October 26, 2004

in 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. Well, good morning. Welcome to The Dividing Line. We're actually working today.

It hasn't started raining, so we have phone lines. And my system is still a little goofy, but it's a whole lot better than it was last week.

Because after it sort of like just refused to work. By the way, I'm starting to believe all the conspiracy theories.

Did you know that if you have front page operational, and I know you're never supposed to have front page operational.

You purists out there, every time you hear me say, we have real blogging software coming.

So just please don't get on me about that. But if you have front page running, it kills Mozilla.

Did you know that? I wonder if I'm the only person that does that, too. But when you have front page up,

Mozilla will not function properly. Will not display anything on the screen. Only Internet Explorer. I think I sense a conspiracy involved there.

Personally, I really think I do. And anyways, what was

I saying? Oh yeah, the system seems to be working. And we have sound. And I can play clips.

And we can take phone calls. And it is going to rain, however, on Thursday, which may mean we have a repeat of what happened last time.

And then I'll be in Peoria, Illinois, over the weekend. Does anyone know what it's supposed to be like in Peoria, Illinois?

I was going to do that. And then we had some server problems. And then Pete, the Canadian, who always has the best ideas, came to our rescue.

And he came to our rescue because the irrational lady from Canada got hold of him.

And that's the only reason we're here today, folks. Everyone stand up and give irrational applause.

Oh, man, that scared me. I thought you were right behind me. I'm like, hey, where is that?

Who's in here, mate? So do you think everybody in Canada knows each other? I think that all the

Christians do. Hey, yo, Pete, I have a problem down here in Zona, man. They have each other on speed dial, man, you know?

They're passing another law against us. You know, that kind of thing. So anyway, that's why we're here.

And that sounded like you were right behind me. That is so odd. It's the headset, I think. It's our wonderful soundboard.

Oh, it's great. A stereo. Uh -oh. Sound off.

OK, thanks a lot, Kev. We appreciate that. That was really good. Anyway, what in the world are we doing today?

We started catching up with last week. I have some clips to play, but we also have 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

But I'm not going to get to that immediately. So everybody in the channel is just now realizing

I still have my sounds on, but that's OK. Yeah, it would be very easy for me to slip into a discussion that would only be relevant to citizens of the

United States and various and sundry illegal people in the United States who get to vote anyways.

But as very tempting as that is,

I need to somehow try to fight that off. And I've mentioned on the blog what

I feel about the whole situation. I think, sadly, the choice is between keeping some semblance of breaks on the social decline and the falling off the cliff into becoming

Europe and just simply being catapulted off the edge instantly.

And I will say one thing. The announcement yesterday of the fact that the

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has thyroid cancer, which means he ain't going to be there much longer. We're looking, minimum one,

I think as many as four Supreme Court justices over the next four years.

Some have just been hanging on just for the sake of hanging on. And so yeah, to me, it's the difference between keeping the brakes on and just going right over the edge.

And so that's just sort of how I view the whole thing. And it's very, very disturbing because I look down the road at my kids and my grandchildren and just go, oh man, unbelievable.

And of course, the amount of hypocrisy and lying. And you've got to admit from a

Christian perspective, someone who can lie without twitching, who can lie repeatedly over and over and over and over and over again, that's not the kind of person you want in charge.

You know, it just, I realize politics in general tends toward dishonesty and less than forthright speaking.

But you know, I just don't know. Anyway, I have much stronger feelings on this than I'm letting go.

And if you want to know them, you can come into the channel and watch as we make it very clearly known where we stand.

But yeah, Nabal is an Old Testament character that comes to mind and what that means in Hebrew.

But anyway, no, we're not going there today. I'm going to pull the plug on that one and move forward from there.

Though I must confess the other thing that just is driving me nuts is the, why can't, from my perspective,

I think we should just have CBS and NBC and ABC, why don't they just register as the political organizations they are so that they can be regulated?

Wouldn't that be fair? I think that would be fair. You know, if it wasn't for alternate media like this, you're listening to alternate media.

You're listening to media that exists, that didn't exist 15 years ago. And if it wasn't for blogs and alternate media, who knows what situation we'd be in right now.

I just, I, okay, I'm going to go ahead and say it. Look, when a society does not value truth, this is what happens.

When a society has, and it's part of the worldview. It's part of the postmodern worldview where truth is no longer an objective thing.

And a person who speaks the truth, even to their own detriment, remember the book of Proverbs?

That person is no longer honored. And God will not honor a nation that does not honor truth.

And our nation was based upon the idea of mutual responsibility to one another and honoring truth.

And so folks, once that's gone, it's gone. And that's what

I mean about the downhill slide. It is, there's no way to stop it. Outside of God, absolutely being merciless nation and granting repentance in the form of repentance from sin and an acknowledgement of God's righteousness and holiness and everything else.

And if you, when you look around and you see people lying and people just, you know, they just, that's not the attitude of the

Psalmist. Psalm 119, he says, my eyes shed streams of water over those people who do not keep your law.

