May 13, 2003

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 at 602 -973 -4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic here is James White.

And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line morning here in Phoenix where we are heading for the hundreds pretty soon. Unfortunately, the nice cool spring has I think ended and those four months five months of triple digits heading our direction.

Well, that's why we live here, I guess but anyway, it's a beautiful morning here in Phoenix and hope it is a Blessed day for you as well. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number here on the dividing line. Want to respond to some comments.

I heard last evening I was driving out to teach my class Last class of this semester for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary's, Arizona campus. Unfortunately, our campus is a long ways from where I live on the other side of the valley.

And if you've ever been in Phoenix, this is a fairly large valley. So I have lots of time During that drive, especially if traffic's not good traffic was fine yesterday, but still it's a fairly lengthy a trip.

And I was listening to the Bible Ants Man broadcast and I heard a lengthy discussion Of the subject of the doctrines of grace and specifically the repeated assertion that Calvinists make God the author of sin and that this is the chief reason why one must hold to libertarian free will.

Now those of you who have listened over the past number of months you may have caught some discussions of the debates We had last November Specifically on the subject of open theism and inclusivism with dr John Sanders and if you have listened to those debates on open theism.

And if you have been keeping up with the debate on the subject of open theism, you know that the central element the key Assertion that which gives form and substance to the entirety of open theistic argumentation is the dedication to the Vindication of libertarian free will.

And it is interesting to me that this has become somewhat of a centerpiece Of the argumentation that is presented against the reform position that well if you don't hold libertarian free will you're making God the author of sin and What I would like to hear sometime is a discussion of how you can hold to libertarian free will and still believe that God has Exhaustive divine foreknowledge of all future events and in the process Also affirmed that God has any kind of positive decree now obviously it is very frequently argued and I have mentioned in my responses to Dave Hunt and to Norman Geisler and and to David cloud and and to many of these individuals that the constant repetitious assertion that Without libertarian freedom, you cannot have responsibility is not biblically defensible.

It is repeated so often that people seem to believe that it is but it is not biblically Defensible and so I would like to play a section well majority of a a phone call yesterday that that that concerned me and It concerned me because here's a man calling who seems to me To be someone who really wants to know what the Word of God says and I've got to give Hank Hanegraaff credit.

He at least at least said well, you know, there's debates about this, but what concerned me Was not only the fact that there was the assertion that Well, I would say misrepresentation of the reform perspective a use of language that simply would not be commensurate with an accurate representation of the reform position.

But also just a few weeks ago Hank also said on the air that he has discussed this with numerous reform people and they can't give him an answer and that That bothers me because I know that that that there's clear answers to all of these things.

So, I don't know who he's talking to it hasn't been me. We have talked about this years ago, but I'd say about five six years ago now. But not since the publication of the book resurrection in which Mr. Hanegraaff took a firm libertarian stance on this particular subject.

And so while I have offered to discuss these things Those answers haven't been given for me. Anyways, except through this means and I really doubt very much that Hank has any idea that we do a webcast or anything like it so be that as it may I Would like to be able to give an answer to these things and since we're frequently Asked well, what do you say about this?

What do you say about that? It saves me and my volunteer staff primarily a lot of time to give an answer to these things through this means. Then it does by individual emails and things like that. So I'd like to play some of these comments and I'd like to give an answer and I would like to hope that someday This would happen in another format to where everybody could hear the answers as many people has listened to The Bible answer man broadcast.

So this isn't the whole thing. But I chose the section that I feel was most important as far as libertarian free will the concept of what? Hank calls Circumstantialism which is actually compatibilism the idea that God has a sovereign decree and that man's Responsibility is found within the realm of that that man does what he desires to do within the context of God's sovereign decree.

But it really does again Bring out the difference and I wish that this was more of the conversation between monergism and synergism those terms do not Do not end up being used. Unfortunately, but that really is the issue that is being discussed here just without being explained to the caller.

