Hatred of Christian Morality and Ethics

9 views

July 26, 2012

Started off with more reporting on the spiraling insanity and depravity of Western culture expressing itself in open hatred of Christian morality and ethics, especially in the abuse of the term “discrimination.” Then we started to take calls, and, well, though I wanted to get back to the Abdullah Kunde response, the calls kept coming and we filled up the rest of the time with them. Good calls on a wide variety of topics.

Comments are disabled.

00:14: Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.
00:20: 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.
00:29: Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.
00:35: 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
00:44: United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is
00:51: James White. And welcome to The Dividing Line, a jumbo edition today, lots of topics, might even open the phones if you'd like to get involved at 877 -753 -3341.
01:05: I think I'm going to Chick -fil -A on Tuesday, to be perfectly honest with you, because it's hot in Phoenix, that's going to be a long line.
01:15: I feel like going through on Tuesday and saying, I'll see you again on Thursday, how's that?
01:25: But if you go to Chick -fil -A somewhere back east, you might run into Billy Graham at Chick -fil -A on Wednesday, because he said he's going on Wednesday, too.
01:34: I bet they set all -time business records on Wednesday, which proves there are still people that have a sense of morality left.
01:42: But there are very few in comparison to those in leadership of our country. I am absolutely beside myself, and I think a lot of people are, at the statements that are being made.
01:57: I hope no one was... Yesterday I saw Roseanne Barr's tweets on this subject, where she hoped everyone at the
02:07: Chick -fil -A got cancer, and filled with F -bombs and four -letter words. The woman, if you look up reprobate woman in the
02:16: Oxford Dictionary, there's a picture of Roseanne Barr. I mean, it's absolutely incredible. The most immoral woman
02:23: I think I've ever seen in my life. Just filthy mouth. And just, oh, just unbelievable.
02:30: But to see mayors of major cities who dare to say, you are acting in a discriminatory fashion.
02:45: These people don't understand what language means anymore. How can you get away with that?
02:54: I do not begin to understand the massive double standard that is inherent in this stuff.
03:02: Yes, sir? Didn't the mayor of Boston talk about what an open and welcoming community they were just before he told
03:09: Chick -fil -A to get out? Take a running leap, yes. That's exactly what he did.
03:19: And then, of course, you've got Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Pure Mouth himself, saying that Chick -fil -A's values are not
03:29: Chicago's values, which is another way of saying to any person in Chicago, if you believe what Jesus taught on marriage, you are not a
03:36: Chicagoan. Good job. Good job. Wow. That is amazing.
03:43: And so many people on Twitter, when you point this out, we're not doing that.
03:49: No one's attacking Chick -fil -A. They're just in denial. They're absolutely in denial. May I point something out?
03:56: I pointed out in the last program, the utter abuse of two, well, not abuse, redefinition.
04:03: See, homosexuality involves a redefinition of the created order.
04:10: God made us in a certain way, and we think we have the right to redefine that. Well, it seems that those who promote it, those who engage in it, and then those who promote it without engaging in it, so homosexuals and their allies, don't have a problem redefining all of reality, history, and language itself.
04:28: And we looked at two words. We looked at inclusive, and how people who are utterly exclusive, they exclude the possibility of the
04:41: Christian faith, they exclude anyone who holds to a Christian perspective on sexual morality and marriage, can yell and scream about how inclusive they are.
04:54: They are not inclusive. By any stretch of the meaning of the word, except the meaning that they have decided everyone else must be held to.
05:03: It's not what any lexicon says, but they'll get around to pressuring the folks in the lexicon to change the meaning of the word eventually.
05:09: That's why we were talking about 1984 again. And then we talked about inclusive, and then we talked about diversity, and how diversity means sameness.
05:22: It's follow what I say, and not what anybody else says. It's sameness.
05:28: So both terms have been turned upside down. There's a third term I should have talked about, because it's coming up a lot now, and it's come up a long time.
05:37: That is the term discrimination. Discrimination. Now, this particular term, discriminate, is a
05:48: Latin term, and then the verbs are derived off of that. And so it comes from the
05:55: Latin, and it means to make a difference, or what a difference, a distinction is.
06:04: So if you can tell the difference between the fully leaded and diet version of your favorite soda, then you are discriminating.
06:26: You are making a distinction. You are able to discern the difference between those two.
06:34: Now, obviously, there's the terminology. Remember the pet food commercial for,
06:40: I think it was for Fancy Feast, for pets with a discriminating taste or something like that.
06:46: It's the white Persian sitting there with the fancy. And I have a cat like that, one of my three cats.
06:54: We have to literally sit there in the aisle and make sure we get the right soft food, because there are certain ones we've learned over the time.
07:02: You put it down, he smells it, and he turns around, walks off, and just sort of looks at you with this dirty look. And the other two cats scarf his down, so they don't really care.
07:11: But this one, he discriminates. He is very, very discriminating.
07:18: He'll go eat a bird, but there's certain things that he won't eat.
07:25: And so there's discrimination. And the word means to make a distinction.
07:32: And every single one of us, every single day, discriminate. If you go into, if you're standing there and, you know, in the
07:43: Philadelphia airport, Philadelphia airport, there is a Chick -fil -A. I've eaten there. I would eat there more often now than I have in the past.
07:52: But there is a Chick -fil -A. And right next to it, I think, is a like Sparrows or it's an
07:57: Italian pasta, pizza type place. If you're standing there, if you're a person who thinks you don't discriminate, you will stand there and starve.
08:08: There will be a skeleton left standing there. Because if you choose one or the other, you're discriminating.
08:14: You're making a distinction based upon your preferences, your taste, so on and so forth. For example, whenever I walk into a food court,
08:21: I discriminate against all Asian food, period. End of discussion. Sorry, but I don't do it.
08:30: I don't go in there. Ain't happening. All right. So I discriminate.
08:36: We all discriminate every single day. You could not function without discriminating.
08:43: That's what the word means. And so what has happened over the past number of decades in our society is that the term discrimination, racial discrimination, has taken over the meaning of the word, or it had, and it just became a negative.
09:05: It's become a synonym for being a bigot or being prejudiced or something along these lines.
09:13: And so the historical meaning of the word, which refers to all sorts of activities, has been put behind, and the primary meaning now has become something that's negative.
09:29: But still, it had to have a descriptor, racial, sexual, something like that.
09:38: So if you discriminate based upon someone's race, that means you're making a distinction based on someone's race, and that's a negative thing, you see.
09:51: Well, today you have these mayors, for example, accusing
09:58: Chick -fil -A of discrimination. For example, there is, yeah, here we go.
10:10: Mayor Tom Menino in Boston, you can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.
10:19: Now, that is an inaccurate use of the term. What does he mean?
10:26: Is he actually stating that Chick -fil -A will not serve homosexuals? No. Is he saying that they have violated laws in regards to hiring practices?
10:36: No. What he's saying is the majority stockholder,
10:43: CEO of the company, holds to a Christian view of marriage. Which clearly,
10:51: Mayor Tom Menino realizes, is not the homosexual view. So so much, interesting,
10:57: I don't think he meant to do this, but Tom Menino just took out all those, quote unquote, gay
11:04: Christians that we've been reviewing all this time. He doesn't realize that, and they don't care.
11:11: As long as homosexuality as a whole and the leftist agenda is being promoted, the inconsistency part's irrelevant, because truth doesn't have anything to do with any of this stuff.
11:22: And then you have an alderman in Chicago saying, if you are discriminating against a segment of the community,
11:29: I don't want you in the first ward. So these individuals are asserting that to hold the
11:37: Christian view of marriage, to hold that marriage is a divine institution, to believe what
11:43: Jesus taught in Matthew chapter 19, that God created man and woman from the beginning, joined together.
11:51: That's what marriage is. If you follow Jesus, you're discriminating. Well, of course you are. But so are you.