It should bother us when we see people who just wink at God's law, wink at God's truth.

And who does that anymore? Nobody does that anymore. That's just, that's considered to be not only politically incorrect, but you cannot build a megachurch today on that basis.

And everybody knows it. Everybody knows it. I mean, they're just, there are only a few really large churches left in this land where you can actually continue to speak the truth.

And that's because they grew slowly, not overnight. I don't know of a single church that has become a megachurch in five years where you could actually preach the holiness of God and preach a hatred of sin in that pulpit and not empty the place out.

Because it takes time for people to get that anti -cultural idea that God is holy, sin is reprehensible, we should hate our sin, we should love

God's holiness, we should love truth. See, that takes time.

You don't do that overnight. And in our society today, man, it just, it just doesn't, it's not happening.

And everybody's gonna say, you sound like that, you talk like that, and you're gonna, you're not gonna impact our society.

Well, our society needs a prophetic voice. Our society needs a voice that says, look, you're on your way to judgment.

You are on your way to meet a holy God who is going to punish your sin. That isn't said anymore.

That's considered to be, well, what's it considered to be?

It's considered to, people don't hear that anymore. They don't hear that. Well, who makes ears to hear?

It's not us. I said I wasn't gonna do that, didn't

I? The people in the channel are saying

I'm supposed to be doing this, and I just, takes a deep breath, and let's listen to some cuts here.

I was, I mentioned this one on the blog. Back on the 8th of October, there was seemingly a concerted effort for Roman Catholics to call in to the

Bible Answer Man broadcast. And I mentioned a Mike from Covina who called in, and what he said was most interesting.

Now, of course, when I press this button, the entire system may explode, but we're gonna do our best.

So let's listen to this call from Mike in Covina. Back to the phone lines. We'll go to Mike in West Covina, California.

You're on with Dr. Paul Meyer. Hi, good afternoon. I do have a question about justification. As a

Catholic Christian who loves Christ, who loves others, tries to be faithful to the Ten Commandments, tries to do the little things that please

God. When I meet other prophets and ministers and we talk about justification, especially when the issue is about once justified, always justified.

That comes up quite a bit. I have just five little concerns I have. Let's say his name is

John Doe. Now, let's stop it right there. This is what Rush and Sean and others call a seminar caller.

This is a person who has their comments pre -written. This is a

Roman Catholic apologist, a lay apologist, who is seeking to use this national platform to present his argumentation.

And it is interesting to hear the phraseology once justified, always justified.

That, at least I appreciate that language because it gets a little bit more focused than once saved, always saved.

Because it allows or should allow, unfortunately in this call it doesn't, but we will insert this in there.

It should allow a discussion of what justification is. It should allow us to go to Romans 5 .1.

Therefore, having been justified, we have peace with God. Discuss the nature of that peace and the fact that if that peace can be destroyed by my actions, then it is not true shalom.

It's not shalom that is created by the perfect work of Christ. We should be able to go to Romans 8 and discuss the fact that if you believe that salvation is the work of God, then that golden chain of redemption, which includes justification, all those who are justified are glorified.

That should follow. That should allow us to discuss those things, to discuss the nature of justification.

And with a Roman Catholic, it should allow us to expose the unbiblical doctrine of justification that is theirs.

The fact that they desire to have a doctrine of justification that is confused with sanctification and that in essence is a doctrine that makes the gospel anthropocentric.

It is focused upon man, man's accomplishments, man's faithfulness to doing certain things.

That's what this should allow It doesn't end up, unfortunately, going that direction. But hey, that's why we have a webcast.

He stopped praying on Sunday. He doesn't go to church anymore. He loves football. He watches the football games.

Well, right there. Anyone who loves football. No, no, that's... Remember, Mike from Covina here is describing a person who has a said faith, a person who has possibly a walk down an aisle and shaken a pastor's hand.

And as a result has been told, you know, you pray this prayer, your ticket is punched, you're on your way.

That's the description that's being given here. And after the games, he goes on his computer. He doesn't have time for God anymore on Sunday.

He says, that's works. I'm not going to be associated with works. Well, so now we have a person who...

Yes, someone on the channel says, that sounds like your average nominal Catholic, isn't it? That's exactly right.

So here we have further description that this is a person who does not understand the gospel, a person who does not understand the relationship of grace and faith, what are good works over against legalism.

These are descriptions that are being given so far. I don't think that Mike from Covina knows that he's giving us these clues, but anyway.

I'm already been saved by my faith in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. I don't need to worship on Sunday anymore.

Okay, that's number one. So number one is this person does not understand the lordship of Christ, does not understand the relationship of grace and faith and works and so on and so forth.

And so obviously this would not be a person that any of us would wish to put forward as being the example of once justified, always justified.

Number two, his prayer life is non -existent. Yeah, there you go. He'll pray when there's a financial emergency or when there's a health emergency.

