May 13, 2003

ready to give a defense for the hope that it's Dr. James White during his reform to Baptist Church.

Despite 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 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 trip. And I was listening to the

Bible Answer 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 reformed 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 affirm 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 to David Cloud 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, a majority of a phone call yesterday 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 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 bothers me because I know 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 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 from 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 than 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 as listen 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 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 is 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, you know, repeat from a previous one.

It didn't look like it was. It sounded 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 going to be stopping and starting, and I'm not sure why it sounds like that. I had to record it off of the webcast, off the web repeat of it.

I'm going to 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. And there's so many topics that are addressed.

I don't think that's a fair representation. You notice the idea that God has a sovereign decree, that he works all things after the counsel of his will.

That theology enshrined in the Westminster Confession, the 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 fixes events in time.

That the basis of God's foreknowledge is in fact his decree. And if I even began to start listing the theologians who have held that position, the biblical theologians, the masters of biblical exegesis in the history of since the time of the

Reformation it would take up the rest of the hour, is described as God stacking the deck.

Now 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 this does trouble me, it is very common in the writings of Clark Pinnock and the open theists to refer to libertarian freedom as genuine freedom.

And obviously 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 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 as 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 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 meaningful discussion of this type of thing where both sides 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

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 a debate last April with George Bryson at the Anaheim Vineyard in Southern California.

That debate 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 he's 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 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 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, 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 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 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, whoa, wait a minute.

What do you mean by that? God has created you only to be able to sin? 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 4, etc., etc., etc., etc., and please explain how

God has this libertarian freedom. 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 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 of the consistency, not only biblical 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, 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 not even begin to understand? I don't know, but that is it may.

Uh, the other, uh, other issue, of course, is, uh, 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, of Wayne Grudem in his systematic theology and Grudem before he ever gets to this point, uh, discusses all those passages,

Daniel chapter four and, and all those, uh, Philippians, uh, Psalm 135 and all those passages that very, very plainly, uh, 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, uh, by Arminians 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? Aren't nations led by people?

Uh, is he, is he truly limited to the honoring of man's libertarian free will?

How could he, how could he direct the nations if that is in fact the case? It doesn't really, uh, make any sense.

It is not biblically consistent. It's not logically consistent. It's not philosophically, uh, consistent either.

Let's continue with the call. And, uh, 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, um,

I've never met that Calvinist. Uh, I, again, I would like to get the names and numbers of these

Calvinists with whom Hank is dialoguing because, um, uh, I just haven't met one that said,

Oh yeah, you bet. God's the author of evil. Um, obviously what is being said, and he's just about to go into Grudem's, um, 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. Uh, but it's not being addressed.

Let's go back to, uh, to the call here. Uh, Wayne Grudem in his systematic theology uses the analogy of the

Shakespearean play, uh, the play Macbeth and points out that Macbeth murders

Duncan. However, uh, 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, uh, uh, he then continued on, uh, with the caller and we'll, we'll play that section after the break.

But let me, if I can, uh, please, um, at least, uh, defend, uh, 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, uh, this is page 321 and 322, uh, under God's providence is the discussion of this.

And you'll notice in 320, uh, the citation of, uh, Daniel chapter four, uh, 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 four, verse 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 it 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 to 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 of 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 that 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 the characters in the play, Macbeth fully, 100%, caused King Duncan's death.

But 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.

While 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 is just extremely important. That's the only way that this can,

I think, really, honestly, be addressed. Let me continue on with the phone call here.

Hang 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 were talking about the difference between libertarian freedom and circumstantial freedom with regards to the issue of election.

I can't remember where I finished off with you, to be honest. Oh, you know, there's one thing I did want to say real quick,

Herman. I know you have other callers, 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, 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 Wayne Gruden's Systematic Theology.

I would stand strongly against 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 substance of the illustration that is used.

And an illustration that appears in the middle of biblical argumentation on both sides. Honestly, 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 these acronyms and things like that.

And would you want someone to take an illustration in the middle of a biblical argumentation, in the middle of an acronym, and even though you elsewhere say,

I do not, I am not saying this. 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 we want to do. Let's go back to the...

I just disappeared again. Maybe we're having connector... Yep, I'm gone. So long, everybody. 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. There we go. I don't know what happened, but we've probably...

Whatever. Let's just continue on with the phone call. I think the logical extension of the argument 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 going to 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 8, 28. 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 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 wanted to say real quickly, because there's a question you asked in the, again, very, very much in the beginning of your statement.

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.

Can I manufacture grace for self -denial in some religious place by weeping hard on your face or saying prayers to some dead saint you know?