11:59: Mayor Tom Menino, the alderman in Chicago, they're discriminating against Christianity. They're making a distinction, and they are rejecting
12:06: Christian morality. They're rejecting the viewpoint of every single founder of the, signer of the
12:14: Declaration of Independence, all of those who wrote the Constitution. And interestingly enough, until just a few months ago, the perspective of President Barack Hussein Obama.
12:26: I guess he was discriminating for the first two and a half years of his presidency as well, and every other president of the
12:34: United States that has ever been. They were all guilty of discrimination and therefore should not have ever been allowed to come to either
12:41: Boston or to Chicago. Now, obviously, that is an abuse of the word.
12:49: It again, it's it's an abusive ad hominem use the word that is created by not defining what you're actually saying, because when you actually stop and think, but that's the last thing these people want you to do is actually stop and think, because if you do, you will see how absolutely absurd this entire situation really is.
13:09: So three words that if you just know what they are actually what they actually mean, what their what their actual historical meaning is.
13:23: Absolutely eviscerates. The pro gay marriage jihad taking place, how do you like putting those two topics together in in in our culture?
13:39: Inclusivism, diversity, prejudice, not prejudice, discrimination. If we know what they meant, then we can correct people.
13:48: But, you know, I just get the feeling that if I if I do actually show up on Wednesday and there are some people stand outside with signs or something, if I try to talk to them,
13:58: I just don't get the feeling I get very far. I tried I tried on Twitter yesterday and it was it was just like you you got to be kidding me.
14:07: I mean, obviously, you're an intelligent person. You can type out words on a screen, but you just don't think they just repeat the same mantras over and over again.
14:16: The young generation has been taught what to think, not how to think. And that is that is what is is going on.
14:23: And of course, when you actually go back and look at what poor brother Kathy. Actually said both in his the the original written article, which was with Baptist Press.
14:40: I bet you this is the most often Baptist Press has ever gotten cited, though they only cite a very small portion of it.
14:46: And then a radio program he did. You it's just it's just amazing.
14:54: It's absolutely amazing. For example, the Boston Herald report that Dan Cathy said, the gay marriage is inviting
14:59: God's judgment on our nation in actuality. And by the way, I would say that, but I would say it differently.
15:05: I would say gay marriage is a part of God's judgment upon our nation to profane a gift of God in marriage.
15:15: And I've had a bunch of people jump on me. But how come you don't talk about divorce from your marriage? How can I not talking about that?
15:23: I think I've been pretty clear in going through Matthew 19. Haven't I? It's sin.
15:30: S -I -N. No question about it. And the fact that we have treated the institution of marriage as well as Hollywood has taught us to, rather than as the scriptures teach us to, is part and parcel of what's brought this on.
15:48: But that does not excuse people to take a sexual sin and attach it to marriage and say, this is what marriage is.
15:55: There's no connection there. How do people think that way? I don't even get it. Anyways, I was reading something.
16:01: In actuality, the Baptist Press report said nothing about God's judgment. That phrase was taken from a radio interview recorded a month early on a radio talk show in Atlanta.
16:11: And that interview, Ken Coleman wanted Kathy to talk about fatherhood and family. So Kathy made some wide ranging remarks about the family in general, about his own father in particular remarks, which had no reference to homosexuality.
16:22: Kathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that's why he believes it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage.
16:32: It's bad for children and invites God's judgment. Kathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly.
16:41: You'll not find the words gay marriage or same -sex marriage anywhere in the interview. And then the interview is posted for people to look at that.
16:48: It says, I do not mean to suggest that Kathy's position on gay marriage is, by the way, this is Denny Burke, on gay marriage is unclear.
16:56: It is very clear that Kathy supports traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman. What I am suggesting is that his advocacy is understated and respectful.
17:04: It is nothing like it has been reported in the media over the past week. But what in the world do you expect? That's what the media is all about, is to try to create these situations.
17:15: Now, obviously, if any mayor in the country had come out and said,
17:26: I am not going to allow any more Starbucks to open because of their open promotion of gay marriage,
17:34: I think he'd probably have resigned by now. It would be all over. But because this is a
17:44: Christian view, then though a few people are certainly commenting about it, in general, the media is just not going to go there.
17:56: It's just not going to go there. So it is an amazing day. And if folks, what you need to understand is, even the
18:05: ACLU has come out and said, these people are nuts. There's no constitutional basis for you to be able to say a business can't open up because the
18:14: CEO has a different view than what the politicians think is PC now.
18:21: But two things you need to understand. First of all, you see the progress.
18:29: At first, people are saying, well, we just want equal rights. You know what? This isn't going to take over marriage. There's not that many homosexuals.
18:37: The churches are still going to have their freedoms. You know, it's just an equal rights thing. No, it isn't.
18:43: Has nothing to do with equal rights. Once these people think they're now in charge, you can't even question them.
18:51: You can't hold a different perspective without being the object of their opprobrium and their attack and just their vitriol.
19:03: And that's what you're getting from Rahm Emanuel. That's what you're getting from the mayor of Boston.
19:12: Open, rabid, Christophobia. Open, rabid, moralophobia. I have an irrational fear of anyone with morals.
19:21: But it's Christophobia. It is an absolute fear of the teachings of Jesus on this particular subject. That's what these people are.
19:27: Since that's the only way that we can talk in our society anymore is to put phobia at the end of your description of somebody else, then these people are
19:34: Christophobes. And this is persecution of Christians. Okay, how's that?
19:39: You know, if that's the way you want to put it, then there you go. I hate to use the same irrational way of thinking, but that seems to be the only way this society will hear what you're saying.
19:51: But likewise, the message that is being sent is real simple.
19:59: There's a message being sent here. Right now, Chick -fil -A is the object. But the message is to every single
20:07: Christian person involved in business, keep your big mouth shut.
20:15: Or your history. Do not speak about the demands of God's law in our society.
20:28: We will have nothing of that. Shut up. Be quiet.
20:33: In the closet with you. It's exactly what they want. I've said this.
20:40: You can go back in the dividing line archives. When we play the way back machine, it'll prove this.
20:46: You go back. And what have I been saying? They do not want equal rights and they will not be satisfied with equal rights.
20:55: They want Uber rights. They want to silence anyone who will criticize their lifestyle.
21:05: And there's a reason for it, folks. The Bible tells us why. Because they're made in the image of God.
21:12: And that conscience screams out. And every time we speak what their conscience is saying, they are angered.
21:23: Angered. There's a theological reason for the kind of...
21:31: People who in other walks of life are rational. They know how to use language. They can recognize when people are using double standards.
21:37: But when it comes to here, all bets are off. Why? There's a theological explanation.
21:46: And Christianity offers it. So like I said, I'm really, really thinking. Because it's eight miles.
21:53: I figured it out. It's about eight miles from my house. It's not a short drive. Now, of course, poor squirrel is going, yeah, but it's 550 miles for me.
22:04: So eight miles. I'd drive that other day. Well, just for both of you, I drive right by one on my way home.
22:09: Yeah, I know you do. But that's because you live more than eight miles. That's true.
22:15: And that's why it's like, eight miles? Really? Yeah. But for me to just go get something to eat, that 16 mile round trip, you know?
22:24: I'm 16 one way. I know. I know. But I didn't force you to move out there either. So why are we talking about this?
22:31: No one else cares. Why don't you get off that thing? Thank you very much. Okay. Anyway, so I may go up. I may go up on Tuesday and Thursday just to sort of help even.
22:41: You know, you don't want just one big whoosh, you know, this big spike. You know, I'll try to even it out just a little bit and go have my
22:51: Chick -fil -A and waffle fries and something else like that.
22:57: 550 .4 miles for squirrel. You know what we should do is we should buy squirrel some
23:04: Chick -fil -A. Just put in a box, pack it, and send it to him. It would take a day or two, but you know.
23:15: I'm sure he would deeply appreciate that. Okay, no, he wouldn't. But that's okay. All right.
23:22: Enough of that. 877 -753 -334 -1 is phone number.
