo Sharp is first one to speak. Brian Broderson was on the channel.

And we've done entire Radio Free Geneva's on Brian Broderson and his comments on Calvinism. And then of course, John Lennox was on as well. And as I said, he's written a book called Determined to Believe.

And in my opinion, what we see with John Lennox is the same thing that we saw with Norman Geisler almost 20 years ago. Someone who is primarily a philosopher, primarily impacted by philosophical categories of thought, decides to address what is in reality a fundamentally biblical and exegetical issue.

And in the process demonstrates once again, the fact that you can be very, very smart and very, very good in other areas. But when it comes this one area, just do really bad work. And we will see in looking at John Lennox's comments that once again, maybe you've never seen this program before.

If you've seen it, you've heard this 47 ,000 times. I am reformed because I apply the same hermeneutic to this subject that I do to the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Jesus, and the other key fundamental Christian doctrines.

And when you do that, I don't see any other place to land. And in my experience, when people say, I'm not going there, you will rather easily be able to demonstrate on an exegetical level where their tradition ends up overthrowing their interpretation of scripture.

And I'll illustrate that. It's something I've been wanting to do for over a year when Lennox's book first came out. I forgot when it was, but it's been a while. And I just never got around to it. There's always something going on.

This gave a good opportunity. But let's start at the beginning. Let's listen. I will be playing at 1 .2 because we want to get done sometime today that makes people sound smarter than me. That's okay, too.

That's not difficult to do.

Let's dive in. A kind of difficult theological question. Yeah, so, you know, this is a class that I teach at the university. I mean, you could go years and years and years on studying this and we're just going to give you a quick little quips on it.

So let's enjoy that. But so yeah, for me in struggling through this, what I have to look at is what God made and the way that he made it. So for me, in answering this question, looking at God's sovereignty and the free will of man.

I have to consider does God actually give, has he made humans in his own image with autonomy? Is that a real thing that he's done?

Now, immediately. So the Imago Dei, from what she just said, involves autonomy. And I just immediately challenged that from a biblical perspective. Where do you get that biblically? The Imago Dei requires the ability to interact, but autonomy?

I really, really struggle with how anyone can ever use the term autonomy of the human will. There's just, there are so many statements where God says, you ain't, I am. Just read the 33rd Psalm. Entire nations plan and God says, nah, ain't happening.

I plan, you can't stop me. Who's autonomous there? I mean, that's obvious. And that's not even taking into consideration the fallenness of the will of man. Once you take that in consideration, then the regular biblical teaching is man is not able and God is.

So how, but again, hey, Norman Geisler could read John 6 and come up with the free will of man. So once that becomes your ordering principle, you'll find it everywhere. You end up making havoc of the text of scripture, but you'll find it everywhere.

But autonomy? I mean, do you know what autonomy means? Self-law. How can the Imago Dei involve autonomy, unless what you're saying is the Imago Dei makes another God. There is one autonomous will in universe and it's God's.

And if there are two autonomous wills in universe, there are no autonomous wills in universe. By the very meaning of the word, self-law.

So no, I just have to go. Nope. And I think he has like our autonomy is not God's autonomy, but I believe there's a reflection of that in every human being.

Our autonomy is not God's autonomy. Then it's not autonomy, is it? See, we can talk about creaturely freedom. We can talk about the creation of man within the realm of createdness, but that must be separated from uncreatedness.

So why even use the term? I mean, self-law. Let's just remember what it's self-law. Can we talk about creaturely freedom? Can we talk about acting within the realm God has created us to act within without knowledge of future events?

Can we talk about God holding us accountable for acting upon the desires of our wills based upon our knowledge? And it is judgment is going to be just and righteous because he knows exactly what we did and did not know and what our intentions and desires were.

How about that? Because that fits with what's called compatibilism. But when you don't make that differentiation, you will end up limiting the exercise of God's will to the same realm as the exercise of man's will.

And when it comes to this issue, evil, that's exactly where the issue lies. It's exactly where it lies.

That he actually gave us real choice.

So I actually... So notice again, real choice equals autonomy. Real choice cannot be just creaturely freedom. Real choice can't be in the realm of compatibility. If it's real choice, it's autonomy. And what's behind all this?

It isn't being said quite yet. There is no divine decree. And that's why if you start here, you're never going to get to the truth. Because you have to ask, you have to start with God, the creator, to get to the truth of his creation.

We start with the creation and try to get to the truth of the creator and we always... There are many, many, many different roads. I just thought of this mainly because it was the most frightening experience of my life.

But this past July, I think I may mention really quickly, two dear friends of mine, not realizing how terrified I am of heights, took me on a hike up Mount Evans. And there were... The beginning, there was fairly exposed plain where you're doing some rock scrambling.

And once we got through that, I was like, guys, is it going to be like this? No, no, no, it flattens out of it. Well, the problem was it does flatten out and you'd go through this little ridge and then the last two and a half kilometers or so is just rock scrambling with...

You can just see thousands of feet down to a lake and it's just like... And it was... I panicked and it was rough. It was the toughest thing I ever did, which is why two or three days later, I went back and did it by myself in an hour faster than I had done it before because I had to.

It was just reality. The point is this. The path was lined out with these things. I forget what they called them, but these little piles of rocks. And there are a couple times when you're just not sure.

And there are a lot of different ways to scramble up these rocks, but some of them get you into some real hairy places, real hairy positions. When we as humans try to scramble up to God, try to reason from where we are and get up to God, there's lots of different ways to go.

But some of them are going to leave you hang on the side of a cliff. Some of them are going to lead to destruction. We can't go from the bottom up. And as Christians, we don't need to. The path's been marked by divine revelation.

And we can start with what God says about himself, make that our primary assertion. We have to start... You start with what God has revealed about himself, and then you reason down from that to mankind.

If you go the other direction, and you see, these are all apologists. And so I get it. That is the most offensive thing you can do to the natural man. The most offensive thing you can do to the natural man is to say, you can't start with yourself.