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 .aomin

.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 aomen .org.

Millions of petitioners from around the world are imploring Pope John Paul II 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 cites 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 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 aomen .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 .00. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805

North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.

If you are 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 too.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. Let's go back to the call itself and pick back up where we were.

Your statement, 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 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. That's where I get confused. Okay, now there was the assertion of synergism.

It can all be of God, but 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're getting to here 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 Cathy 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 of the Reformation. Here's where you take your stand against the

Reformers and against the Reformation. Uh, in limiting God's grace to being effective only on the basis of man's cooperation.

There too. It was because 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, uh, 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. Uh, 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 a 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 receive the gospel.

Uh, and unless he rewires or regenerates us, we have no hope whatsoever.

There's the phrase rewires or regenerates. Now, I'm sorry. Uh, 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, uh, the taking out of a heart of stone, the giving of a heart of flesh.

That's pretty radical terminology that is used in scripture. The, the vision of the valley of bones, the spirit coming upon them and they are, they are made into living creatures.

Uh, the, the, the many different kinds of, of illustrations the Bible uses.

And of course, Hank doesn't like one of them that I think is the best. And that is in regards to Lazarus. Evidently Christ can be the sovereign

Lord of physical life as long as we don't make him the sovereign Lord of spiritual life. Christ can give physical life without question, without obtaining permission, but he can't do it in the spiritual realm.

But I think that's a beautiful example of Christ's complete power, uh, in all realms, including the spiritual realm.

All of these do result in a tremendous change in us. We are made new creatures.

We are given a heart that loves God, a heart that's zealous for good deeds, a heart that desires to do what the unregenerate man does not desire to do.

In fact, we were having discussion just this morning in channel of the fact that the Bible is very clear in teaching that the believer will desire to do what is right before God, that Jesus Christ is creating a peculiar people for himself who are zealous for good deeds.

Their good deeds are not what give them that standing before God. They are the result of his work within their life.

And the consistent testimony of all the scripture to this. So, again, this idea of rewiring, regeneration, yeah, regeneration is a radical thing.

But I'm afraid that the use of the term rewiring is in reference to this idea, well, they've been created in a defective fashion.

Let us make sure to remember, there is no man who desires to turn and believe in Christ with his heart who is not enabled to do so.

The point is the overarching power and authority of sin that controls man unless and until God, by grace, he is under no constraint to do this.

He is under no constraint to do this, but by his grace, frees us from slavery to sin.

Here comes a little section about the chatty Cathy doll of responding to the gospel. We can only act in accordance with the way in which he has created us.

So we are in effect a chatty Cathy doll. You pull the string, whatever's programmed in can come out, but nothing that has not been pre -programmed can come out.

So God first has to regenerate you before you can have faith. Well, that's where I stop my recording.

How do you respond to the chatty Cathy doll comment? If that is meant to be a response or a summary of Jonathan Edwards monumental work on the freedom of the will, where he discusses the fact that we do what we desire to do and that we act in accordance with our nature and that the problem is with our nature and our fallen state in the choices that it presents to our will.

Then I can only say that that's not an overly good reading of Jonathan Edwards freedom of the will.

That obviously does not exactly capture the important elements of that presentation.

We are not chatty Cathy dolls. Jesus Christ did not die upon the cross to redeem chatty

Cathy dolls. We are, however, slaves to sin. That then requires that we need to be freed from slavery to sin.

It is not the idea that you just pull a string and out comes a pre -programmed thing.

What you do find is a consistent commission of sin because of a corruption of the nature and what you find is, of course, the inability to do what is spiritually pleasing before God.

That is the key issue here. And so, yes, God must regenerate. And as you notice, and I'm trying to think of what came before and after this,

I think I'm being very fair in saying I do not recall a single verse of scripture being exegeted.

There were a couple referenced by the caller, but not once did you hear and this is clearly taught when we look at and then you go to Acts chapter four and you see the sinful actions of men.

You see the Romans and the Jews and Herod and Pontius Pilate and you see them doing what

God's hand had predestined to occur. And yet we all know that they were responsible, that they did what they desired to do.

Here is compatibilism in glowing words. You don't get that from those who promote libertarian freedom.

Some of you will remember just how long ago was it now? A couple months ago when we did a Thursday night program and we had a gentleman from Paltalk come on and we were supposed to discuss

John chapter six. Did we get John chapter six discussed? No, we didn't in any way, shape or form.

Instead, Proverbs 129, Proverbs 129, they did not choose the fear of God.