23:28: I want to continue on with some other things as well. I was trying. I don't know what happened, but I tried to bring
23:39: Kindle up on one of my two Macs, and I type it, and I say hit it, and it opens up, and it immediately disappears.
23:49: So I'm not really sure what that means. I probably needed to reset the machine and try that again.
23:57: But I got to open up on the other one anyhow. So I would like to continue on with the review that we were doing of Pastor Rogers' Reflections of a
24:13: Disenchanted Calvinist, The Disquieting Realities of Calvinism. And like I said,
24:20: I suppose I should open up the phone thing here too, so I actually know if there's anybody there.
24:26: But 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. 877 -753 -3341.
24:33: And then I'll go back also to Abdullah Kunda's comments on The Forgotten Trinity as well.
24:43: But let me see if I can find where I was, because I'm having to go back to this particular section, and it's sort of like, hmm, it's not displaying the same on the screen and stuff like that.
24:59: So we were talking about grace enablement. We looked at John 6 -44, and we looked at 2
25:06: Peter 3 -9, and I think we had gotten down to this statement in Pastor Rogers' book.
25:14: Accordingly, he enables man to be able to be saved, and thereby permits man to freely choose to believe the gospel or to reject his grace and love and die in his sins.
25:25: Without question, God's permissive will does not preclude him from ever intervening in the decision -making process of man if his purposes so require.
25:42: However, neither does it necessitate that it be done in order to maintain sovereignty as long as he sovereignly chose to act in that particular way.
25:49: So a couple things. I really think that if you want to boil down the difference between monergism and synergism, between those who insist upon making salvation a cooperative effort that God attempts to save certain people but does not accomplish that, and I really wonder exactly why a
26:18: Molinist wants to say that God attempts to save people, because even from the
26:23: Molinistic perspective, God knows when he actuates a particular universe which people are going to believe and which are not.
26:32: So why would he attempt to save those that he knows can never be saved? In fact, it would be interesting to know, and I guess
26:41: I'm going to have to get this Ken Heathley book because everyone's making reference to it now. In fact, I've been listening to—I listened to—didn't fully finish the
26:47: Q &A, but I listened to a seminar that took place recently at Calvary Phoenix with Pastor Mark Martin.
26:57: And the thought crossed my mind, I may play some sections of at least one presentation, because it was ironic.
27:05: The pastors who presented, while I certainly disagree with what they're saying, at least
27:13: I understood where they were coming from, the worst presentation from a logical, biblical, and fairness and accuracy presentation was from Fred Chay, the professor from Phoenix Seminary, the scholar.
27:27: I mean, he literally at the beginning—now that I've said this, I'm going to have to play it—but he literally said at the opening of his statement that Calvin was trying to appease the
27:43: Romanists when in his antidote to Trent, he said that we are saved by faith alone, but it's by faith that is never alone.
27:53: That he was trying to appease the Romanists with that. And that is just so far removed from anything even slightly historically true that it's difficult to even wrap your mind around it.
28:09: And I thought of all the people, the one that misrepresented the Reformed position the most was the one who had the least excuse for doing so, was the scholar.
28:19: But then again, he also endorsed a culture side of Calvinism. I mean, anybody who endorsed that just took their reputation and their integrity and stuck a knife right into it.
28:33: Yeah, just whoosh, there it goes. There's the end of that. So anyway, I might put that out, but they were talking a lot about this
28:43: Heathley book, which I've heard a lot about. It's like, oh, great. And I'd like to find out,
28:49: I need to find out if he takes the same perspective that William Lane Craig does.
28:57: And that is that all of those who are lost could not otherwise have been saved.
29:05: So, you know, God's the big number cruncher in the sky, and he goes through all the possible universes, and he picks the best one out that has the best number of, the best proportion of saved to unsaved.
29:24: And he believes that all those who are unsaved in this universe could not have been saved in any other universe.
29:29: So that sort of satisfies the universalist feel, you know, without actually affirming universalism.
29:36: So I'd be interested where he comes down on that. I don't know. But anyway,
29:43: I didn't get any sense from the folks at the conference here that was held locally.
29:48: I think it was back in February, if I recall correctly, as to how they would answer that question, whether they would follow
29:54: William Lane Craig there or just how they would answer it. But anyway, so the dividing line, to use a term that we use around here once in a while, the dividing line between monergism and synergism is found in this line.
30:11: Accordingly, he enables man to be able to be saved. So that's what
30:18: God does, is he enables man to be able. So they affirm that there's a necessity for the enablement of God for man to be able to be saved.
30:31: But God doesn't actually do the saving. Now, again, I didn't attend the conference, but I would love to have asked a number of questions of the pastors and others that were there.
30:45: So do you affirm this of everyone or do you take sort of a view that this is only post cross, because it just seems beyond comment, that prior to the cross of Christ, how could you even affirm this?
31:04: Are you seriously telling me that every Babylonian had been brought to a point of moral neutrality so they could accept the message of Yahweh, even though they didn't even know what the message of Yahweh was?
31:15: Still. And even after the cross, there's huge unreached people groups for centuries and centuries and were they all drawn in the same way or is it a theoretical thing where, yeah, well, yeah, there was a point in time when
31:29: God brought them to that point. And if they responded, then he would have supernaturally brought a messenger like he did to the
31:38: Ethiopian eunuch or something like that. I don't know. I really don't know how they answer questions like that.
31:46: And I don't know how they could, because I'm sorry, but there's just no basis for Molinism in scripture. One of the guys did present, it's interesting, he didn't follow
31:54: William Lane Craig, who admits that the couple of texts, you know, well, you know, if these things have been done in Sodom and Gomorrah, they would have repented or David praised
32:03: God. Will these men turn me over? Yes, they'll turn you over. This is allegedly examples of middle knowledge. Baloney, they're both post creation.
32:10: If you know anything about what middle knowledge is actually about, you wouldn't even cite those texts. You wouldn't even go there.
32:17: Because, you know, when God tells David, yes, the men of the city will turn you over if Saul comes.
32:27: That's not middle knowledge. Middle knowledge is, if you understand what middle knowledge is, it's that middle, that's what it's called, middle knowledge between the two other moments of God's knowledge.
32:40: His free knowledge and his natural knowledge. In other words, the knowledge he has of himself and all possibilities and the knowledge he has of his creation and everything that he's done.
32:50: And then there's this middle knowledge of what everything, everyone would do in given circumstances.
32:56: But the problem is, because that comes before the decree to create, you are left with, to me, what is the worst problem with Molinism.
33:08: And it was, those of you who've not listened a lot, you may be going, what in the world are you talking about?
33:13: But just a few months ago, we played a clip. I've probably got it on here someplace. I could look for it. But we played a clip of William Lane Craig stating that he,
33:27: God, has to deal, he's got to work with the cards he's been dealt.
33:37: And what he was saying was, you know, God looks at the possible future universes.
33:44: He looks at the possibilities and he chooses the best one. None of them had everybody saved.
33:50: So God could not save everyone. It's not possible for God to do that. And what's more, who determined what
34:01: I would do before God determined to create me?
34:10: I mean, I know why my wife can predict what
34:16: I'm going to do. I'm actually a fairly predictable person because I strive for consistency.
34:22: I strive to be a person who's not, you know, I would never make a good charismatic because I'm Scottish.
34:31: And Scotsmen tend to be, you know, pretty boring at times.
34:41: I mean, we're not way up and then way down and way up and then way down.
34:46: I tend to be sort of in the middle. And it's pretty easy to understand why my wife could tell you, well, he will respond in this way to that.
34:59: And I imagine that most folks who know me pretty well could do that, right? But that's because they know my personality as God has created me.
35:11: But middle knowledge says that before God decreed to create me, somehow what
35:19: I would do in any given situation was already determined by something other than God.
35:28: And my assertion is, if God can only deal with the cards he's been dealt, that means there's another dealer out there.
35:36: You know, he's in the game. Who's the dealer? And if God's actions are determined by the cards he's dealt, then the dealer is the one we should be worshiping, not
35:47: God. Because he's the one who actually has determined the way things really are. I think it's an absolutely fatal flaw of Molinism that you—and if you want, you can go back.