But other than that, he doesn't worship. He doesn't offer thanks. There's no praise or adoration in his life. Okay, that's number two.

Obviously, therefore, there's no presence of the Holy Spirit. We wouldn't have any concern here about the church and the fellowship of the saints obedience to Christ.

We are discussing here the classic example of the said faith person.

And obviously, therefore, none of us believe that an empty faith justifies and discuss that.

How long have we been saying this now? Well, anyway. Number three, he refuses to forgive others.

There's several people in his life he absolutely refuses to forgive and he has malice in his heart towards those people.

I think there's something in the New Testament about that, too. Okay, and number four, he's living in adultery. Oh, there you go.

He has a carnal relationship with her. And at the same time, all these things are going in his life. He thinks back to five years ago that when his pastor said, do you believe

Jesus is your first Lord and Savior? And he rose his hand. Yes, I do. So he's thinking at the time, well, I'm saved.

I've already been saved. So here you have a classic representation of from a

Roman Catholic of the very kind of non -lordship salvation. Interesting, next

April 22nd, I will be debating a proponent of non -lordship salvation, a person who would...

It would be interesting to hear him respond to this because in essence, he is presenting the idea here of a person who had faith at one point, but it did not abide.

And we're going to be debating that April 22nd in Oklahoma City. In fact, that general area,

April 22nd of next year. I think it's April 22nd. That's a couple of debates down the road and numerous trips.

And so the dates don't really gel in my mind until I get a little bit closer here. But there's the straw man set up.

Okay, we continue. Okay, that's number four. Number five. I have to start answering these.

First of all, as a Lutheran, I don't agree once justified, always justified. Not at all. A person can fall away from faith, and it certainly looks like this fellow has fallen away from faith.

Well, there you go. So much for Paul Myers being consistent and in his response.

And now we could discuss Paul Myers' view of a justification and Romans 8 and Romans 5 and so on and so forth.

And please understand that Luther had nothing against good works, whatever. He put it this way. Good works don't make a man good, but a good man, one who is justified by faith, does good works.

He agrees with James. Faith without works is dead. And so there's nothing against good works here at all.

And this fellow you're describing is perfectly disgusting. I mean, and I wouldn't consider him a true Christian at all.

Okay, but add a step there. Remember, he's been thinking that he's been justified. Okay, so he's been thinking that he's been justified.

Upon what basis? Certainly not the preaching that you would hear in my church.

I mean, I can't speak too much for what's preached elsewhere because generally, I'm either at the

Phoenix Foreign Baptist Church. If I'm in town, that's where I am, unless I'm lying on the side of the bed getting ready to die.

And when I'm not there, I'm someplace else, but I'm not someplace else listening to somebody else preach, which

I would like to do, but that's not what God's plan for me is right now. If I'm someplace else,

I'm the one doing the preaching there too. And so I don't get to hear a lot, but I know one thing when

I hear preaching in my church, this person would be repeatedly, regularly, well, first of all, he'd be put out of the church.

This person, adultery, somebody on the side like that, if that was known in any way, shape or form.

And beyond that, if he doesn't go to church on Sunday, he's not a member of our church. We purge the rolls each year. And if someone does not attend the church, we contact them and they basically, you know, they can tell us, well, you know what?

I'm not interested anymore. And so they're not going to be a member of the church. You cannot shepherd a flock when the flock doesn't show up.

See, and so unlike some churches where you have, you know, 20 ,000 members, but you can only find 7 ,000 of them at any given time.

And the rest of them, you don't even know where they are anymore. That's just, you know, doesn't work that way.

We can't possibly allow that kind of situation to go on. So we've had a complete straw man presented.

There is no connection between anything that I would ever preach. But here is where we get this incredible, incredible statement.

Now, if this guy is, if Mike from Covina is sort of like a lay Catholic apologist, then he hasn't been listening real well to the debates that he's supposed to be listening to.

If he's listening in my debates, he hasn't listened real well. Maybe he's sort of like that guy who became Roman Catholic.

He was on staff with a ministry in California, and he became Roman Catholic and he attended the debate with Tim Staples in Fullerton, California.

And every time Tim would talk, he'd come in and listen. As soon as I'd talk, he'd leave. And then at the end of the night, proclaimed Tim the victor.

Maybe he has these special edited versions of the debates where only the other guy gets to talk.

And all I get is to answer questions during cross -examination. Don't get to ask any of them or anything like that.

Maybe that's what's going on. But listen to what Mike from Covina says. He's heard people like James White, Alpha Omega Ministry teacher.

He's heard Jimmy Swaggart. He's heard several other popular ministers say that once you're justified, you always have that piece of Christ with you.

Like I said on the blog, it is truly amazing to be associated, especially associated in a completely absurd fashion with Jimmy Swaggart.

I assure you, Mike, yo, Mike and Covina, I hope, you know, we know that there are

Roman Catholic apologists who listen to this program.