And so let's play a section. This was just I don't know if this was live yesterday or not. I couldn't tell but since I had the long drive to make and I was just listening in so I don't know if this was something or repeat from a previous one.

It didn't look like it was it sound like this was a new call. So let's listen to a section of this.

Now.

There are three things that we have to keep in focus here. The sovereignty of God. Is God truly Sovereign if he stacks the deck or is his sovereignty glorified if he can work through genuinely free creatures.

I'm gonna be stopping and starting and I'm not sure why it sounds like that. I had to record it off of off the webcast of the web repeat of it. I'm gonna be stopping and starting it because this is a 5 minute and 47 second clip and Unfortunately by the time I get to the end of these things.

It's difficult to go back and repeat what was said and then respond to it. There's so many topics that are addressed. I don't think that's a that's a fair representation. You notice the idea that God has a sovereign decree that he works all things after the council of his will.

That theology enshrined in the Westminster Confession London Baptist Confession of Faith and indeed a number of different confessions of faith that God has a Sovereign decree and yes, I will be commenting on the Wayne Grudem thing here in just a moment that he has a sovereign decree.

That that fixes events in time that the basis of God's foreknowledge is in fact his decree and and if I even began to start listing the theologians who have held that position the Biblical theologians the the masters of biblical exegesis.

In the history of since time the Reformation we've held that position. It would be it would take up the rest of the hour. Is described as God stacking the deck? Now that's. What does that mean? I don't think that's useful.

It's certainly not accurate. It doesn't really engage the issue. Then notice and and this does trouble me. It is very common in the writings of of Clark Pinnock and and the open theists to refer to libertarian freedom as genuine freedom and Obviously the the attempted idea that's being communicated is any freedom within compatibilist freedom anything that involves Affirming a decree of God is not genuine.

It's fake and That that to me is no more useful than the Roman Catholic who argues that forensic justification is a fiction. No, it's not a fiction. The reality of the forensic justification the declarative justification of God is based upon his authority as judge.

That's that's the least fictional as it can be. It doesn't promote Communication or meaning to use those kinds of terms. And so this idea of genuine freedom being identified with libertarian freedom I would truly question because to hold that position I would then ask okay, where's God's libertarian or genuine freedom.

If if to be morally good one must have libertarian freedom. Does that mean God himself has libertarian freedom to sin? If it doesn't work for God, why does it work for creatures? You know, these are some of the issues that I think would come up if there was a a meaningful discussion of this type of thing where both sides were were allowed to have that kind of Interaction and as most of you who are listening and I have to keep remembering we have new listeners all the time.

We seek those kinds of meaningful dialogues. We seek those kinds of meaningful debates. We have invited Numerous people numerous venues have invited invited Norman Geisler to engage in this kind of dialogue and he's not willing to do so.

We're trying to get Dave hunt to do so. We've had we had a debate last April with George Bryson at the Anaheim Vineyard in Southern, California. That debate is is available on our website for you to listen to so on and so forth.

So we are seeking that kind of interaction. Let's continue on with that.

Would God be just if he created people in such a way.

Okay, I need to roll that back because we missed something there. Let's try it again.

Secondly the justice of God would God be just if he created people in such a way. That they could not respond. Okay now here again.

That's not an accurate representation. What is referring to of course is the reformed insistence that the fallen sons of Adam because of original sin because of the effects of sin are Spiritually dead and incapable of doing what is pleasing before God?

No question about that. That is the reformed perspective. But this is saying would God be just if he created men that way now, maybe he's saying well if this was part and parcel of God's decree then he's responsible for that.

Well Responsible. Yes, but as the last I knew mr. Hanegraaff does affirm exhaustive divine foreknowledge and if he affirms exhaustive divine foreknowledge then when God created God knew that man would fall and so I Don't see how and this I think is a part of the valid argumentation of open theists against their fellow Arminians not against biblical theology, but against their fellow Arminians.