36:00: Turretin Fan, a number of years ago, posted a series of blog articles I asked him to on our blog where he dealt with Turretin, the real one, the guy who's, you know, long gone,
36:15: Turretin's objections to Molinism and middle knowledge. And this is called the grounding objection.
36:24: There is no grounding in Christian revelation or logic or necessity for this concept of middle knowledge.
36:32: It doesn't have a basis. And I would say from a Christian perspective, it is refuted.
36:38: It is not only lacking grounding, but it introduces us to someone else or something else that determines the nature of created things before God even decrees to create them.
36:56: And the determination of those things lies outside of God's will and God's heart and God's sovereignty.
37:04: So you've got at least bi -theism there. You've got some other God that we don't know that's determined these things, or some other force, or maybe, you know, maybe we can start a
37:13: Buddhist version of Christianity there and get the force in there, or who knows. But that's the problem that you're dealing with.
37:24: And it bothers me when I see so many evangelicals who—they just want to avoid the implications of Calvinism.
37:33: They want to avoid the implications of the radical freedom of God and salvation of human beings.
37:39: And so they'll glom on to this philosophical system thought up by a
37:44: Jesuit in response to the Reformation. Though I did hear somebody in the conference, by the way, say that it's not—Louis de
37:52: Molina was not the originator of Molinism. They said Balthasar Hubmeier was.
37:59: They said it actually came from the Anabaptists. Which I had never heard before, but interesting theory.
38:10: But again, something that no one would ever come to by simply reading the
38:17: Scriptures. You're not going to read Isaiah chapters 40 through 48 and come to the idea of middle knowledge.
38:24: Just ain't going to happen. You're not going to read Ephesians 1. It's just not there. So you take this system and you lay it on top of Scripture and it allows you to flatten things out and, oh,
38:37: I like this. This is good. This is what I'm going to embrace. It makes everything fit. It makes everything work.
38:44: And that's what they're going with. And it's a scary thing to see.
38:50: And so these are some of the questions that I would ask of Pastor Rogers and these others. When you say he enables man to be able to be saved, who are you talking about?
39:01: What does that involve? It makes no sense to say that because there are all sorts of people who have not been enabled to do anything.
39:12: And thereby permits man to freely choose to believe the Gospel or to reject his grace and love and die in his sins.
39:24: Well, he already loves his sins. And he's already going to die in his sins. So the question is, in light of Romans chapter 8, it says that those who, according to the flesh, can do nothing that is pleasing to God.
39:35: They cannot obey the law of God. They cannot pursue the law of God. They are not capable of doing so.
39:42: It's not within them to do so. The question I would have to have then for these folks is, this enabling grace, does it counteract the effect of depravity?
39:53: Does it bring you to a place where you're no longer described as being in the flesh?
40:02: What is the state of this person who has received this enabling grace? And some of the folks at the conference tried to make a distinction between what they view of grace and the
40:15: Arminian concept of prevenient grace. Well, okay, so this non -prevenient grace, this conquering grace,
40:27: I think is what they called it, this conquering grace doesn't actually save anyone, and it doesn't actually come to everyone all the time.
40:35: But at a point in time, God brings it. And so does it counteract the effect of Romans 8?
40:41: So does it take you from being in the flesh to being in the spirit? Or is there a middle ground where you're no longer in the flesh?
40:49: Maybe it takes out the heart of stone and you just—well, what kind of heart would you have? You either have a heart of stone or you have a heart of flesh or—well, what do you have?
41:02: It's just—you end up with all these unbiblical categories. You know, what is a person who isn't totally depraved?
41:11: I'd be interested in knowing. Anyway, without question, God's permissive will—now, it's interesting, a lot of non -Calvinists don't like that terminology, but here it is—without question,
41:24: God's permissive will does not preclude him from ever intervening in the decision -making process of man if his purposes so require.
41:33: Well, you have to believe that. The Bible clearly said that God kept Abimelech from sinning against him, and it just opened
41:40: Lydia's heart, all the rest of these things. But again, if God is attempting to save everyone and he's capable of doing this, then why doesn't he do it?
41:47: However, neither does it necessitate that it be done in order to maintain sovereignty as long as he sovereignly chose to act in that particular way.
41:55: I will confess I don't know what that means. I further affirm that God's full character and attributes, not just his sovereignty or justice, are to be considered when speaking of him and his plans.
42:06: Well, we always, you know, we have criticized people like Dave Hunt for making one particular attribute the attribute that guides and directs all others.
42:19: And I suppose no one can be immune from this, because, I mean, are you going to assume that every attribute of God is equally emphasized in Scripture?
42:35: Or, let's put it this way, would it not be true to state that in light of the progressive revelation of Scripture, there are certain attributes of God that were revealed with greater emphasis than others at points in redemptive history?
42:53: So in the giving of the law, the severity and justice of God and the wrath of God are seen.
43:00: And then in the provision of redemption, the promises of the
43:05: Messiah, you see that grace. That's why a lot of people will say, well, I don't like the God of the
43:10: Old Testament, I like the God of the New Testament. Well, the same God, but at different points in redemptive history and at different places in that revelation.
43:19: So I think that is the case, and so what we're called to do is to look at all of biblical revelation and come up with a balanced view, recognizing that there are certain attributes that are absolutely inherent and definitional to God, and then there are certain attributes that we only see as God interacts with us.
43:49: And obviously, the argument of this particular book is that all
43:55: Calvinists emphasize is the sovereignty and justice of God. Love and mercy take a back seat, which is not the case, but that is the argument that is being presented normally.
44:10: So it goes on to say, this includes His infinity, mercy, compassion, love, grace, and power, which
44:15: He possesses perfectly and infinitely. God is the sum of perfection. Lewis Barry Schaeffer notes concerning this balance,
44:22: He is free to dispose of His creation as He will, but His will is wholly guided by the true and benevolent features of His person.
44:27: The attributes of God form an interwoven and interdependent community of facts and forces which harmonize in the person of God.
44:34: An omission or sliding of any of these or any disproportionate emphasis upon any one of them cannot but lead to fundamental error of immeasurable magnitude.
44:42: And quote, true to a point, but the question is, does
44:48: God's word emphasize a hierarchy of truths regarding God's attributes?
44:57: In other words, does scripture reveal that God's love and mercy is most clearly seen against the backdrop of His perfect holiness and justice and wrath against sin?
45:09: Or are they to be separated out from one another and you just try to do a balancing act, juggle them all together?
45:16: I think there is an interplay between the attributes of God seen in the gospel, and especially in the incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that is the, it seems like a lot of people want to have a two -dimensional
45:32: Christian theology and a two -dimensional God, fits on a page, nice and flat.
45:42: So when anti -reform folks say something like, well, if you believe in double predestination, then
45:55: God either predestines some people to hell and predestines other people to heaven. They're trying to make everything equal, equal ultimacy, not recognizing that the mechanism results, process, and the means by which
46:12: God is glorified in both those are markedly different. One involving the extension of God's grace in the person of His Son to bring about the redemption of the elect.
46:23: The other, the direct, proper allowance of God's wrath and justice to take place without the extension of mercy or anything like that.
46:34: They don't want to see the 3D. They don't want to see how rich something is.
46:42: And I'm going to lose some of you at this point. We're going to take a break here in a moment, get to some of our phone calls, and hopefully get back to Abdullah Kunda as well.
46:49: But we'll see how the phone calls go. But I'm going to lose some of you right here really briefly.
46:55: But what I'm thinking about in my mind as I think about the interplay of divine truths and Scripture, which is something that, by the way, liberals can't even begin to go into because they don't believe there is any overarching theme.
47:10: There is no overarching revelation. There aren't any themes woven through the tapestry of Scripture and all the rest of that stuff.
47:18: It's just the reflections of men, and so they really can't go here. But for those of us who actually believe that God's Word is exactly as God intended it to be with all of its richness and its variety and the different authors and their different languages and all the things we have to deal with when defending the faith actually come together to form this beautiful mosaic.
47:39: But what I think of—and this is where I'm going to lose a lot of you—I haven't posted one in a long time, but some of you know a little bit about my fractal art.
47:48: And I love fractals. I love colorful things. But if you've never created a fractal, all you've seen is a two -dimensional fractal that I've posted on the blog.
48:01: You can go back if you just do a search for fractal. But some of them look 3D, and the reality is, in the computer programs that you use to make these, you actually zoom into, you dive into the fractal as you are creating it.
48:19: You go deeper and deeper into it to see what kind of patterns emerge and the repetitious patterns and things like that.
48:25: It's actually mentally and in reality a 3D thing.
48:31: It has depth to it. But a lot of people only see the two.
48:36: They don't see the third level because they've not actually made it.
48:43: And it seems that a lot of folks, you know, they prefer a picture of a diamond to the real diamond because the real diamond has depth.
48:52: And when you turn it, the different facets and the different interplay of the light is so beautiful.
48:57: But they don't want that because it's too complicated. They want something much more flattened out and easy to deal with.
49:05: And unfortunately, I think that's what a lot of people do with the attributes of God as well. We're going to get to our phone calls, maybe get to Abdullah Kuna.
49:11: We've got three phone calls online. We'll see how long they take. We'll try to move through them fairly quickly. We'll be right back right after this.
49:30: The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us.
49:36: James White's book, The Forgotten Trinity, is a concise, understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.
49:42: It refutes cultic distortions of God, as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a
49:50: Christian. And amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, the Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the
49:58: Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur, senior pastor of Grace Community Church, says James White's lucid presentation will help layperson and pastor alike.
50:06: Highly recommended. You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at AOMin .org,
50:13: answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the word of God. James White, in his book,
50:18: The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true
50:26: Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.
50:40: You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .AOMin
50:48: .org. Transition there.
51:15: Whenever Rich looks at the computer with this look of shock, I feel like going, that's not in the instructions, huh?
51:24: Okay, all right, well. Poor, poor
51:29: Rich. Oh no, now he's got the microphone. Yeah, just for the record, I was not the one who cut that clip.
51:37: It doesn't end that way. That, no, no, it doesn't end that way. The clip that I was given ended hard.
51:44: That's how it ended. It was not tapered. Whatever you say. I will fix it.
51:49: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever you say. Okay, let's take some of our phone calls here, since we've got folks patiently waiting online, and let's talk with David.
51:59: Hi, David. Hey, Dr. White. Hi. Sounds like some more practice with Kool -Aid, it is needed.
52:04: Oh, David, if you want to stay online, I'd be very careful at that particular point in time.
52:11: I believe Kool -Aid would be about 12, 13 years old. I think it would be.
52:17: Somebody's dating himself. Yeah, I remember Kool -Aid, but I don't think Kool -Aid has been functional for quite some time now, but anyway.
52:24: Anyway, sorry. And thanks for having me on. Sorry to wrench you away into a completely different topic now,
52:33: I've been talking with an atheist guy, and as we have gone over concepts of morality, he's come to the position where he agrees that in his worldview, there's just no absolute morality.
52:45: There's no way to say that what he thinks is absolutely right, and that anybody else is wrong. And I have tried to show him that he does not live consistently with that position, that he knows instinctively that if an
52:58: Iranian father murders his daughter in an honor killing, that that's a wicked and evil thing, not just something that's violating his personal preferences, but may be entirely ethical in their society.
53:10: Or if someone steals his wallet and gets captured, he'd be very angry if the judge said, well, you know, that guy's ethical system says he has a right to your money, you say you have...
53:21: So, you know, I don't know. I don't know who's right here. He would know that that's unjust. Now, what he comes back with, though, is to say, well, no, although I don't believe in absolute morality,
53:32: I still have incredibly strong personal preferences. I prefer to keep my money.
53:39: I prefer that women not be honor killed by their fathers. And so I take offense when things like that happen, not because they're violating some sort of absolute standard, but solely because they offend my personal preferences.
53:52: And I try to stop them if I can, or I, you know, advocate for causes.
53:57: No, wait a minute. He actually says he tries to stop them if he can. Well, I think, you know, this goes back to the, you know, somebody stealing your wallet.
54:05: I don't think he's necessarily advocating for, you know, women's lib in Iran or anything, but he would at least advocate and say, and this all started with gay marriage.
54:16: He would say, I want people to believe what I believe about gays having the rights to have married, not because it's absolutely right, but I like the idea of it.
54:25: I like my preferences, and I like it when people share my preferences. So, you know, there's no absolutes here.
54:31: It's just me and my preferences, and I'm trying to spread them because I like them. So where do you go with a guy like that?
54:40: If that's how all the young men had felt back during World War II, we'd all be eating sauerkraut about now.
54:46: So, you know, there is no way, if you're looking for a silver bullet, there is no way, if someone is absolutely dead set upon ignoring the cliff in front of them, there's no way to stop them from jumping off that cliff.
55:09: What you have to do is to point out to them their inconsistencies, because if it was just a matter of predilections and, well, you know,
55:19: I just happen to favor that, there would be no reason to put your life at risk for someone else.
55:28: There would be no reason for police officers to be donning armored vests to go out and protect us at night in crime -ridden neighborhoods.
55:43: There would be no reason for a mother to—well, look at what happened in Aurora.
55:49: There were a number of men, it was discovered, who tried to shield the women that they were with with their own bodies from the bullets.
55:59: You really think at that point in time it was just a predilection? It was just, well, you know, I like that.
56:06: When women give their lives for their babies and their children, when men give their lives for their wives and their children, this is just a matter of, well, that's what he liked.
56:20: Why is it that we universally, when we see a—we hear about it happening here in Phoenix all the time, unfortunately, but what will happen is during the summer, we lose kids.
56:32: I haven't heard about any yet so far this year. Hasn't been all that hot. In fact, let's—I want to point something out here, just it has nothing to do with poor
56:40: David, but I'll get back to my point. But two years ago, we set the all -time hottest July at 112 .1
56:46: degree average high. We haven't hit 112 this July. Yeah, I think 105. We haven't even hit 112.
56:53: I think the average could be about 104. Why isn't that global cooling? We heard all about in June, oh, it's so hot!
56:59: But now it's much, much cooler than it was a couple years ago, and we don't hear a word about—no, no, no, no, I've got to get back to David.
57:04: Put that microphone down. Anyways, what happens out here is that mothers, we hear about it every once in a while, some drug -addled mom or a drunk will leave her kid in the car while she goes into a bar in the middle of the day in Phoenix to get soused, and the kid dies in the car.
57:23: Because, I mean, you lock a kid in a car in Phoenix in the summer, even now, and 20 minutes later, they're gone because they just—it's—I mean, in fact, it's actually illegal to smash out windows in cars.
57:35: If you find an animal, if you find someone's dumb enough to leave their dog in the car, you can smash the window out, and they can't sue you or anything like that to extract the animal.
57:44: So we look at that, and is it because of some predilection, just some like on our part, that we recoil in disgust at that woman's violation of her what?
58:00: From his perspective, she didn't violate anything. That's what she liked to do? Okay, that's what you get to like to do.
58:06: I don't happen to like it, but no, we all respond the same way to that with outrage.
58:12: In the same way, when we read about the 72 -year -old grandma in the
58:18: United Kingdom who has a child with her grandson, we recoil in horror at that.
58:24: Is that just because, well, that's just the way you've been raised? I mean, there are people in my audience that never even thought of something like that until I just said it.
58:31: They're not happy that I just mentioned it, but it's actually happened. And so it can't be, well, it's just because you've been trained to do that way.
58:38: So it really does at some point come down to the Spirit of God convicting a person that they're stealing from God's worldview and trying to cobble theirs together.
58:48: But if you're looking for a magic bullet to cause anyone to see the light, to open their eyes, it doesn't exist.