And I bet you there's a Roman Catholic apologist out there who knows who Mike from Covina is.

And so somebody get him to listen to this. Okay, Mike, let me tell you something.

The person you described, if you had ever taken the time to read

The God Who Justifies, if you'd ever taken the time to listen to my sermons on James 2 that are posted at prbc .org.

Oh, by the way, I did a Sunday school lesson on the five solos. Sunday morning, prbc .org. You might find it interesting given

Reformation Sunday is coming. Mike, if you had ever taken the time to actually listen to what was said in any of the debates on justification, where I've discussed the issue or on predestination and election, anything like if you'd taken the time to read almost anything

I've written, you would know that the accuracy of your statement, aside from the fact that Jimmy Swaggart doesn't teach anything even remotely like that, and that you're grossly misrepresenting what

I believe justification is and so on and so forth. That is as bad as if I were to say in a debate where I am presenting the

Roman Catholic perspective that Roman Catholics worship the Pope as a deity, okay?

That is as bad a misrepresentation, Mike. You just need to understand that.

And you're never going to get anywhere as an apologist, lay apologist or otherwise, until, unless you want to do it like the left does it politically in our land, where the truth of what somebody else believes is irrelevant.

If you want to follow that perspective, then you're on the right road. And in fact, you have a lot of people that you're following who do the same thing.

There's no question about that. But if you actually want to make a connection, if you want to show some respect, then you have to accurately represent what the other side's saying.

I didn't say you have to agree with what the other side's saying. That's where the error always comes in. People, oh, James White, he misrepresents

Roman Catholics. And you go, well, where does he misrepresent Roman Catholics? Well, he says that the concept of the papacy isn't true because historically this happened and that happens.

Like, well, wait a minute. That's not misrepresenting. That's disagreeing with. See, they constantly just flip -flop back and forth. Oh, flip -flop.

Waffle, change your mind. Oh man, I can't get out of my mind. They just keep going back and forth between these two different definitions.

Misrepresent and disagree with are not the same thing. So Mike, if you want to have an impact, you have got to show some integrity and accurately representing the people you're talking about.

And let me tell you something on national radio, you didn't. That was bad. And I will accept your apology anytime you'd like to offer it.

And you can never lose that peace. You'll never lose that justification. Thus, you will be saved. And so he thinks back to his mind at the hour of his death.

Crucial point I have here. He refuses to repent. Refuses. Because he thinks back deep down,

I'm already saved. I don't, you know, come on. God is love. Sure, I'm living in adultery, but he loves me.

He loves his her. Mike, are you a Roman Catholic? Yes, I am. Let's cut to the quick real quick here just because in the interest of time,

I want to get to the bottom line here. Your question is very clear. But Dr. Meyer, it's certainly possible that the person that is being described here who has been described is never really repented.

You might have a said faith rather than a real faith. And I appreciated at least at that point that Hank said what

I would have said that we're talking about a person who did not have a real faith here. And they went on from there.

But I want to play that one because. Yes, yes, except deity is spelled that way.

Anyway, that was on the 8th. And so I'm going to go ahead and close that one. That's what I was going to play last week.

That one and this next one. The next one is a lengthy discussion.

And actually, it's 1126. So we need to take a take a break coming up here in a couple of minutes.

The next section is a lengthy discussion. And we have a person who calls in and asks about, again,

Romans chapter 9 and predestination. And the reason I want to address this is because it is being said.

And, you know, maybe not directly by name, but it's it's being said that it is a biblical error.

There are a couple biblical errors. And when people say that my what I teach, what I've published involves biblical error,

I want to take the time, the opportunity to respond to that assertion. It is being said that is a biblical error to believe in compatibilist freedom, to be a compatibilist, that the only form of meaningful human freedom is libertarian freedom.

And I do not believe that libertarianism is in any way, shape or form consistent with the sovereignty of God and consistent with the sinfulness of man and man's creatureliness.

And so I want to respond to that. And also that to read

Romans chapter 9 as involving God's free exercise of his kingly authority is to engage in eisegesis.

It's unbiblical, and it's ignoring the key of the Old Testament. I think the Old Testament is key.

But if you look back, not at Jeremiah 18, that's not the background of Romans 9.

The background of Romans 9 is Exodus 33. And the free and sovereign demonstration of grace to Moses in God's self -revelation to him.

That's the quotation. I mean, if you want to go back and get the quotations, that's where the quotations are from. And so that is key.

But in essence, it's being said that John Piper or myself or John Calvin or B .B.

Warfield or the list goes on and on and on, that all of us have been guilty of eisegetical misinterpretation of the text in Romans chapter 9.

And I believe that when that particular subject came up on the

Bible Answered broadcast, when I had the opportunity of responding, certainly George Bryson was not able to make the point and was not able to in any way, shape or form respond to the eisegesis of the text.

So we'll be looking at that. When we come back, we're going to take our break and then also take your phone calls at 877 -753 -3341.

We'll be right back. At the heart of the controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformation theology is the nature of justification itself.