You go to Jeremiah and God places the fear of him in their hearts. Oh, that messes it all up.

But that's all we heard was this constant. See, it's a choice. It's a choice. It wasn't even exegeted properly. No concern whatsoever for those types of things.

And so what you get is primarily a philosophical presentation.

Well, it can't mean that because of this, because we can't say this. We have this construct or that construct, that type of thing.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. Frequently, when

I start a program this way, dive directly into the topic, folks won't want to call and comment because a lot of the folks who listen to the program live, whether they are in channel or wherever else, you know, well, whether they're listening in channel or they're not in channel, either one, some folks have problems doing both, but they won't want to call in because like, well, you know what?

I agree with what you said. I would imagine that there have got to be some folks who listen to the program, mainly for its apologetic content, who are like those folks who come up to me when

I'm speaking somewhere. I'll never forget an incident in Chicago. I was sitting there trying to choke down some cold

Arby's and I love Arby's, but cold Arby's is not something I really love all that much. And this person came up to me, sat down.

And yes, folks, I'm going to go ahead and say this. It is incredibly rude when you see someone who's just about to speak.

They just got done speaking. They're shoveling food in their face. You know that they haven't had an opportunity to rest whatsoever to go and sit down while they're trying to eat and try to chat with them.

Bad idea. I mean, I'm sort of used to it happens all the time, but it's just sort of like, wow, you know, very strange.

But anyway, this person sits down and oh, you know, James, I really, really appreciate what you do and I love your work with the

Roman Catholics. And I could just tell that the other shoe was just about to fall. And I knew what it was.

I don't know how I knew what it was that quickly, but I did. And here comes the other shoe and it says, but I, you know,

I don't agree with you about everything. And when someone says that, either they're not reformed or they're

King James, only one of the two and says, but, you know,

I'm not I'm certainly not reformed. I wouldn't agree with you on that. And I just wanted to say in between bites of cold beef and cheddar and curly fries, curly fries, especially really bad, cold, bad thing.

Yeah. I just wanted to say, you know, how in the world can you say you like what

I do when I respond to Mormons and Roman Catholics when what I do is reformed?

I mean, that's my response to these folks. So, you know, we do have a non -phone call.

A .O. Min in Phoenix wants to ask about Isaiah 45, 7 and God, the author of evil stuff.

And of course, those of you who are not familiar with Isaiah chapter 45 in the

New American Standard says the one forming light. This is God speaking, the one forming light and creating darkness, causing well -being, creating calamity.

That term calamity is the Hebrew term raw, which means evil. I am the Lord who does all these.

And of course, the question has to do with does that not affirm God's sovereign control over even the evil and the calamity in the world?

And of course it does. But the issue then becomes how does

God do this? The use of means, primary means, secondary means. All these are things that are very much a part of the passages that I have talked about before in regards to Genesis chapter 50, the issue of Joseph and his brothers.

Clear parallel, unquestionable parallel in the language itself.

When the scripture says, as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result to preserve many people alive.

And so here you have in one action, and it was a sinful action, the action of selling

Joseph into slavery. That is sinful. I mean, there was every kind of sin almost imaginable was involved in the hatred and the murder and the deception, not only toward Joseph, but toward the brother's father, their heartlessness at seeing his emotion, all that kind of stuff, very, very clearly right there in the assertion, as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.

Both terms meant or intended parallel. Anyone reading the Hebrew would see this.

Interestingly enough, the King James does not give a good translation of this. I mean, I've just recently had a

King James only advocate to whom I pointed this out, try to defend the King James rendering of this, which muddles very much.

In fact, let me just go ahead and bring it up here so I can mention it. But as for you, you thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good.

Thought and meant, very same Hebrew word used between the two. It clearly disrupts the parallelism that is there in the

Hebrew text. So, you know, those of you who are King James only advocates, are you really willing to defend an inferior rendering when it results in hiding or making less clear this divine truth of God?

Well, anyways, that's a little bit of a rabbit trail there. Clear parallel between the two terms.

You meant it for evil, God meant it for good, and then notice, in order to bring about this present result to preserve many people alive.

Now, please note something. God saved life.

God, who is the author of life, saved life through the sinful actions of the brothers of Joseph.

It was a part of his sovereign decree. Now, if you're going to praise

God for saving life, you don't have the option then of saying, well,

God didn't decree the evil. He just made the potentiality there. Well, what if they had decided, as seemingly good boys, not to actuate the potentiality?

The result is death. And boy, I'll tell you, we'd hold

God accountable for that now, wouldn't we? This second guessing of God doesn't work very well, does it?

No. Here, the only way you can possibly understand the meaning of the text itself is to understand it in the words of Isaiah 45, 7.

When God says, whether it's peace or calamity, whether it is

Shalom or Ra, I'm behind it. I have a purpose.

And speaking to the Israelite people, facing their enemies, facing deportation to Babylon, God was very intent upon their understanding that what was happening to them was not just evil run amuck in the world.

God had a purpose. That was the whole point in Isaiah chapter 10. I'm bringing these people against you for a purpose.

They are the instrument of my hand. Now, I'm going to judge them. I'm going to hold them accountable for what they're doing.

There again is compatibilism in its fullest expression. I'm going to hold them accountable.

They have sinful motives. They have sinful desires, even though they're doing exactly what

I want them to do. Okay. Well, I guess we can't go through an entire class, entire program without someone continuing to grow his fan club for the pillow talk voice.

In the midst of my teaching here, I understand there is a follow -up. Now, my question had to do with the issue.

First of all, when he says Barach Ra, isn't he using the same term that's used in Genesis?

He creates? That is the term Barach, yes. But let's deal with the text fairly, and that is that it is paralleled with Asah, which means to make or to do.

So it is not the idea of ex nihilo creation here.

It would be much more in line with the application of his providence and time. I would not say that Barach is being used in a parallel form to Genesis here, because Ra is not a substance or an item that is brought into existence out of nothing.

Well, my next question has to do with the way in which the other argument is made in the issue of whether or not

God is the author of evil. They are, I think, attacking that idea that the

Calvinists tend to see, as you just articulated, that we see

God using evil in the world for his good purposes, as he sees fit, sovereignly.

Well, not just using it, but decreeing its existence. It's not like it just pops into existence, and he goes, oh, well, there's some more evil.

Well, watch this. I think I'll turn it for good. It's not that God has merely potentiated evil, and then when we actuate it, he then turns it around.

That's what Genesis chapter 50 blows away, because the parallel of the ment of that verb demonstrates that there was intention on the part of them, and at the exact same time, and in the exact same way, intention on God's part.

But the insinuation is that there's something sinister going on here, on God's part. If we're going to give that to God, if we're going to say, admit that God does things in this way, then there's something sinister that kind of makes him sinful or evil himself, that smacks his being and his nature.

It wasn't all that long ago that, and I forget who the gentleman was, we reviewed questions that were asked on Bible answering out of a man who, again, presented an

Arminian perspective, and one of the things he said was, Calvinists tend to drive people away from the faith because they make

God the author of evil, and the whole idea being that somehow a lost person is supposed to find attractive

God's sovereignty over the world. Well, lost men, that is their object of their hatred, as far as that is concerned.

So it's obviously not going to happen. So it's not so much a matter of sinister, it's just, well, I don't want

God to in any way, shape, or form be able to be accused of that. Well, Isaiah 45 .7 is there, you've got to deal with it.

I think the ultimate thing is you've got to fill in the blank. They're in a backhanded way saying God's the author of evil, but in a direct way, they're saying

God's evil. We're saying that God is evil by making that case. Well, that we cannot affirm his absolute holiness.

That's exactly what they're saying. And then the thing is, again, as you said before, we're dealing with an infinite being here.

Well, obviously that's something that Grudem had said right before, and then as a part of his explanation of his

Shakespeare example. And obviously what he was saying was there's different realms here in which we're talking about types of responsibility and kinds of responsibility.

So yeah, most definitely. And I think he would follow up by saying, Macbeth is only held accountable within the realm of the play, not the realm of the author, because he's not an author.

In the same way that we would make the same thing, that our responsibility for God is only within time and within creation, not within eternity.

And that's one of the big objections that people try to raise against a biblical theodicy as well. Aren't we almost out of time?

We're getting there close. Okay, thank you. Most welcome.

I always, always appreciate that. The sultry voice of Richard Pierce coming on the air.

No, you don't. Well, that's true too. Okay, well, thanks for joining us on the

Dividing Line today. I hope that discussion was useful to you, helpful to you in understanding those issues.

I really do look forward to a time someday when these kinds of discussions can take place in a more than a, well, they said this and I respond.

They said this, I respond, give and take type situation. We certainly are very open to doing that.

So we just want people to know that. Thursday night, five o 'clock, next edition of the Dividing Line. Who knows what's going to take place between now and then.

Don't forget, May 29th, the debate on Long Island between myself and Father Mitch Pacwa on the

Roman Catholic priesthood. Let people know about it. Thanks, God bless. You'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks.