Hatred of Christian Morality and Ethics

Christian Morality, Chick-fil-A, and the Abuse of “Discrimination”

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white. 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 eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

I think I'm going to Chick-fil-a on Tuesday be perfect last video because it's it's hot in Phoenix as Gonna be a long line. I feel like going through on Tuesday and saying I'll see you again on Thursday.

How's that? You know, it's just 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. I bet they set all-time business records on Wednesday.

Which which proves there are still people that have a a sense of morality left. But there are very few in comparison to those in leadership of our country. I Am I am absolutely? Beside myself and I think a lot of people are at the statements that are being made.

I hope no one was. Yesterday I saw Roseanne bars tweets on On this subject where she where she hoped everyone went to Chick-fil-a got cancer and Filled with with f-bombs and four-letter words I mean the woman the woman if you look up reprobate woman in the Oxford Dictionary, there's a picture of Roseanne Barr.

I mean, it's absolutely incredible just that the most immoral woman. I think I've ever seen or seen in my life I mean just filthy mouth and and just oh just unbelievable. But but to see mayors of major cities Who dare to say you are acting in a discriminatory fashion.

These people don't understand what language means anymore, they don't how. How can you get away with that? How I do not begin to understand the massive Double standard that is inherent in this stuff. Yes, sir.

Didn't the mayor of Boston talk about what an open and welcoming community? Yeah, they were just before he told Chick-fil-a to take a leap. Yes. That's that's that's exactly what. What he did and then of course, you've got Rahm Emanuel.

Mr. Mr. Pure mouth himself. Saying that Chick-fil-a's values are not 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 Chicagoan.

Good job. Good job. Wow, that is that that is amazing and so many people on Twitter when you point this out. We're just you're you know, we're not doing that. No one's attacking Chick-fil-a. They're just in denial.

They're absolutely in denial. May I point something out? I pointed out in the last program. The utter abuse of of to well not abuse the redefinition see. Homosexuality involves a redefinition of the created order.

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 and we looked at two words we looked at inclusive and How people who are utterly exclusive there they exclude?

The possibility of the 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. They they are 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 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 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.

It's it's follow what I say and not what anybody else says. That's it's it's sameness. So 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 I mean it's come up a long time.

That is the term discrimination discrimination now. This particular term discrimin is a Latin term and then the verbs are drived off of that. And so it comes from from the Latin and it means To make a difference or what a difference a distinction is so if if you can tell the difference Between The fully leaded and diet version of your favorite soda.

Then you are discriminating. You are making a distinction you are able to discern the difference between those two. Now obviously there's the the terminology, you know, remember the pet food commercial for fans I think it was for fancy feast for pets with a discriminating Taste or something like that and it's it's the white Persian, you know.

It's sitting there with the fancy, you know, and I have a cat like that. I one of my one of my three cats. You know. We have to literally sit there in the in the aisle and make sure we get the right soft food because there are certain ones.

We've learned over the time you put it down he smells and he turns around walks off and just sort of looks at you with his dirty look and and You know the other two cats scarf is down. So I don't really care.

But but this one is just He he discriminates he is very very discriminating, you know, he'll go eat a bird but you know, there's one certain things that that he he won't eat and So there's discrimination and The word means to make a distinction and every single one of us every single day discriminate if you go into if you're standing there and You know in the Philadelphia Airport Philadelphia Airport, there's a Chick-fil-a I've eaten there I would eat there more often now than I have in the past.

But there is a there's a Chick-fil-a and right next to it. I think is a like Sparrows or it's a 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. There will be a skeleton left standing there because if you choose one of the other you're discriminating you're making a distinction Based upon your preferences your taste so on so for example, whenever I walk into a food court I discriminate against all Asian food period and the discussions.

Sorry. But I don't do it. I don't ain't going there ain't happening. All right. So I discriminate. We all discriminate every single day. You could not function without Discriminating 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 it's become a synonym for being a bigot or being prejudiced or something along these lines and so the historical meaning of the word which refers to all sorts of activities is Has been put behind and the primary meaning now has become something that's negative.