It is a debate not merely about how or when or by what means a person is justified, but about the very meaning of justification and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What's the debate reserved for Roman Catholics and the reformers? The doctrine of justification is now being challenged from within the walls of reformed evangelicalism itself.

Join Alpha and Omega Ministries as we embark on our first national conference and confront this very issue, justification, the heart of the gospel, with pastor and co -author of Holy Scripture, the ground and pillar of our faith,

David King, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Founders Conference, Tom Askell, New Testament Research Ministries founder and author of Evangelical Answers, Eric Svensson, the founder of the

Spurgeon Archive and executive director of Grace to You, Philip Johnson, nationally renowned reformed

Christian artist, Steve Camp, and the founder of Alpha and Omega Ministries and author, Dr. James White.

Join us at the Los Angeles, California, LAX Sheraton Ballroom on November 6, 2004, beginning at 845 a .m.

Seating is limited, so order your tickets now at aomin .org. That's www .aomin .org.

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. Convictions once held and died for among Bible -believing Protestants are now being reconsidered with the advent of the recent

Auburn Avenue Movement. Is there currently a common basis for dialogue between Roman Catholics and Protestants?

Were the signers of ECT correct in their ecumenical efforts and all of the Reformed scholars who opposed them in error?

Does Trinitarian Baptism make one a member of the New Covenant? Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ?

Join us in Los Angeles, California on November 5th, 2004 for a full three hours of moderated debate between Dr.

James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries and Douglas Wilson of the Auburn Avenue Movement and New St.

Andrews College as these topics are debated between two of the most respected representatives of the opposing viewpoints.

Additional information and tickets can be ordered at aomin .org. That's www .aomin .org.

Discussing, well, we're discussing a little bit of everything today and we also have a special announcement that needs to be made and so this is where you go get something out of the refrigerator or do whatever you need to do and that's it.

That's okay. They can go get something out of the fridge because I'll just turn the sound up. Oh, okay. Yeah, that'll do a lot.

Yeah, sort of like commercials. Yeah, they always turn the sound up. So you can hear it in the kitchen. Anyway, just a quick word for those of you who will be coming to the conference and debate.

Yeah, it's very funny, I mute you. Anyway, just a word of advice there.

If you're flying into LAX, remember that the Sheraton has shuttles running every 15 minutes.

15 minutes. 15 minutes, 24 hours a day. 24 hours a day. Back to this.

Anyway, and this time uninterrupted I have the floor. Anyway, so keep that in mind.

Every 15 minutes, look for the Sheraton LAX shuttle and they'll get you right over there.

Like I said, they run very quickly and we'll let Dr. What's his name?

White, yes. Come back in. 24 hours, 15 minutes. Sheraton LAX.

I'm gone. Back to something interesting. Well, you know, that's all dependent on LA still being there when we get there, because depending on the outcome of the debate, you know,

I've got to admit the voter intimidation stuff and the violence and people shooting up only one side's offices.

Definitely. Let me tell you something. So all of you union thugs that want to try to intimidate me and my voting, me and Dr.

Glock are waiting for you. Don't even try it. Ain't gonna work.

Anyway. Yes, Dr. Glock, one of my favorite folks. Anyhow, what were we talking about? Oh, OK.

Yeah, somebody's posting really bad stuff. Colors and channels, really. Then again, a green background.

It's not too bad. Anyhow, 877 -753 -341. But you don't need to worry about that, because I've got a fair amount of stuff to do here.

As I mentioned, this is this was the 15th of October. So this was 11 days ago.

There was a question on the subject of the will of man, and I didn't get a chance to queue this up.

Uh oh. Well, let's just hope that this is queued up correctly. Anyways, if not, we can just do it on the air.

It was not genuine. Yeah, that isn't. So we'll go to right there. Sure. My my question has to do with some predestination.

And if you'll let me get all this out, it's kind of complicated. First, I guess the question, the main question is how much of our life is predestined?

How much do we choose? Do we choose all of everything and nothing is predestined?

Is part of our life predestined? And part, we make, you know, some of our choices? Or is everything predestined and we make no choices?

Look, Jimmy, first, I think it's really important before you go on that you define what you mean by predestination, because the

Bible very clearly teaches predestination and the subset. So all Christians believe in predestination.

It's a biblical teaching. No Christian denies that God predestines what the debate is in Christian circles is the basis on which

God predestines. Some say it is according to his purpose, his predilection.

It is his province that predestines us. So he just does it for his own good pleasure.

There are other people say, no, that's wrong. God predestines according to his foreknowledge. He looks down the corridor of time.

He sees what we will do and he chooses us on that basis. So and by the way, there are other opinions as well within the

Christian pale of orthodoxy, but all Christians then believe in predestination. It's the basis on which we are predestined.

That is the subject of debate. Well, I guess I referred to Romans chapter nine, where Paul is talking about Jacob and Esau and how before they were ever born, that God had decided that Jacob he would bless and Esau he would not bless.