58:55: But it is amazing to see the lengths to which people will go to suppress what is so obvious to the rest of us.
59:04: Yeah, I guess what I'm fumbling around at this point is just to decide if this is the point where you decide in the conversation to say, okay, you know, best wishes, talk to you later, or to,
59:17: I mean, I'm trying to appeal to something that I think is part of the image of God within him that he denies, and, you know, if I was to leave the conversation, it would be because I think that I've said all that I can, and I've simply got to leave it to him and God when he's lying in bed at night thinking these things over that maybe the
59:41: Holy Spirit will cause him to realize, no, that's just not me logically thinking things through and deciding what's good and bad.
59:49: There's something instinctive here. But yeah, I just didn't know if I had quite gotten to that point or if there was any other way to kind of press it home.
59:59: Yeah, it's hard to say. I think we need to err on the side of grace.
01:00:05: I don't always myself, but I think we need to err on the side of grace and maybe try longer than is naturally, instinctively appropriate for us to do so.
01:00:14: But there does come a time when we are casting pearls before a swine, when we have said everything we need to say, and in fact, by continuing, we might actually be providing the person with a means of avoiding actually dealing with what's already been brought home to them.
01:00:28: So when that point is, I think that's between you and God and whether you can honestly say, well,
01:00:34: I've prayed for this person, I've done everything I can to express the truth to this person, and I need to move on.
01:00:41: That's definitely something that is between you and the Lord. Have you used a moral argument like that with someone?
01:00:47: Oh, sure. And had them not say something like that, but actually come to a place of conviction of, yeah,
01:00:54: I guess I'm being inconsistent here. Well, I've told the story a number of times of Eric at the small university south of Chicago.
01:01:03: With his coat. With his coat, yeah. I think it was conviction when he looked at me and said, man, no one's ever talked to me like that before.
01:01:12: But whether it was conviction of, well, I think I understand what you're saying. You know, I think there's sometimes it's a good thing, you know, if it's not a co -worker or something you're seeing regularly, if it's someone you're going to have that kind of encounter with,
01:01:25: I think it's good for them to walk off thinking. You know, if you give them some reason to not be thinking about it or to be anticipating some further conversation or something, sometimes it somewhat lessens the impact of what you've said.
01:01:40: So you have to take every situation on its own merits. Yeah. All right.
01:01:47: All right. Hey, thanks, David. Please thank Rich for not cutting me off. Okay, I will. All that cool edit jazz and stuff.
01:01:54: Hey, it works great. We're still using it for our church. Cool edits with us, man. Awesome. All righty, man.
01:01:59: God bless. Thank you. All right, bye -bye. All right, there's a church still using a PC. Okay, let's talk with,
01:02:06: I guess we need to go to three. All right, let's talk with Greg. Hi, Greg. Hello, Dwight.
01:02:13: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I hope you're okay. I am. Yes, sir.
01:02:19: Yes. Good, good, good. Very good. I'm calling to ask a question. It concerns
01:02:24: Romans chapter 9, verse 22. And the phrase that says, what if God?
01:02:31: Now, I was speaking to someone of the Wesleyan Holiness Church, and the person was telling me that the what if God is a hypothetical, and it does not necessarily mean that God had fitted stone vessels for destruction.
01:02:51: He was saying that God has the right to do it. But the what if shows that it is just a hypothetical
01:03:00: Paul was using, and that God doesn't actually make vessels of wrath fitted for destruction.
01:03:07: You know? So I was wondering, how would you deal with that phrase, what if? Because his contention, like I said, that it is just a hypothetical, and it isn't actually something that God does.
01:03:19: That is why what if is used by the apostle Paul. Well, the problem is, you have—now, of course, this is an editor's choice in the
01:03:28: Greek text, but the end of verse 23, I have a question mark. And so it is hypothetical, but it's hypothetical in fulfillment of what has been said before and after.
01:03:40: And the reality is, he goes on to say in verse 24, even us whom he also called, not from among the
01:03:47: Jews also, but from among the Gentiles, as indeed he says in Hosea, and then goes on to use the
01:03:52: Old Testament as fulfillment of what the hypothetical has just said. So he's explaining what came before and then making application to what comes afterwards in the scriptural fulfillment that he gives.
01:04:07: So if you just follow the flow, it starts in verse 20—well,
01:04:13: I'm sorry, verse 19, with the objection. The objector says, you will say to me then, why does he still find fault for who can resist his will, demonstrating, once again, that the national interpretation does not make any sense, because Paul takes this in a very personal sense, because he's talking about who can resist his will, what individual can resist his will.
01:04:34: But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, why have you made me like this?
01:04:42: Again, drawing directly from the Old Testament at that particular time. And then he says, does not the potter have right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
01:04:57: Now, that's a question. So where is the answer given? Well, the answer is given in verses 22 and 23.
01:05:05: And to say it's hypothetical is to miss the fact that it's a fulfillment. It's the answer to the question, does
01:05:10: God have the right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
01:05:20: Because he says, what if God—and it's literally, I Dei Thelon Hotheos, so it's
01:05:27: Dei is the introduction there. And then
01:05:32: I Thelon, what if God were to wish to—he desired to make known his wrath and his power?
01:05:46: And to do so, he has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order that, for the purpose that, that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.
01:06:03: And then, what does he say? Even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only, but also from the
01:06:08: Gentiles. So to say it's hypothetical and God doesn't do it, and then he applies it to the very people he's writing to, doesn't make a lick of sense.
01:06:18: What he's doing is he's answering the question, yes, God does have the right over the clay to do this.
01:06:24: And that's exactly what he's done. And when we look at the Christian church, you've got Jews and Gentiles. He's shown mercy.
01:06:30: We didn't deserve mercy. He's hardened some, but he's shown mercy to others. And that's why you have the remnant
01:06:37: Jews and the Gentiles in the church. And that's the historical situation that Paul is addressing.
01:06:43: And that's how he explains, no, God's promises haven't failed. He's always had a remnant people. That remnant's still being saved from the
01:06:50: Jewish people. And now the Gentiles are coming in as well. And you have this one church. So to say it's a hypothetical, yeah,
01:06:57: I guess, but not in the sense of it's a hypothetical that hasn't been fulfilled, because then it wouldn't connect with what comes afterwards, and it wouldn't be an answer to the question of the preceding verse.
01:07:10: Okay, good. Very good. Thank you very much, Dr. James. I really do appreciate that answer. Okay. I hope that's helpful to you.
01:07:16: Thanks, Greg, down in the West Indies, a long ways away. God bless. All right. Thank you, sir.
01:07:21: God bless. Bye -bye. I bet you it's humid there.
01:07:30: That's my guess. Let's talk to Murray. Now, Murray, you're on the wrong side of the international border.
01:07:39: So I have to be very careful what I say to you. Yeah, there's no free speech here, Dr. White. I'm well aware of that.
01:07:45: So I'll be very careful in what I say and very politically correct. It's much more dangerous for me to be doing this than you.
01:07:53: I know, I know. So I know in the last—since fall 2005, you've been debating a lot of Muslim apologists.
01:08:03: Right. And you say that you're searching for the consistent Muslim, and you've not found them yet. Now, taking a look at the ones that you have debated and have debated other
01:08:13: Christians, I think you'll agree with me that some are more consistent than others.
01:08:19: And, for example, like I watched the debate between William Lane Craig and Shabir Ali that took place in 2009 in Quebec about did
01:08:33: Jesus rise from the dead? And the thing that I noticed, how he was different than you, it was he—each time
01:08:45: Shabir Ali would quote from these Christian apostates like James Dunn or Raymond Brown, or Christians that have apostatized, it seems like Dr.
01:08:56: Craig would not even respond.
01:09:02: He would just accept it almost. Yes. Same with Mike Licona. Like, it just seemed—and
01:09:10: I don't know, does that have something to do with you think
01:09:15: Christians like Craig have abandoned a high view of Scripture and have these external philosophies like Molinism?
01:09:25: And do you think that abandoning that view of Scripture just allows, if you're debating a
01:09:31: Muslim like Adnan Rashid or Paul Williams or Shabir Ali, that instead it'll cause you to just, you know, they'll quote someone like Raymond Brown, and then you'll just have to accept it?
01:09:45: Yeah, there is a—obviously, there is a very different approach that I have, because I do come from a different perspective.
01:09:56: I am critical of modern Christian scholarship that subjugates the authority of God's words to men's philosophies that does not have the highest view of Scripture.
01:10:07: I am critical of those things, and I seek to be consistent to the entirety of God's Word and to Jesus' own teaching about the nature of what
01:10:17: Scripture is, to the point where, as a result, I am viewed as being outside of the academy and unworthy of various platitudes and epithets and so on and so forth, which is fine with me.
01:10:31: But, be it as it may, I do think that, especially William Lane Craig, is somewhat crippled by the desire to be a part of the academy at that point and to not be in a position to critically challenge the academy's deep infection with a worldview that is antithetical to a interpretation of Scripture and a consistent proclamation of the
01:11:01: Gospel and the truth of Scripture. So, I think there is an element to that, and you're quite correct to recognize the difference that exists between us as we approach these things.
01:11:15: And as I attempt to point out the inconsistency of Muslims in depending for their argumentation upon men who have a worldview that would be just as destructive of their worldview if they were to make the application, but my
01:11:33: Muslim friends won't make that application. They will not say, okay, here
01:11:38: I'm quoting from Bart Ehrman, and it's one thing to quote from Bart Ehrman when Bart Ehrman is telling the truth, because Bart Ehrman often tells truth.
01:11:46: Most of us have said Bart Ehrman's problem is not factual errors. It's his conclusions.
01:11:53: It's the conclusions that he draws from the facts that he knows based upon his inconsistent worldview.
01:11:59: And so, it's one thing to quote Bart Ehrman, but it's another thing to quote
01:12:04: Bart Ehrman's conclusions. So, when Adnan Rashid quotes Bart Ehrman, and he quotes his conclusions uncritically,
01:12:11: I know that Adnan does not critically analyze Bart Ehrman's worldview and is not familiar with those issues, but there are other
01:12:18: Muslims that I would like to hold to a higher standard, or at least call to a higher standard, to be able to do that.
01:12:27: And so, it can be frustrating at that level, definitely. Yeah. So, yeah, that's just the thing.
01:12:38: Because I've watched a few debates between Christians and Muslims. Like, I watched that guy who just debated
01:12:44: Paul Williams. Chris Green. And yeah, yeah. And he,
01:12:49: I don't know, he just didn't answer any of the Mark Matthew stuff or the
01:12:54: John stuff. Well, I think he did try some, but obviously,
01:13:00: I would have been significantly more aggressive in, again, pointing out the double standard.
01:13:07: But he himself says, I'm not a debater, this is not something that I do. Which is what's funny to me, is
01:13:15: Paul Williams dodging my challenge to debate him by saying, well, no one knows you.
01:13:21: Well, you just debated Chris Green, didn't you? Maybe the guy who said, I'm not a debater, and you didn't have any problem doing that.
01:13:30: I think we all know why Paul Williams won't debate me. I think it's pretty obvious. Well, he'd get on, that's why. Well, I think he would have some difficulty answering certain questions that I would ask.
01:13:40: No two ways about it. So he's not going to debate with you then? Oh, no, no.
01:13:46: As I said on my blog, he has just completely dismissed me. I'm just an extreme fundamentalist.
01:13:53: Even though on all the issues relevant to fundamentalism, quote unquote, I think Chris Green and I would agree on almost everything he'd have to object to.
01:14:00: So again, the inconsistency is very consistent on the part of at least
01:14:06: Paul Williams. But I will be debating some other people from the Muslim Debate Initiative, which Paul Williams is no longer a part of.
01:14:12: But I will be debating a few of those. And Paul Williams, I thought he was being kind of childish in that debate, when the pastor asked him, how many books in the
01:14:23: New Testament does the Pope believe? Oh, yes. Oh, definitely. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I was actually going to play that as a perfect example of what not to do in a debate.
01:14:32: First of all, Chris should not have been asking those questions during his rebuttal period. So we must be open about that.
01:14:38: But then when he wasted most of his rebuttal period in not answering directly, when he knew what the answer to the question was, which was, you know, how many books does the
01:14:47: Pope say there are in the New Testament? Which Pope are you talking about? Oh, come on. Everybody knows which Pope we're talking about. Duh.
01:14:54: We all know exactly what that was about. Hey, Murray, we've got three more folks on hold, and we've got to get to them real quick. Thanks for your phone call today.
01:15:00: Thanks, Dr. White. God bless. All right, God bless. Bye -bye. 877 -753 -3341. I think we're going to James.
01:15:09: Hello, James. Hey, Dr. White. Yes, sir. It's a pleasure to be speaking with you. I'm a fan.
01:15:15: Well, I've already got one in the office. It's keeping me rather cool, so we don't need any more.
01:15:20: Thank you. But anyways, what can we do for you? Yes, sir. You know, the Reformed theology, um, spirit comes first, or faith comes first.
01:15:32: And, you know, I see 1 John 5 .1, everyone who confesses Jesus is the
01:15:38: Christ has been born of God, or is born of God. And you've got Galatians 5 .22,
01:15:45: where faith is a fruit of the Spirit, so it would indicate with the
01:15:51: Reformed theology's position, which is, you get the Spirit, you're born again, you're regenerated, and then you believe.
01:15:57: Then you get the faith. But then there's a couple of texts I come across where it seems to say the opposite.
01:16:05: Galatians 3 .2, receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith. Galatians 3, is it 14?
01:16:14: Um, receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. And you got
01:16:20: Ephesians 1 .13, after also having also believed, were sealed in him with the
01:16:26: Holy Spirit of promise. Well, a couple of them already are talking about reception of the
01:16:32: Holy Spirit in the sense of indwelling, but I think the problem that you've got here, and the problem that a lot of folks have, is that you have to distinguish between texts that are talking about the work of God in toto, and texts which actually reveal something about what we're talking about, which is
01:16:47: Ordo Salutis. And the Ordo Salutis is not really a chronological discussion, it is a logical discussion.
01:16:54: And what it is really based upon is the biblical teaching of the nature of man and his fallen state, what the nature of regeneration is, and what the nature of saving faith is.
01:17:05: And unfortunately, what a lot of people do is they just go, well, it looks here like faith is right at the beginning of salvation.
01:17:14: Well, yeah, what's salvation? Salvation from what? Are we talking about all of salvation? Are we talking about justification, sanctification, forgiveness?
01:17:21: The question is, can the unregenerate man who remains with a heart of stone in a state of flesh exercise saving faith?
01:17:34: Because there certainly is a saving faith, and then there is a non -saving faith. There are those who go out from us because they were not truly of us.
01:17:41: There is a saving faith and endures to the end. Where does that saving faith come from? And I believe the biblical teaching is that saving faith is the result of the work of the
01:17:50: Spirit of God in a person's heart. Now, the Spirit of God can work in a person's heart, bring, for example, a conviction of sin, but that's before receiving the
01:18:04: Holy Spirit as the indwelling agent, which a couple of those that you were talking about is talking about the indwelling of the
01:18:10: Holy Spirit within the new believer as the arabon, the down payment of redemption. So the
01:18:16: Spirit of God can work in a pagan's heart to, in fact, the
01:18:21: Spirit of God is working in every heart to restrain evil. That's the role of the
01:18:26: Spirit. One of the roles of the Spirit is restraining evil. Does that mean that everyone has received the
01:18:32: Holy Spirit and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit? No. So there is a we need to be clear as to what we're talking about.
01:18:41: Are we talking about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in someone's heart as one of the elect of God that is the demonstration of their union with Christ?
01:18:50: Or are we talking about the Spirit of God merely working in someone's heart to restrain evil, to bring conviction of sin? All sorts of issues like that come into play.
01:18:57: So when we really talk about the ordo salutis, the question is, does the Bible reveal that man in his natural state is capable of working up within himself, saving faith?
01:19:10: Or whether it is the result of the supernatural work of the Spirit of God through the proclamation of the
01:19:17: Gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit that brings about regeneration and that of a natural necessity, that regenerate person repents and believes.
01:19:28: That's really where the issue is. And unfortunately, the vast majority of argumentation that I hear from non -reformed folks doesn't even go there.
01:19:39: It's sort of like the arguments they have against particular redemption that don't even go into what atonement means or what the purpose of the atonement were, any stuff like that.
01:19:49: It just goes into, well, this verse over here says this, and so therefore it can't be true without actually dealing with what the issues are.
01:19:54: The issue is, can a heart of stone exercise saving faith so as to turn itself into a heart of flesh?
01:20:02: Or is saving faith something that is the result of the work of the Spirit of God in the hearts of the elect?
01:20:08: That really is what the issue is all about. Yes, there are texts that I think show the ordo salutis at that point, but when
01:20:18: John, for example, says everyone believing has been born from God, and we point out those parallels in 1
01:20:27: John 2 and 1 John 3 where the very same syntactical material is used there that if we were to interpret any other way would mean that you're saved by doing acts of love and you're saved by doing works of righteousness, which obviously goes against the entire teaching of Scripture.
01:20:44: When we point those out, yes, they demonstrate that. But the real basis for the
01:20:52: Reformed ordo salutis is to look at what the nature of man is, and what the nature of regeneration is, and drive it from there.
01:21:02: It's not just simply looking at every verse where, well, it sort of seems like maybe you could put faith first here, or maybe something—no, you have to look at what the whole teaching of the
01:21:12: Scripture is concerning the nature of man and the radical nature of regeneration actually is. Right.
01:21:18: Even if you just went along with the other folks that believe the opposite of the Reformed position, and you told them, well, according to the
01:21:26: Bible, faith is a gift from God, then it's still God giving the faith and starting the work, starting the whole faith is a gift from God.
01:21:38: Yeah, it all goes back to the reality of God's freedom in glorifying
01:21:44: Himself, the salvation of particular people, and the attempts of others to try to hold that in.
01:21:49: Hey, James, got another one to get to real quick. I appreciate your phone call, though, today. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Bye -bye.
01:21:55: All right, there is one other I was going to try to get to, but we'll see. Let's talk with Landon. Hi, Landon.
01:22:01: Hi, Dr. White. Thanks for taking my call, man. Yes, sir. I had a real quick question.
01:22:06: I just want to kind of preface it a little bit. I was at that Northland Church with Joel Hunter not too long ago, and I went in their bookstore and kind of looked around, and they had, you know, in their shelves, equal shelf room and equal bookshelves of John MacArthur on one shelf and then
01:22:24: Brian McLaren right under it. And yeah, as an example, this church will either sprinkle your infant or immerse you completely after confession.
01:22:36: They pretty much kind of leave it up to you. And in talking with, you know, one of the individuals there, they simply said, you know, interpretation is such a kind of a tricky thing.
01:22:50: It's so messy, isn't it? We don't want to offend anybody. Well, and it's, you know, he brought up the cultural bias, you know, everything's culturally biased in the past, and everything is, you know, probability and, you know, certain words probably.
01:23:04: And here was the example he gave. I talked about the baptism thing, and he said, look, I can find three guys, each of which has written a dissertation over the word oikos that says it must include infants.
01:23:16: I find another one that says it can include infants, and I'll even find one that says it cannot include infants. So why be picky about it?
01:23:22: Why split over it? Let's just admit that nobody really knows, and we'll let you follow your own conviction.
01:23:28: Well, you know, if you were to really be consistent there, if you'd really be consistent, I can make it worse than that.
01:23:34: I mean, if you want theological agnosticism, there are a lot of theological agnostics, and I don't know why they bother remaining and continuing to call themselves
01:23:43: Christians. But theological agnosticism is a blight upon the land.
01:23:50: There are entire groups of Roman Catholics that try to create it so you can jump out of believing the Bible and just have to trust what the
01:23:56: Pope says. But I can give you someone who's written a PhD dissertation on almost every verse that teaches the deity of Christ that have come to three or four different conclusions.
01:24:10: No question about it. If you want to think that the
01:24:17: Bible is—if you want to get down to that level of agnosticism and lack of trust that the
01:24:25: Word of God can speak with clarity, then you can find substantiation for getting there.
01:24:31: There's absolutely, positively no question about that. What it also means is that you should be skeptical about everything.
01:24:40: There's all sorts of other things you need to be skeptical about, not only in the world of science, but so on and so forth.
01:24:46: But you should not in any way, shape, or form be a follower—ever tell anybody else you're a follower of Jesus, because that's clearly not how he viewed a text that in many ways is much more difficult to interpret than the
01:25:00: New Testament. And that is, of course, what we call the Old Testament. I don't even understand why there is a church if that is how they view things.
01:25:13: I mean, they may call themselves Trinitarian, but they'd have to admit they really shouldn't ask anybody a question as to whether—
01:25:22: Well, if I can interject real quick, sort of the response that I get is it really weighs on this whole probabilistic sort of framework, meaning nobody is certain of anything.
01:25:33: You can't be—there is no such thing as any kind of certainty. You may commit 100 % of yourself to a highly probable thing, but you can't be certain because your certainty doesn't make it true.
01:25:45: So they would say, probably Jesus resurrected from the dead, probably the Trinity is true, and more probably than not, so therefore we commit all 100 % of ourselves to that.
01:25:57: And some of the other issues, we just choose to not commit as a church to one particular view because, as you said earlier, it's simply not worth dividing over.
01:26:08: So that's where I got stuck is what anchors the meaning of words that gets around this hodgepodge of, you know, words are culturally relative, you don't really know what they mean.
01:26:22: I mean, what is kind of an anchor to drive—you know, I read Don Carson's Gagging God. I can do this against an atheist.
01:26:28: It's a little easier, but when they're within our own camp and they're trying to say no matter interpretation you give, no matter what you think—
01:26:35: Are you really sure they're within your own camp? That's the first question I'd ask you.
01:26:40: You're really sure they're within your own camp? Because it would seem to me that a lot of these folks are false brethren, either that or they are
01:26:50: Christians who just don't have any concept of the authority of the Gospel as exemplified in the preaching of the
01:26:57: Apostles and Jesus, because evidently they don't believe that we can have the level of certainty that those people had.
01:27:03: Maybe the Holy Spirit just isn't as active today as He once was. I don't know. But what you're definitely seeing there is the effect of a non -Christian worldview.
01:27:14: You have a non -Christian worldview being brought in here because we don't ground our—we do not ground our proclamation of the
01:27:24: Gospel on my ability to be omniscient. We ground it on the ability of God to communicate
01:27:31: His truth to me and by His Spirit give me understanding of what
01:27:37: His truth is and then by that same Spirit make that same Gospel to come alive in the hearts of other people.
01:27:44: That's where the confidence comes from. It doesn't come from, I've somehow been changed in such a way that I become omniscient and I become the world's greatest lexicon or something like that.
01:27:53: Where do we ground the meaning of words? How did John describe Jesus? He's the
01:27:59: Word of God made flesh. He's the logos. And the very fact that God can communicate who
01:28:04: He is in Jesus Christ means that God can communicate that to us in His Word as well.
01:28:10: Hey Landon, thanks for hanging on today. We've run out of time. God bless you and what you're doing out there.
01:28:15: Thanks for listening to Dividing Line Day. We've got a lot of good questions in there at the end and we'll get back to Abdullah Kunda and other things like that next time we're together on The Dividing Line.
01:28:25: We'll see you then. God bless. Is The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.
01:29:20: If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.
01:29:26: Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the world wide web at aomin .org,
01:29:33: 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.