Which is what? Mr. Hanegraaff is holding to here. He may hold to Eternal security in some form though again, I find that tremendously inconsistent and consistent. But be that as it may the argument that open theists use against their fellow Arminians.

Is that if you affirm exhaustive divine foreknowledge, then you cannot defend meaningfully Libertarian freedom it just doesn't work. I mean, how can God have that knowledge is The argumentation that comes up and so this idea that we created them unable to respond completely ignores their own culpability the fact that they do not desire to that it is their desire to remain in their sins that they're the fallen sons of Adam all the rest of these things that are a part of biblical anthropology.

But you won't hear much in the way of biblical discussion here I mean you'll hear the caller quoting John 3 16 and and the Ezekiel 18 and the standard stuff that we've discussed 70 ,000 times beforehand, but you're not going to hear this position being presented on the basis of biblical Exegesis and that again is very troubling.

So let's go back to the call here.

And then the third question is genuine Responsibility of mankind. If you are created in such a way that you do not have libertarian freedom. You only have circumstantial freedom. And therefore you have to of necessity act in accordance with your nature.

In other words You are only free to do what God has created you to do and God has created you to only be able to sin.

Whoa, wait a minute.

Again.

This shows I would think that in conversations with reformed folks big red flags would be flying in the air going. Ah, whoa, wait a minute. That's that's what. What do you mean by that? God has created you only to be able to sin.

You mean be are what you're saying is in God's decree all men fall in Adam. All men are then slaves of sin and therefore they can do nothing spiritually good until God frees them from their slavery. Yes.

But this is being tied to responsibility and if what you're saying is man has to have libertarian free will to be held Accountable and responsible then please explain Genesis 20 Genesis 50 Isaiah 10 acts for etc, etc, etc, etc.

And please explain how God has this libertarian freedom if if God doesn't have libertarian freedom How could he give it to us and if God has libertarian freedom? Then God must be able to be free to sin or he is not worthy of being called God.

How do you you know? Where do you where do you put all this stuff together? Let's go back to the call.

Then where is genuine human responsibility. These are the questions that you have to ultimately reconcile if you hold to circumstantial freedom as opposed to Libertarian freedom which is what you opted for in the prologue to your question.

Which is the ability to act or to act otherwise right the ability to act or to act otherwise in other words. You know, obviously there's all the questions you can ask ask of the consistency not only biblical consistent consistency.

But philosophical and logical consistency of libertarian freedom the one I've already asked concerning whether God has it and if God doesn't have it. If is that does that mean his nature is lesser and how could he then give it to us?

How could he give us something he himself does not have and hence could I even begin to understand? I don't know but that is it made. The other I other issue of course is. This completely overthrows the concept of a sovereign decree of God.

What do you do? And it's interesting. He's going to bring up the issue of Wayne Grudem in his systematic theology and Grudem before he ever gets to this point Discusses all those passages Daniel chapter 4 and and all those Philippians Psalm 135 and all those passages that very very plainly Assert and affirm the sovereign decree of God.

They are there. They must be dealt with what kind of interpretations are offered. I Haven't been able to find meaningful interpretations offered by our minions of these passages. They have to limit them to well, you know that means he can do what he wants with nations.

Well aren't nations made of people our nations led by people. Is he is he truly limited to the honoring of man's liberty and freedom? Libertarian free will how could he how could he direct the nation's if that is in fact the case?

It doesn't really make any sense. It is not biblically consistent. It's not logically consistent. It's not philosophically.

Consistent either. Let's continue with the call and I would certainly hold to libertarian freedom. I think that the logical extension of not holding to that is that you make God the author of evil. And of course, there are many Calvinists that do just that.

Now.

I've never met that Calvinist. I again I would like to get the names and numbers of these Calvinists with whom Hank is dialoguing because I just haven't met one and said, oh, yeah, you bet. God's the author of evil.