And he goes on to say that, you know, God will have mercy on who will have mercy and compassion, who will have compassion.

And then he also speaks of Pharaoh saying that he will harden who he will harden. Now, before Jacob and Esau were ever born, they didn't do anything to deserve blessings or non -blessings for lack of a better term.

But yet, you know, that is what played out. In fact, Jacob turned out to be kind of a scoundrel in the beginning. And if you and there are other passages,

I think Proverbs 16, four says that God has created everything for his for its own purpose, even even the wicked for the day of evil.

I guess what I'm really saying is that if God knows if we believe that God is omniscient, knows everything and he knows what we will do, can we we cannot surprise him?

I mean, we cannot do anything in our lives other than what he already knows that we will do. So if he knows.

Now, let me stop right there before the explanation begins. Classical questions.

These are classical issues that theologians have wrestled with for time immemorial. I remember taking a class, a graduate class on the

Renaissance and reading Lorenzo Valla's work on this. And it was it was fascinating to read the this is this is pre -reformation and so on and so forth.

Nothing this isn't new, but what is new in the modern sense is a willingness to come up with all sorts of new theories.

And maybe it's not so much willingness, but just simply the fact that we don't really know a lot about what previous generations have said.

And so we come up with new stuff, not realizing, oh, you know what? Previous generations already went over this. And this theory

I'm coming up with has already been debunked. And I just don't know it. So I'm reinventing the wheel, basically, and especially the issue concerning God's knowledge.

And the real issue here is will we approach Christian theology from a human perspective or from a divine perspective?

Now, some people would say we can only approach it from a human perspective because that's who we are.

We have to be always the ones looking up. But our perspective is always that limited one of the human being.

Others would say, no, because we have divine revelation and the Holy Spirit that renews our minds, that that's not the case.

That, in fact, we need to be very careful that our theology always be based upon maintaining the centrality of the holiness and glory, the nature of God, and that it's

God's nature and God's self -revelation that is the hub of the wheel.

And all the other truths, including truths about ourselves, about our nature, about how we think, about how we are to act, about salvation and the church and God's purpose in this world, all of that are as the spokes of the wheel that come out from that central portion.

And if you don't have a solid hub, a wheel is not going to work very well.

Believe me, most folks have not had the experience of blowing a spoke on a wheel, on a bike.

I was a bike rider for a long time. I don't mean motorcycle there either. And you blow a spoke and that thing goes out of true instantly and your race is over pretty much, so on and so forth, because that balance is gone.

And if that central hub of the nature of God is not solid, and what is the one area of study in theology that sadly most evangelical lay people today don't focus on?

Well, let's think about, for just a moment, the biggest selling books over the past five years amongst

Christians. What have they been? The prayer of Jabez and the left behind series. Hello. That should tell you something immediately, that that's not where the focus is.

The focus isn't on the nature of God. The focus isn't on the attributes of God. Something tells me that Sharnach's study of the attributes of God has not been doing overly well in the sales department over against the prayer of Jabez and the prayer of Jabez for youth and the prayer of Jabez for women, the prayer of Jabez calendars and coffee mugs and all that stuff.

So, anyway, that's where the problem lies. And so the answer to this question is really going to be very much, yeah, purpose -driven life.

Sorry, someone should mention that. And that has a little bit more theology than the other two. The answer to this question is pretty much going to be determined by where you start.

If you start with a conviction that we need to hold firmly to what the

Bible says about who God is and that that's more important, that God's free will is more important than the creature, that God's glory is more important than man's glory, then you're going to answer in a certain way.

If you come from another perspective, you're going to answer differently. So let's interact with the response. But you're making a basic biblical and philosophical mistake here.

The fact that God knows what you are going to do does not of necessity mean that God causes what you're going to do or that you can't exercise you can accurately communicate what happened in the past with regards to, let's say, a neighbor.

The fact that that happened with regards to a neighbor or whatever it was does not mean that you caused it.

I think my recording that day was having some problems, and we missed the phrase libertarian free will there.

We've already responded to this in the past. Remember when we reviewed the program with George Bryson and in the months afterwards, we took the time to respond to the concept that thankfully, at least in this particular segment, wasn't used.

But the Sonny and Scher illustration that just because we know something happened in the past doesn't mean that we caused it.

Well, and we've pointed out that the only way that would even have even a slight relevance theologically or philosophically speaking is if God if God's knowledge is strictly analogous to our knowledge.

That is if God learns the way we learn and if God takes in knowledge of all of time the way we take in knowledge of time, that is experientially.

Outside of that paradigm, this entire response is neither biblical nor philosophically consistent.

And in fact, it has no grounding and makes no sense. God's knowledge of future events is basically being described here as a passive knowledge because that's what our knowledge of things we do not cause is.

Illustration. Over the past 24 hours, well, 48 hours, there's been this big thing about the ammunition stash in Iraq.

And the people on the left have been throwing this out there. And in fact,

I understand that one network, which has already completely destroyed its credibility through the use of fraudulent documents, was going to be airing this on election eve as a clear and obvious attempt to throw the election.

But we now know that those things were gone before U .S. forces arrived. That knowledge we take in doesn't mean that we stole the stuff.

Just because we take in knowledge that the weapons were removed from that place doesn't mean that we're the ones that took it.

We're just taking in passive knowledge. Well, what does this mean to God's decree? What does this mean to God's knowledge of future events?

In fact, to his own statement, his own statements concerning his own sovereignty, that he is the one who creates good and evil, that he is the one who does his purpose, that no one can withstand his hand, and so on and so forth.

And so the idea that is being promoted here, and the callers told, you made a biblical mistake.

He did not make a biblical mistake in any way, shape, or form. The biblical mistake is to try to parallel God's knowledge with man's knowledge.

Now, there are those in their tremendous desire to get around the sovereignty of God and establish the sovereignty of man will come up with such theories, but that's not a biblical position to take.

So in response to the first, there's no basis there at all. Now, God can look in both directions.

He can see and know with complete perfection not only what happened in the past, but what happens in the future.

That would have to mean, then, that God's decree does not determine. That means the shape of time is outside of God's control.

It is outside of his decree, and why, therefore, should he be glorified for what takes place in time if, in point of fact, he does not determine it?

But that does not necessitate biblically or philosophically an idea of theistic fatalism.

Theistic fatalism would be the historic doctrine of the sovereignty of God and of God's decree that is a part of the

Westminster Confession and a part of the London Baptist Confession, and hence is fundamental, part and parcel to the theology of Reformed Baptist churches and the conservative

Presbyterian churches. It's odd to see that. Very, very odd to see that.

Being utilized in the context of liberal Presbyterianism. Don't know how that works.

Never have figured that out. But anyway, we seem to be experiencing difficulties with our connection.

Apologize about that. Those of you listening by archive, doesn't bother you in the slightest, but those listening live have some issues there.

You haven't missed too much, but we will press on and continue with the quotation.

A fatalist believes the future regarding the destiny of an individual is fixed.

A theistic fatalist believes that a personal God unconditionally determines where individuals will go when they die.

Not just where individuals will go when they die, but the entire fabric of time for the purpose of his own glory.

And there are tremendous passages of scripture that I would submit to you cannot be understood outside of the decree of God at that point.

Now, do we always have access to a knowledge of the substance of that decree? No, we do not.

From our perspective, can there be a time when God's decree goes against the normal outworking of his law?

Yes, for example, God decrees the punishment of Israel through the use of foreign armies,

Isaiah chapter 10 is one of the classic passages here. Now, God's law said, you shall not commit idolatry, not worship other gods.

But Israel did, and it was God's decree to demonstrate his holiness to bring glory to himself through the punishment of Israel by Assyria.

Same thing with Egypt. God's law, even written in the heart, witnessed the Egyptians that they were committing idolatry, and yet it had been

God's purpose in creation itself to destroy the gods of Egypt through the people of Israel.

Outside of that, all you can do is either come up with open theism and a denial that God has knowledge of the future, or you have to come up with some kind of idea where God is, in essence, playing along with time, and it ends up turning out all right at the end, but how can he be glorified for it?

It wasn't his purpose that was being accomplished. It was man's purpose that was being accomplished, and God is just sort of limited to going along for the ride.

How can he be glorified for that? No one has ever been able to answer that question. Whether you go to heaven or hell, and that, of course, is the teaching of John Calvin.

Now, here we have one of Calvin's quotes, and it seems to be the favorite, because it has the famous doomed from the womb statement, and we'll listen to it in a moment.

I would just like to point out that even from this perspective being announced, when any person is born, since God has perfect knowledge of the future that cannot be falsified, that person is doomed from the womb.

Now, evidently, the reason that people want to hold this is they can say, yes, he's doomed from the womb.

There's nothing God can do to change that, which would make me wonder, why do you ever pray for anyone if God can't change this libertarianly free will?

But if that is the case, then from this perspective, people are doomed from the womb.

They're just not doomed to God's glory. They are not doomed justly in the sense that God's law is being fulfilled in them and His holiness is being fulfilled in them.

It's all based upon their free choices, but they're still doomed from the womb. So it seems that,

I know it's certainly on George Bryson's part, that the quotation of Calvin is meant to cause a certain level of dislike of Calvin and Calvinism.

But the fact of the matter is, unless you're going to deny to God knowledge of the future, then anyone who is born, when they are born, what's going to happen is already known to God.

The question is, is it purposeful because it's a part of God's decree, or is it just random because it's the result of creaturely freedom based upon ignorance and a rebellion

God cannot overcome? Though for some odd reason, though God knows He's going to fail, He keeps trying to overcome it and failing to overcome it throughout the person's life.