But still it had to be it had to have a descriptor racial sexual something like that 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.

Well today you have these mayors, for example accusing Chick-fil-a of discrimination for example. There is. Yeah, here we go mayor Tom Menino in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.

Now that is an inaccurate use of the term. What what does he what does he mean 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. No, what he's saying is the majority Stockholder CEO of the company holds to a Christian view of marriage. Which clearly mayor Tom Menino realizes is not the homosexual view so so much a top top interesting, I don't think he meant to do this, but Tom Menino just Just took out all those quote-unquote gay Christians that we've been reviewing all this time.

He doesn't realize that and they don't care as long as long as homosexuality as a whole and the leftist agenda is being promoted the inconsistency parts are relevant because truth doesn't have anything to do with any of this stuff and Then you have an alderman in Chicago saying if you are discriminating against the segment of the community, I don't want you in the first ward.

So these individuals are asserting that to hold the Christian view of marriage. To hold that marriage is a divine institution to hold what to believe what Jesus taught in Matthew chapter 19 That God created man and woman from the beginning joined together.

That's what marriage is if you follow Jesus you're discriminating. Well, of course you are but so are you? Mayor Tom Menino, the alderman in Chicago, they're discriminating against Christianity. They're making a distinction and they are rejecting Christian morality.

They are rejecting the viewpoint of every single founder of the signer of the 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.

I guess he was discriminating for the first two and a half years of his presidency as well and Every other president of the United States that has ever been they were all guilty of discrimination. And therefore should not have ever been allowed to come to either Boston or to Chicago now obviously.

That is an abuse of the word 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 so three words that if you just know what They are actually what they actually mean what their what their actual historical meaning is.

Absolutely eviscerates. The pro gay marriage jihad. Taking place how you like putting those two topics together in in in our culture. Inclusivism diversity prejudice not prejudice. Discrimination if we know what they meant then we can correct people but you know I just get the feeling that if I if I do actually show up on Wednesday and There's some people stand outside with signs or something if I try to talk to him.

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. 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 the young generation has been taught what to think not how to think and That is that is what is is going on 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. I bet you this is the most often Baptist Press has ever gotten cited though. They only cite a very small portion of it and then a radio program.

He did You. It's just it's just amazing. It's absolutely amazing. For example the Boston Herald report that Dan Cathy said the gay marriage is inviting God's judgment on our nation in actuality. And by the way, I would say that but I would say it differently.

I would say gay marriage is a part of God's judgment upon our nation to profane a Gift of God in marriage, you know, I've had a bunch of people jump on me. But how come you don't talk about divorce from your marriage?

Okay. Okay. How come not talking about that? I think I've been pretty clear in going through Matthew 19. Haven't I it's sin. Sin no question about it and the fact that we have treated the institution of marriage as 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 but that does not excuse people. To take a sexual sin and attach it to marriage and say this is what marriage is there's no connection there.

How do people think that way? I don't even get it. Anyways, I was reading or something 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.

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.

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. It's bad for children and invites God's judgment.

Kathy never says anything about homosexuality or Gary Mary gay marriage explicitly. You'll find 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.

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. 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. 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 now, obviously.

Obviously if any mayor in the country Had come out and said I am NOT gonna allow any more Starbucks to open because of their open promotion of gay marriage I Think he'd probably have resigned by now. It would be all over.

But because this is a Christian view then though a few people You know are certainly commenting about it in general the media is just not gonna go there. It's just it's just not gonna go there. So it is it is an amazing day.

And if folks what you need to understand is, you know, even the 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 you because the CEO has a different view than what the the the politicians think is PC now.

But two things you need to understand first of all you see how You see that the progress. At first people are saying well, we just want equal rights. You know what this isn't gonna take over marriage.

There's there's not that many homosexuals, you know, the churches are still gonna have their freedoms. You know, it's just it's just an equal rights thing. No, it isn't has nothing to do with equal rights.

Once these people think they're now in charge. You can't even Question them. You can't hold a different perspective without being the object of their opprobrium and their attack and their they're just their vitriol and.

That's what you're getting from Rahm Emanuel. That's what you're getting from the mayor of Boston. Open Rabid Christophobia. Open rabid morale a phobia. I have an irrational fear of anyone with morals.

But it's Christophobia it is an absolute fear of the teachings of Jesus on this particular subject. That's what these people are since that's the only way that we can talk in our society more is to put phobia at the end of your description of Somebody else than these people are Christophobes and this is persecution of Christians.

Okay, how's that, you know if you're good 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 that this this society will hear what you're saying but likewise If there were the message that is being sent is real simple.

There's a message being sent here right now. Chick-fil-a is the is the object. But the message is to every single Christian person involved in business keep your big mouth shut or your history do not speak About the demands of God's law in our society.

We will have nothing of that. Shut up be quiet in the closet with you. It's exactly what they want. I've said this you can go back in the dividing line archives. When we play the way back machine, it'll prove this you go back and what have I what have I been saying?

They do not want equal rights and they will not be satisfied with equal rights. They want uber rights. They want to silence Anyone who will criticize Their lifestyle and there's a reason for it why folks that the Bible tells us why.

Because they're made in the image of God and that conscience screams out and every time we Speak what their conscience is saying. They are angered angered there's a theological reason for the kind of Absolute.

I mean people who in other walks of life are rational they know how to use language. They can recognize when people are using double standards, but when it comes to here all bets are off. Why? There's a theological explanation.

And Christianity offers it. So like I said, I'm really really thinking. Because it's eight miles. I figured it out. It's about about eight miles from my house. It's it's not it's not a short drive. Now of course poor squirrel Is going yeah, but it's 550 miles for me.

So eight miles I drive that well just for both. Yeah, I drive right by one on my way home. Yeah, I know you do, you know, it's not but that's because you live more than eight miles. That's true. And that's why it's like eight miles.

Really? Yeah. But for me to just go get something to eat, you know, that's 16 mile round trip, you know I'm 16 one way. I know I know but I'm not. I didn't force you to move out there either so. So why are we talking about this?

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 you, you know, you don't want this just one big whoosh, you know, it's big spike.

You know, I'll try to you know, even it out just a little bit and go have my chick-fil-a and and waffle fries and Something else like that 550 .4 miles for for squirrel. You know what we should do is we should buy squirrel some chick-fil-a just put in a box pack it and sit it.

It would take it take it there too, but you know I'm sure he would deeply appreciate that. Okay. No, he wouldn't but that's that's okay. All right. Enough of enough of that eight seven seven seven five three three three Four one is phone number.

I want to continue on with some some other things as well. I was trying I don't know what happened but I I Tried to bring Kindle up on one of my two Macs and and and I I type it and I say hit it. It opens up and then immediately disappears.

So I'm not really sure what that means that I probably needed to reset the machine and try that again and. 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 disenchanted Calvinist the disquieting realities of Calvinism and Like I said, I if I suppose I should open up the Phone thing here, too.

So I actually know if there's anybody there but eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number eight seven seven seven five three three three four one and then I'll go back also to Abdullah Kunduz comments on the Forgotten Trinity as well 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. So we were talking about grace enablement. We looked at John 6 44 and We looked at 2nd Peter 3 9 and I think we had gotten down to this statement in Pastor Rogers book 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 without question. God's permissive. And the reason I had to do that is because something popped up in front of it.

God's permissive Will does not preclude him from ever intervening in the decision-making process of man if his purpose is so required. 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.

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 Molinist wants to say that God attempts to save people that Because even from the Molinistic perspective God knows When he actuates a particular universe Which people are going to believe which are not.

So why would he attempt to save those that he knows? Can never be saved in fact. It'd be interesting to know and I guess I'm gonna 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 Q &A, but I listened to a seminar that took place recently at Calvary Phoenix and With Pastor Mark Martin and The thought crossed my mind I may play some sections of at least one presentation.

Because it was ironic the the pastors who presented well, I certainly disagree with what they're saying at least I understood where they were coming from the worst presentation from a logical biblical and Fairness and accuracy presentation was from Fred Shea the professor from Phoenix Seminary the scholar I mean he he literally at the beginning out now now that I've said this I'm gonna have to play it.

But he literally said the other said the opening of his statement that Calvin Was trying to appease the Romanists when in his antidote to Trent He said that we are saved by faith alone. But it's by a faith that is never alone That he was trying to appease the Romanists with that and that is just that is just so far removed from anything even slightly Historically true that it's it's difficult to even Grasp your you'll get you wrap your mind around it.

And I thought of all the people the one that that Misrepresented the reform position the most was the one who had the least excuse for doing so was the scholar. Which I but then again, he also endorsed a culture side of Calvinism's so I mean anybody who endorsed that just Just took their their their reputation and their integrity and Stuck a knife right into it.

Yeah, just there goes There's into that. So anyway I might Put that up, but they were they were talking a lot about this Heathley book, which I've heard a lot about it's like great. And I'd like I'd like to find out it.

I need to find out if if he takes the same Perspective that William Lane Craig does and that is that That all of those who are lost could not otherwise have been saved. So, you know God 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 and he believes that that all those who are unsaved in this universe could not have been saved in any other universe so that's that sort of Satisfies the universalist feel you know without actually affirming universalism.

So I'd be interested if you know where he comes down on that. I don't know but Anyway, I I didn't get it any sense from the folks at the conference here. It was held locally I think it was back in February if I recall correctly.

As to how they would answer that particular question where they would follow William Lane Craig there or just just how they would answer it but anyway so the 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 accordingly he enables Man to be able to be saved. So so that's what God does. Is he enables man to be able? So they they affirm that there's a necessity for the enablement of God for man to be able to be saved.

But God doesn't actually do the saving. Now again, I 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 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? Are you seriously telling me that that every Babylonian have 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 or still and even after the cross there's Huge unreached people groups for centuries and centuries and centuries and and Were they all drawn in the same way or or you know, is it a theoretical thing where yeah?

Well, yeah there's there was a point in time when when God brought them to that point and if they Responded then he would have supernaturally brought a messenger, you know, like he did with Was you know to the Ethiopian eunuch or something like that?

I don't know. I really don't know how they answer questions like that and I don't know how they could because I'm sorry, but there's just no basis for Molanism in Scripture. One of the guys did present it's interesting.

He didn't follow William Lane Craig who admits that the couple of texts, you know. Well, you know if these things have been done in Sodom or they would have repented or David, you know praise to 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 if you know anything about what middle-knowledge is actually about you wouldn't even cite those texts.

You wouldn't even go there. Because you know and when when God tells David yes, the men of the city will turn you over if if Saul comes. That's not middle-knowledge. Middle-knowledge is if you understand what middle-knowledge is it's that middle?

It's that's what the reason is called middle-knowledge to between the two other moments of God's knowledge. His free knowledge and his natural knowledge that 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. And then there's this middle-knowledge of what everything everyone would do in given circumstances. 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 and It was those of you who've not listened a lot. You may be going what the world you're talking about. 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 God Has to deal Has to he's got it. He's got to work with the cards. He's been dealt and what he was saying was.

You know God looks at the possible future Universes he looks at the possibilities and he chooses the best one. None of them had everybody saved. So God could not save everybody. It's not possible for God to do that and What's more?

Who determined? What I would do Before God determined to create me. I mean, I know why my wife Can predict what I'm going to do. I'm actually a fairly predictable person. Because I strive for consistency.

I strive to be a person who's not, you know I would never make a good charismatic because I I'm Scottish and Scotsman tend to be you know, pretty Boring at times I Mean we just we're not way up and then way down and way up and then way down.

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 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. But middle knowledge says that before God decreed to create me Somehow what I would do in any given situation was already determined by something other than God and My assertion is if if God can only deal with the cards he's been dealt that means there's another dealer out there.

You know, he's in the game. Who's the dealer and if if God's Actions are determined by the cards. He's dealt then the dealers the one we should be worshiping not God. Because he's the one who actually is determined the way things really are.

I think it's an absolutely fatal flaw of Molinism That you and and if you you know, if you want you can go back 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 Turretin's objections to Molinism and middle knowledge and This is called the grounding objection.

There is no grounding in Christian revelation or logic or necessity for this concept of middle knowledge. It doesn't have a basis and I would say from a Christian perspective. It is it is refuted 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 and the determination of those things lies outside of God's will and God's heart and God's sovereignty.

So you've got you've got at least by 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 you can we can start a Buddhist version of Christianity there and get the force in there.

Who knows? But That's the problem that you're dealing with and there are just it bothers me when I see so many evangelicals who They just want to avoid the implications of Calvinism they want to avoid the implications of the radical freedom of God and salvation of human beings and.

So they'll glom on to this philosophical system. Thought up by by a Jesuit in response to the Reformation. Though I did hear somebody in the conference, by the way, say that it's not Louis Louis de Molina was not the originator of Molinism.

They said Balthasar Hubmeier was. They said it actually came from the Anabaptists which I had never heard before but Interesting theory but again a something that no one would ever come to. By simply reading the scriptures you're not gonna read Isaiah chapters 40 through 48 and Come to the idea of middle knowledge just ain't gonna happen.

You're not gonna read Ephesians 1 it's just 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, I like this. This is good. This is this is what I'm gonna embrace.

It makes everything fit and it makes everything work and that's what they're going with and it's. It's a it's a scary thing to see and so these are some of the questions that I would ask of Pastor Rogers and and these others.

When you say he enables man to be able to be saved. Who are you talking about? 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 and.

And thereby Permits man to freely choose to believe the gospel or to reject his grace and love and die in his sins. Well, he already loves his sins and he's already gonna 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. They cannot obey the law of God. They cannot pursue the law of God. That they are not capable of doing so 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? Does it bring you to a place? Where you're no longer described as being in the flesh what is the state of this person who has received this enabling grace and Some of the folks at the at the conference I tried to make a distinction between What they view of grace and the Arminian concept of prevenient grace.

Well, okay. So this non prevenient grace. This conquering grace. I think is what they called it this conquering grace. Doesn't actually save anyone but it and it and it doesn't actually come to everyone all the time.

But at a point in time God brings it and so does it counteract the effect of Romans 8? So then 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?

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 What do you have it it's just you end up with all these unbiblical categories.

You know, what is a person who isn't totally depraved? I'd be interested. I'd be interested in knowing anyway without question God's permissive will now it's interesting a lot of a lot of Non-Calvinist don't like that that term not terminology here.

It is without question God's permissive will does not preclude Him from ever intervening in the decision-making process of man if his purpose is so require. Well, you have to believe that the Bible clearly said that God kept the bimlick from sinning against him and they're just all you know Open 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 and why doesn't he do it? 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, I will confess.

I don't know what that means. I His plans 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 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 or let's put 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 so in the giving of the law the severity and justice of God and the wrath of God are seen and then in the Provision of redemption the promises the Messiah you you see that grace.

That's why a lot of people, you know will say well, I don't like the guy the Old Testament like the guy the New Testament the same God. But at different points in redemptive history and at different places in that in that revelation so I think that is 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 and obviously the argument of this particular book is That all Calvinists emphasize is the sovereignty and justice of God.

That's Love and mercy take us take a take a back seat. Which is not the case, but that is the argument that is that is being presented normally. So it goes on to say this includes his infinity mercy compassion love grace and power which he possesses perfectly and infinitely.