Obviously what is being said and he's just about to go into Grudem's discussion here is as he understands them and As he understands the logical results of their assertions God is the author of evil and what he's referring to is the assertion that if God is in fact the one who has a Sovereign decree that includes the sins of men that the sins of men are part of the sovereign decree of God now the fact that we very carefully very clearly and based upon exegesis of relevant biblical passages Then differentiate between the intention of God and the intention of.

Man.

Seemingly is left out. That's not addressed here. It needs to be to be an accurate answer to the question. But it's not being addressed. Let's go back to to the call here.

Wayne Grudem in his systematic theology uses the analogy of the Shakespearean play the play Macbeth. And points out that Macbeth murders Duncan. However He argues that Shakespeare is fully 100 the cause of Duncan's death because Shakespeare authored Macbeth and in a similar fashion He argues that God is the author of evil.

Even though we as agents carry out that evil and as such are morally culpable. I can't finish my thought because I'm up against the clock again. Let me go ahead and break that there and then.

He then continued on with the caller and we'll play that section after the break. But let me if I can please at least defend Brother Grudem by reading his own comments within the context in which they're offered for those of you.

Who have the book at least in the edition that I have and interestingly enough? I have this both in printed and electronic editions. You can buy it for your PDA for those of you interested in such things.

This is page 321 and 322 under. God's Providence is the discussion of this and you'll notice on 320 the citation of Daniel chapter 4. For his dominion is an everlasting dominion and his kingdom endures from generation to generation.

All the inhabitants of the earth our account is nothing and he does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the Inhabitants of the earth and none can stay his hand or say to him. What are you?

Doing Daniel chapter 4 verse of 34 35, but here's the actual comments from Wayne Grudem on this subject. But we must guard against misunderstanding here also is with the lower creation God's providential direction as an unseen behind-the-scenes.

Primary cause should not lead us to deny the reality of our choices and actions. Again, again scripture affirms that we really do cause events to happen. We are significant and we are responsible. We do have choices and these are real choices that bring about real results.

Scripture repeatedly affirms these truths as well. Just as a rock is really hard because God has made it with the property of hardness. Just as water is really wet because God has made with the property of wetness.

Just as plants are really alive because God has made them the property of life. So our choices are real choices and do have significant effects because God has made us in such a wonderfully Wonderful way that he has endowed us the property of willing choice.

One approach these passages about God's concurrence is to say that if our choices are real, they cannot be caused by God. He then says see below for further discussion this viewpoint but the number of passages that affirm this providential control of God is so considerable and the Difficulties involved in giving them some other interpretation are so formidable.

But it does not seem to me that this can be the right approach to them. It seems better to affirm that God causes all things that happen. But that he does so in such a way that he somehow upholds our ability to make willing responsible choices.

Choices that have real and eternal results and for which we are held accountable. Exactly how God combines his providential control with our willing and significant choices Scripture does not explain to us.

But rather than deny one aspect or the other simply because we cannot explain how both can be true We should accept both in an attempt to be faithful to the teaching of all of Scripture. The analogy of an author writing a play might help us to grasp how both aspects can be true in the Shakespearean play Macbeth the character Macbeth murders King Duncan.

Now if we assume for a moment that this is a fictional account. The question may be asked who killed King Duncan. On one level The correct answer is Macbeth within the context of the play He carried out the murder and is rightly to blame for it.

But on another level a correct answer to the question who killed King Duncan would be William Shakespeare. He wrote the play he created all the characters in it and he wrote the part where Macbeth killed King Duncan.

It would not be correct to say that because Macbeth killed King Duncan William Shakespeare did not kill him. Nor would it be correct to say that because William Shakespeare killed King Duncan Macbeth did not kill him.

Both are true on the level of characters in the play Macbeth fully 100 caused King Duncan's death. On the level of the creator of the play William Shakespeare fully 100 caused King Duncan's death in similar fashion.

We can understand that God fully causes things in one way as creator and we fully cause things in another way as creatures. Of course someone may object that the analogy does not really solve the problem because characters in a play are not real persons.

They are only characters with no freedom of their own no ability to make genuine choices and so forth. But in response we may point out that God is infinitely greater and wiser than we are. Well, we as finite creatures can only create fictional characters in a play not real persons.

God our infinite creator has made an actual world and in it has created us as real persons who make real choices. To say that God could not make a world in which he causes us to make willing choices as some would argue today See discussion below which we won't get into is simply to limit the power of God.

It seems also to deny a large number of passages of Scripture now. Of course elsewhere in this very discussion. Dr. Grudem will very strongly deny the idea of Asserting that God is the author of sin so to say that Calvinists do this I think needs to be amended to saying in my understanding of the logical ramifications of their position.

The result is Calvinists do this and here's why? But obviously from my perspective what that would require is a discussion of the biblical foundations upon which These are being based. That that is just extremely important.

That's the only way that this can I think really honestly be be addressed. Let me Continue on with the phone calling on and I'll finish it on the other side. Oh, I wanted to go over to here, right? Let's try that.

Thanks for listening to the Bible. Answer man to join us on air with your question or comment before we went to break. I was talking to Herman in Chicago, Illinois. And we're talking about the difference between libertarian freedom and circumstantial freedom with regards to the issue of of election and I can't remember where I finished off with you be honest.

Oh, you know, there's one thing I did want to say real quick Herman.

But the gist of what you're saying, I believe you're agreeing with me that We do not serve a God who? Picks and chooses those who go to heaven and hell. Is that correct?

Well what we serve a God who is not in any way to be. Considered the author of evil right. As in the illustration that I just gave you from a Wayne Gruden systematic theology I would I would stand strongly against that that opinion while considering him a Christian brother.

Well, obviously he has the freedom to do that. But I don't think that that was an accurate representation of either his intention or the the the substance of the illustration that is used. And an illustration that appears in the middle of biblical argumentation on both sides.

Honestly, would would this be how Hank would like someone to address his books to take an illustration? He uses illustrations all the time he's well known for using an act, you know, these these Acronyms and and things like that and would you want someone to take an illustration in the middle of a biblical argumentation the middle of an acronym and.

And even though you elsewhere say I do not I am NOT saying this and and dr Gruden says I am NOT making God the authors of evil. Just focus on that one thing without the rest. I don't think that that's what what we want to do.

Let's go back to the I just disappeared again. Maybe we're having connector. Yep. I'm gone. Hello, ah, hello, I'm sort of back I can barely hear myself. I'm disappearing. Hello hello, sorry about this folks.

I don't know what happened that there. There we go. I Don't know what happened but we've prived.

Whatever. Let's just continue on with the phone call. I think the logical extension of of the argument is Is that in our position we hold that God creates the potential for evil, but human beings?

Actualize that evil. Okay. Let me stop it there if the phone if the microphone is gonna work here. God Creates the potential for evil, but we actualize it. Okay. No question about that. Is that potential?

Something that is absolutely going to happen or not. Is it a theoretical potential? If it's a theoretical potential, then how can the evil have any positive purpose? Because it may or may not take place.

How could God use all things? For the good of those who love God Romans 828. If that evil is only potential and if God created the potential for evil But not the specific acts. Then is he not accountable for for the existence of evil, but he cannot be glorified.

For the results that we see in Acts 4 or Isaiah 10 or Genesis 50.

These would be the biblical questions that I would ask. Exactly. I agree with that. Yeah, and there's one other thing.

I want to say real quickly because there's a question you asked in the again very very much in the beginning of your your statement in in the book of Ephesians It is clear that we have nothing to do with our salvation in the sense of deserving or earning it.

Well, let me comment on that idea when we come back from our break here on the dividing line 877 -753 -3341. Only have about just a few minutes left of the call to play. Comments to make and if you'd like to comment on this subject 877 -753 -3341 we'll be right back.

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God James White in his book the King James only controversy examines allegations that modern translators Conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true 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.

You can order your copy of James White's book the King James only controversy by going to our website at www .a.

Omin org, what is dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free. A new cult secularism. False prophecy scenarios. No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant. In his book the potter's freedom James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture.

The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen. But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen.

Org. Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul the second to recognize the Virgin Mary as co-redeemer with Christ. Elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

In his book Mary another redeemer James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and sites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic. He traces how Mary of the Bible esteemed mother of the Lord obedient servant and chosen vessel of God has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed Queen of Heaven.

Viewed as co-mediator with Christ and now recognized as co-redeemer by many in the Roman Catholic Church Mary another redeemer is fresh insight into the woman the Bible calls a blessed among women and an invitation to single-minded devotion to God's truth.

You can order your copy of James White's book Mary another redeemer at a omen.

Org. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45. Evening services are at 6 30 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 to 6 grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org. Where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Welcome back to dividing line. My name is James White. We are reviewing a phone call a questioner on the Bible ants man broadcast and Discussing the issues of libertarianism and compatibilism and all the things that are related there to 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 phone number.

Let's go back to the call itself and pick back up where we were. Your statement.

In in the book of Ephesians It is clear that we have nothing to do with our salvation in the sense of deserving or earning it.

Now let me stop right there. That is obviously very true. But that is not enough to say. Because many people will say that we do not cause our salvation nor do we earn it. Rome would say that Salt Lake would say that Brooklyn would say that that is part and parcel of the idea of the idea of the assertion of the necessity of grace.

Grace is absolutely necessary. But the issue of the Reformation and the issue of biblical soteriology is the sufficiency of grace. The idea that grace is necessary means God will always get at least some credit.

The idea that grace is sufficient in and of itself to save Means God always gets all the credit. That there is never any Distraction in the worship and honor and glorification of God's grace because salvation is all of grace.

And Unfortunately, the synergist simply doesn't have a foundation upon which to make that.

Confession. Consistently. That does not in any way indicate that we cannot respond to the gospel. Repent and believe the gospel as it were.

Right, I agree with that. Yeah, that's where I get confused. Okay. Now there was the assertion of synergism. It can all be of God, but.

But.

The final in the final analysis. It must be under the control of man. God can make it available. God can put it out there. But if it is God who then has to change us. In fact, I think we get into here where where Hank talks about rewire us.

Well, I don't know what rewire us means. If that means take the chains of the slavery of sin off of our arms and take us out of the Dungeon of death and give to us life then yes. But I'm afraid that this rewire comment that's going to be coming up here is more in regards to the idea of well You're created and in fact, we get to the chatty Kathy doll thing here.

We were created in such a way that God has to somehow Change the way that we were created but note the synergism. There is the issue. That was the issue the Reformation. Here's where you you you take your stand against the Reformers and against the Reformation.

In limiting God's grace to being effective only on the basis of man's cooperation thereto.

It was because. But when Jesus said he who hears my word and then he says and believe so that's implying that hey. It's up to you to believe it or not. Yeah, I'll be saved so I.

Don't know if I don't know and that's not a work. Some people will say that well if you say that. Then what you are in effect saying is that the gospel is in fact Initiated by something you do rather than what God has done for you.

But there's a distinguishing in Scripture between faith and works and therefore that belief on your part.

Should not in any way be considered to work, right? Exactly. Yeah. So, well, you know, well, like I said God so loved the world. Everybody everybody has the opportunity to choose life over death. Well again, that is the debate because.

In yeah, the debate is and I agree with your point of view. But I'm saying therein lies the debate within Christian circles. There are those who say no not everyone can or has the ability to choose because God Creates us in such a way that we cannot.

Gospel.

And unless he rewires or regenerates us. We have no hope whatsoever.

There's the phrase rewires or regenerates. Now, I'm sorry, I Guess I can see in in Sorta, you know in a real extended way.

How.

Regeneration which involves the creation of a new creature in Christ. The taking out of a heart of stone. The giving of a heart of flesh. It's pretty radical terminology that is used in Scripture. The the vision of the valley of bones.