Evidently, that's supposed to be a better way of doing things. I do not understand how that's a better way of doing things and how that protects

God. I guess you say, well, he really tried hard, but he knew he was going to fail from the start. You know, that's where the open theist comes in.

Oh, but no, he didn't necessarily. That's why I say open theism is a more consistent form of Arminianism, it really is.

Calvin says, God not only foresaw the fall of the first man and in him the ruin of his posterity, but also at his own pleasure arranged it.

And he said, not all is life or death. So God arranges, says Calvin, all things by a sovereign counsel in such a way that individuals are born who are doomed from the womb to a certain death.

Now, I think going back to the passage that you mentioned, Romans chapter nine, we do not want to read that without using the proper interpretive key, which is we don't want to read that and use the key of our own presuppositions, but rather we want to use the key of the

Old Testament. That's quite true. Of course, I would say that a libertarian is the one who has his own presuppositions that are not biblically derived.

You cannot derive that kind of a position from the exegesis of the text of Scripture.

I mean, the constant witness to the text of Scripture is not to man's abilities, but to man's inabilities, not to God's limitations, but to God's sovereign power.

So it is very clear to me anyway that the presupposition of the heart of man is to limit

God's power and freedom and to exalt his own power and freedom. That's what men do.

You have to have an external source in the Bible for us to limit our own freedom and exalt

God's freedom. That's a completely different perspective. So, yes, we do need to use the Old Testament. And as I've pointed out, the

Old Testament background to Romans nine is primarily found, especially in the key section in Exodus 33.

I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy, I have compassion upon whom I have compassion. This comes from Exodus 33, where God freely reveals himself personally to Moses, but not to anyone else in the way he reveals himself to Moses.

There is freedom in God's action. By the way, the passage of Jacob and Esau that you alluded to is quoted from Malachi, not

Genesis. That's true. And again, that's a very common thing for people to say, see, this couldn't have been talking about Jacob and Esau as individuals because it comes from Malachi and Malachi is written long after they were dead.

As if Malachi's revelation could not go back to that particular passage, could not be relevant.

Yet he is talking about nations in Malachi. But what is the basis upon which he is talking about God's freedom in dealing with Jacob and Esau, but the way that God freely dealt with Jacob and Esau?

And it's Paul's interpretation of that passage to apply it to them personally. That never gets dealt with.

It's just sort of thrown out there like, oh, look at this. Well, yeah, but we've already looked at that.

If you, you know, not read Piper's book recently, or you just don't get any interaction with on that type of level.

Not only that, but when you look at the mercy that God shows, it is for those who believe the occasion for their salvation, for those who continue to rebel, it becomes the occasion for the hardening of their hearts.

Now there, in my opinion, is the example of a presupposition.

Even though you have in Exodus 4, you have in Exodus 7, the clear statement that God for his own purposes is going to harden

Pharaoh's heart before it even happens in Exodus 4, before that has even taken place. You have the purpose of God is going to be fulfilled.

God has a purpose in what he's doing. And the purpose is not the salvation of Pharaoh. We need to keep that in mind.

The purpose is not the salvation of Pharaoh. And so it is a presupposition to say, well,

God's mercy becomes the opportunity of hardening when it's not accepted, and so on and so forth.

Yeah, in our experience, every time you harden yourself against the mercy of God, and you reject the mercy of God, from our experience, that tends to make you all the harder.

But that's not the point that Paul is bringing up. That has nothing to do with the explanation.

You go back to Romans chapter 9. What's he talking about? He's explaining the freedom of God.

People say, look, Paul, if all this gospel is so wonderful, think of Romans 8, and nothing can separate us.

If that's all wonderful and this is all God's work, then what about Israel? And his statement is, look, the

Old Testament tells us not everyone who is descended from Abraham really is a Jew.

It's not all those who just are in national Israel that are Israel. There's always been this particularity.

There's always been this freedom on God's part. And the Jews have celebrated that.

The Jews didn't have any problem in seeing that God destroyed Egypt, but he saved Israel. But where they got lost that was because Israel deserved it rather than this was

God's free demonstration of his grace and his mercy, not based upon anything that man does.

So then he mercies whom he mercies and he hardens whom he hardens.

It's been God's freedom from the beginning. And the Jews knew that in their own history because they even celebrated it.

So now they can't then turn around and object to the reality of that being applied within the context of their own experience now in the gospel blessings.

Well, we didn't get a chance to finish that whole thing, but hopefully that will be of use to you as you speak to others who may hear that kind of explanation and as such misunderstand

Romans chapter nine, the message that is found there. Lord willing to Thursday afternoon, it's going to rain here and the phone lines go bad and hopefully well, you know.

So hopefully Thursday afternoon, four o 'clock our time, seven o 'clock Eastern Daylight Time.

That's going to change next week, but we're only on one time next week anyways, because the conference and debate be praying about that.

Thanks for listening today. God bless. See you later. We need a new reformation day.

One has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries. If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at AOMIN .org, that's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks.