April 15, 2004

from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. Oh, what an amazing 24 hours.

Oh man, I'll tell you, it's real easy to get cyber geeks all excited. You know what, it truly is.

Oh my. I'm just watching the channel, it is going nuts.

There's 55 people in the channel at the moment and it's just scrolling by so fast that it would be next to impossible to even begin to read the whole thing.

Well, welcome to the Dividing Line. I honestly, absolutely seriously was going to start off playing a section from Douglas Wilson from the 2002

AAPC Conference and I'm going to get to that because this program today is not, not, not going to be on eschatology, okay?

It's not going to do it. But obviously there is a question on everyone's mind today and there's many people who are truly wondering, what is the answer to the question?

Well, did anybody get it right? Use the force, James. Use the force.

Oh, there are many people trying to do that. There, they truly are. Hey, yesterday

I just got, well actually a week ago today we had a caller. Remember the caller on progressive dispensationalism?

I think that's what it was. And I almost got to the point of just saying to the person, well, you know, this is sort of my position, you know, and let's hold on, let's just wait a little while because, you know.

And so, just watching the channel here. For those of you not watching it, you're probably wondering why

I'm laughing but it is sort of funny to watch. Anyway, so I made the decision yesterday,

I was going to put a poll up, and we put a poll up on the MyFamily website. We have a

MyFamily website for our channel. It's not associated with the aomin .org. It's just for the regulars of the channel, people that we know and can trust and we can actually put pictures up and not immediately assume it's going to end up in Envoy Magazine, as it was.

And so we put a poll up. And what's interesting to me is no one has been watching the poll because I voted in the poll and no one's noticed it.

Now everybody's rushing off the website. We're going to crash the thing. And it ended up being 59%.

Here were the choices that I gave. I gave pre -trib, pre -mill, dispensational. Well, let me back up.

Let me back up here. I don't really get into eschatology a whole lot, okay?

But I've been looking at it, and I've had time to look at at least some things that I would have liked to look at.

And I'm going to talk a little bit about what I found to be the most convincing argument. And I put a bunch of options up on the website.

And I put pre -trib, pre -mill, dispensational. Mid -trib, pre -mill, dispensational. Post -trib, pre -mill, dispensational.

Historic, pre -mill, amillennial, post -millennial, non -reconstructionist, and post -millennial reconstructionist, which tells me immediately that if you understood all of that, then you've probably been doing too much reading in this area anyways.

And the people in the channel voted 59 % amillennial, 31 % historic, pre -mill.

We had one vote for post -mill non -reconstructionist, one vote for post -mill reconstructionist, and then we had

Wonky, Tim Dudek, that was just off on his own with pre -trib, pre -mill, dispensational.

If you look carefully, you can see that I voted in the poll myself.

And yes, yes, I have joined with the amillennialists. Amillennialists, yes, there it is, there's your...

...be asking yourself the question why.

Well, it's really simple, actually. A number of years ago,

I listened to a presentation on... Actually, it was a criticism, interestingly enough, of the reconstructionist position.

And in the process of the reconstruction criticism, there was an excellent presentation made on the issue of Jesus' eschatology.

And the presentation basically was focused on the fact that the best way to determine an eschatological viewpoint of the scriptures is not to start with the apocalyptic passages or the passages that are written in all these fashions and ways that are very much using types and symbols and things like that, but instead, go to the places where Jesus is teaching directly, he's teaching didactically, and determine what is said there, get some bearings there, and then look at the other passages.

And I was raised, I'll be very, very straightforward, my first book that I was ever given as eschatology was by J.

Dwight Pentecost. So I was raised pre -mill, pre -trib, dispensational.

And I really knew that very, very well. I mean, when you're reading J. Dwight Pentecost before you go to college in high school, that was, you know,

I took some time to look at it. And I remember very clearly sitting in a high school youth choir lock -in, this would have been the late 70s, answering questions about eschatology.

And I had my Bible open, it was pitch black. I had one, remember those tritium watches? You can't even get them anymore because they're radioactive, but I had one of those tritium watches.

And I was using the tritium watch to illuminate the pages.

And so, you know, I know that system very well. And then when I went to college, of course,

I ran to D .C. Martin, and Dr. Martin and I had a lot of discussions about eschatology. And that's when

I discovered that you could actually be a Christian and not a pre -trib, pre -mill dispensationalist, which was a bit of a shock.

What was that? That wasn't even me. A bunch of odd people.

Very, very strange people. Anyway. I'm packing up the ministry now. Oh, you're packing it up?

What is that sound? Oh, great. It's the gangbanger driving by outside.

I'm sitting here going, why is everything in my office shaking? It's because a guy in a little, teeny, tiny, worthless car is driving by outside shaking the windows.

The guy's got to be deaf by now. Why do people do that? Anyway, that is very much distracting me.

So anyhow, back to this presentation that I listened to. I recognized that much of the eschatology

I had been taught started on the wrong end of things. It started on the end of things where you basically start with your system and you start with certain interpretations of symbols and things like that.

And so, hey, when I heard this person saying, you really need to start with the clear things,

I found that to be very, very useful. And so what he did is he went through what

Jesus taught about the age, this current age and the age to come.

This current age and the age to come. And he went through a number of passages. You can see them in Matthew 13,

Mark 10, especially Luke 16, Luke 18, Luke 20, where you have

Jesus talking about, for example, in Luke 20, in the question that is asked of him concerning the resurrection.

Jesus said, Then the sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

And then you have the story of the wheat and the tares, which a lot of people misunderstand and think it's about the church.

Jesus himself said it wasn't about the church, that it was specifically when he interpreted it, it was about the world.

And it talks about the fact that the wheat and the tares grow up together and that you have this present age and the age to come.

And it's very consistent. When you look at what Jesus teaches in all the uses, it is very, very consistent as to this age and the age to come, not this age and then a seven -year break, or a three -and -a -half -year break, or whatever, all the rest of that stuff.

You have this age and the age to come. And there is a vast difference. And the other part to keep in mind is that when talking about the wheat and the tares growing together, there's nothing there about the wheat slowly getting rid of the tares or outgrowing the tares.

Or pushing all the tares out over time, as if there's not a very clear, distinct difference between the ages, between this current age and the age to come.

There's just two ages. And so as I listened to that, that really stuck with me. And as I've thought about some more, let's face it, there is one, the viewpoint that is the simplest, that has the least baggage and is, of course, the amillennial position.

And so there it is. I am not going to be taking phone calls today from every

Jerry B. Jenkins, Tim LaHaye fan who wants to argue.

I don't argue eschatology. And in fact, you know, I bet a lot of you have the same experience

I do. And that is people who are just constantly focused on the issue of eschatology, they tend to get really weird.

I mean, look at some of the people that are just, you know, the biggest names in eschatology, and they're all just odd.

You know, they're just, I don't know, there's not a whole lot of fun to be around. And so anyway, there you go.

Now people can stop asking you questions. I'm not going to argue about it on the phone. Jack Van Impey is on line one.

I don't think Jack Van Impey is on line one, at least I hope not. In fact,

I don't know if there's anybody to answer the phone because Rich said he was leaving. So, you know.

I've frozen the bank account. Oh yeah, like anybody, like the few, the pitiful couple dozen people that support this ministry are really concerned about this particular subject.

Like they're all sitting there assuming I was a pre -mill, pre -tribber or something, right? You're not?

You haven't been listening very closely, have you? Did I ever? No. Thanks.

Turn off the microphone now. Go away. All right. 877 -753 -3341.

Hank needs somebody to do that, you know. Do what? A little color commentary. A little color commentary? Yeah, a little

Jack. Oh, you mean on his program? Yeah, yeah. He could stand to lighten it up a little. Depends on what guests he has in the studio, actually.

Actually, I think when he has Max McLean on, it's very light and fluffy. Good old

Max. Or when, what was that? There was something like for three days a couple weeks ago that was like a software program.

I don't know. Sort of like, I don't know. Anyways, I really wasn't listening to that. But anyway, 877 -753 -3341.

I am going to do what I said I was going to do. This is what I was going to start, and I was going to drag you all along for a while, but the people on the channel were losing their minds.

It was very strange. I had to kick one person out, and he's normally a very solid type guy, too.

It's just sort of sad. And you've got one Roman Catholic in the channel that just throws out this comment that gets ignored by everybody.

He was telling us that we need to look to the church for this. And I'm like, yeah, well, as if the church really answers the tough questions like the nature of predestination, election, or things like that.

But we can be certain that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, but we really can't figure out this grace thing.

That's always seemed to me to be rather odd. Anyway, I did want to play a section for you from the 2002

AAPC. And the reason being,

I was listening, I was listening. When I was working out today, I was listening to this. And as most of you know, in November, there is going to be a debate in Los Angeles.

And the subject is on the Roman Catholics and the New Covenant. And, of course,

Douglas Wilson believes in the concept of the objectivity of the covenant via baptism.

And he gave a talk on the subject of heretics and the covenant.

And I was a little disappointed because I had heard most of what was in this before.

In other words, the stuff about, well, if you're a husband, then you can be an adulterous husband, but you're still a husband because you're in that covenant relationship and all the rest of that stuff.

And it wasn't until the last basically three and a half minutes of the talk that he finally got to the part that I wanted to hear.

And since it was obviously going so quickly, let me just play it for you, and then we'll have some comments afterwards.

So here's from the 2002 Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Conference, Doug Wilson in a talk called

Heretics and the Covenant. Let me just mention quickly some points of application.

In my mind, the three great sticky issues for us in North America today with regard to heresy are

Rome. What do you do with Roman Catholic baptism? What is the problem of Rome? What do we do about liberalism, mainstream liberalism?

And what do we do about openness theology, which is simply the resurgence of a particular form of liberalism within evangelical circles?

People who were baptized in Rome and come to your church,

I believe their baptism ought to be received. The same with the mainstream

PCUS church. Their baptism should be received. If Clark Pinnock baptized someone, and that person later on came to a more orthodox viewpoint and came to our church,

I would receive the baptism that Pinnock administered. Augustine made a helpful distinction between the validity of baptism and the efficacy of baptism.

The church has had to deal with baptism administered by heretics for many, many centuries. And what

Augustine said is that the baptism is valid, meaning it does not have to be repeated. But as long as the person is baptized and is in this heretical group, the baptism is valid but not efficacious.

The grace that is promised by means of the baptism is not operative because the baptism is a sign of judgment on him as long as he is continuing in this unfaithfulness.

If the person repents of that unfaithfulness and comes over to the orthodox church, or to use

Augustine's terms, the Catholic church, the old Catholic church, if he comes over to the orthodox body, then his valid baptism then becomes for him a means of grace.

And I think that we can... Now, having said that, I do believe that there's a cutoff point. You know, someone's going to say, what about Mormon baptism?

I would not receive Mormon baptism. Part of the reason I would not receive Mormon baptism is it was from an excommunicated body, self -excommunicated from the get -go that was trying to put as drastic a chasm as they could between themselves and the faithful.

With Rome, you've got a long history of periods of faithfulness and unfaithfulness, and there comes a time when

I think an ecumenical council of reformed churches, an ecumenical council, could at some point in the future make a judicial determination that at Trent and for centuries following,

Rome repudiated the gospel. And if we collectively made that judgment,

I would not have a problem with such a judgment. But I don't have the authority individually to do that by myself.

So in the meantime, I would receive Roman baptism, but it would be important that the heretical or false notions that people have about it be repudiated when the person is received into membership into an

Orthodox church. The same sort of thing with someone, a refugee from a liberal church. We should accept,

I believe we should accept refugees from all over, apostles from nowhere.

So I want to receive as many refugees from Rome as I can, but not apostles from Rome.

I want to receive refugees from liberalism, but not apostles from liberalism, and refugees from the openness movement, not apostles from the openness movement.

So when you receive these baptisms, you are saying judicially, in the older dispensation, if a

Jew was circumcised by a heretic, the fact that the heretic circumcised him, a heretical rabbi circumcised him, doesn't mean that he would have to be circumcised again.

He couldn't be. What you would say is that there's a repudiation when the person comes to an

Orthodox body. There is a repudiation of the former errors. So to receive it is not to say that you approve.

To receive it is not to say that you approve at all. And so what do we do?

When we are dealing with our brothers and sisters, there are many, there are open heresies,

I've mentioned some, and then there are the implicit heresies, the heresy of individualism in our own ranks, the heresy of just modern confusion in the modern evangelical ranks.

And what we need to do is take their baptism as a place that gives us, to change the image we've been speaking of baptism as a handle, consider their baptism as a place of traction.

And this is the concluding comment that I would make. Baptism means, if you receive baptism, then you are saying that that baptism that you received means what

Jesus Christ says it means, not what that group says it means, as I said before. That group might have a screwy view of baptism, might have a heretical view of baptism.

They might believe that baptism does things that the Bible doesn't say that baptism does. They may be all wrong on baptism.

But the baptism means what Christ says it means, not what the group administering it says that it means.

And so what you need to do when you're receiving refugees from these places, you need to be very clear what you're doing and what you're not doing when you receive them in the membership.

So there are the comments that were made at the very end. I felt like he was really rushing there.

You can tell I've been in that situation myself. I look at the clock.

I've got five minutes. I have ten minutes' worth of material. I can't stop right now, but I'm really not going to be able to cover this stuff the way

I'd like to. So recognizing that, still, what is being said, in essence, and I think this is what we really need to focus on.

Given certain presuppositions concerning the nature of baptism and the nature of the New Covenant, then what is being argued is as long as you have

Trinitarian baptism, and I got the feeling I could be wrong. I got the feeling that he's not overly certain as to how

Mormons baptize. Mormons don't baptize in the name of the Trinity. That may change, and then it would become very interesting what would happen at that point because I didn't really follow the argumentation as far as Mormonism was concerned there.

I mean, certainly Mormonism claimed to be the only true church and continues that claim, though modern

Mormons have redefined that in a tremendous way. But I didn't really follow what the point was there.

The real point would be Mormons do not baptize in a Trinitarian fashion. Roman Catholics do. So the point that I think we need to focus upon is the assertion that, the terminology was used, baptism is to be a point of traction.

And elsewhere in these talks, he had talked about calling these individuals to fidelity to their baptismal commitment.

Now what's interesting to me is, first of all, for many of these people, they would have been baptized as children.

And you then have the question of, well, whose baptismal commitment was it? Was it theirs or their parents?

They don't remember this. They did not make this decision themselves. They did not say they believed these things when they were baptized as a child, as an infant.

That would be the first question. How do you call someone to fidelity to the content of a sign that they themselves knew nothing about?

But more importantly than that, it was interesting, did you catch the statement, well, you should accept

Roman Catholic baptisms as valid. And you should accept liberal baptisms as valid.

And if Clark Pinnock, now not everybody here knows who, not everybody who listens to the program necessarily knows who

Clark Pinnock is. Clark Pinnock used to be a Calvinist. Many, many, many moons ago,

Clark Pinnock wrote some decent stuff on inerrancy and things like that. And then Clark Pinnock is the essential, in our generation, sadly, the essential picture of apostasy.

Of a not overly slow, but at least it wasn't so fast that it wasn't like a whiplash type thing.

You can follow the degradation over time. And Clark Pinnock, his theology began breaking down and now it is broken down at every point.

There's hardly any point any longer where there's much of a real, any semblance of orthodoxy left.

Open theism and post -mortem evangelization and all sorts of odd viewpoints along those lines.

But the reason that he's using that is that Douglas Wilson is very opposed to open theists.

And he's an open theist. He's written a book promoting that and inclusivism. And so he's saying, well, if Clark Pinnock baptized someone, well,

Clark Pinnock isn't a church. I found that a little bit odd. What he's saying is a denomination, a church that is open theist, that denies that God has exhaustive knowledge of future events.

Is that just simply what we're talking about? But Clark Pinnock is an individual. That's a different issue.

The question would be, would a person who believes what Clark Pinnock believes, know what the gospel is and would you bring them into your church?

In essence is the point there. But honestly, the question that I think we all have to struggle with is very simple.

Is there such a thing in the scriptures as Christian baptism without Christian faith in the

Christian gospel? Is there such a thing as Christian baptism?

Can Christian baptism exist in a vacuum utterly separated from the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Can it exist merely on the basis of the repetition of a phrase from Matthew chapter 28?

Just because you go in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the

Holy Spirit, does that make it Christian? Let me ask a parallel question.

The Christian confession that Paul mentions in scripture is

Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say, Jesus kurios, except by the

Holy Spirit. Alright, but are we not told in Matthew chapter 7 that there will be many who did in fact call

Jesus Christ Lord. And he will say, depart from me for I never knew you.

The repetition of words does not in and of itself accomplish anything.

It was just mentioned in Channel and this was exactly what Douglas Wilson said.

He said that Augustine in his fight against the

Donatists and in his fight against Cyprian's view of ex -opera operante sacramentalism said that the baptism of heretics was efficacious, what was valid but not, he denied the validity but said it was efficacious.

And if you then came into the Orthodox Church it would become efficacious.

Interesting development but the question is do we embrace Augustine's distinctions to the point where we in essence have to say that Christian baptism exists unto itself.

That it exists without any connection whatsoever to the gospel of Jesus Christ and that it can be administered not only without the gospel present but it can be administered for the specific purpose of denying the gospel of Jesus Christ.

That's the question. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

Jeremy and Larry have already gotten online. Your opportunities right now, we're going to take a break.

You can call in at 877 -753 -3341. We'll be right back. Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality.

Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the

Bible's teaching on the subject. Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including

Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans. Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law.

In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.

The Same Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at almen .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 almen .org.

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

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning

Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45. Evening services are at 6 .30

p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805

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

I always get caught singing that song, but hey, that's okay. Hey, was there some news that we're supposed to know about the cruise or something that I just got totally left out on and no one told me about?

Things like that? I don't think so. Oh, okay. You were on the phone and you said something about something.

Well, I have to fix Mike's e -mail address because his e -mail, well, confession of sin and all that,

Mike uses Outlook. Oh, man. And so we've worked with him and we've tried to see if he wouldn't repent of these things.

Well, you know he's come a long way, you guy. Yeah, but he's an Outlook user and it crashed on him today.

On his birthday? Yeah, born on April 15th of all things. Oh, man, that's a curse.

I'd just change it. I'd be born on the 14th or the 16th. Yeah, well, you could probably treat it like leap year.

Yeah, that would work. Poor Mike. Outlook has now crashed on him and he's going through withdrawals and has no idea when, if ever,

Outlook will recover. I had a gift certificate sent to him for his birthday today. Well, all

I can tell you is that he needs me to redirect the link to a Yahoo account of all places. Oh, good grief. Most of our spam filters will kill that.

Yeah, it just goes from bad to worse. We just don't know what to do with him. He's going to be at Hotmail pretty soon. Oh, that's really bad.

Okay, well. So we're doing our very best to try to come alongside him and all that.

We are modeling the church. The problem is he probably can't even hear this. Yeah, he's really doing great.

Of all people in the whole wide world, he cannot get real audio to work. Real player to work.

He's even on the phone with him and everything. That is incredible. You know it's something like his speakers aren't plugged in or something.

Realize it's something really basic. Turn to stop, unmute the wave. Yeah, well, there you go.

There it is. Phone lines are ringing. Okay, all right, bye. I'm sorry.

All right, while he's answering the phone there, let's see if he can multitask and talk with Jeremy in Atlanta.

Hi, Jeremy. He can't. Oh, Jeremy. Hello? Oh, there you are.

But not very good. Keep turning them up there, Mr. Pierce. Are you there now,

Jeremy? I'm here. All right, good. Yeah, you sound louder, too. I was listening to the show through the phone, and I was wishing they'd turn the volume up.

Well, you know, now we've told him that, so maybe. At the same time, I was praying you wouldn't come to me while I was finishing grocery shopping at the

Publix. Oh, okay, all right. That would have been quiet. Actually, I would have been proud to know.

I'd take my dividing line with me even to the grocery store. I want to change my question now to biblical prophecy, of course.

You opened the show with it. Now, I want to get to my question, but just real quick if I can, if you would allow me.

Have you heard of this new teaching coming out of Knox Theological Seminary with Dr.

Warren Gage and R. Fowler White on unlocking revelation by showing the parallels between the books of Joshua and the

Gospel of John and how they unlock the book of Revelation with the chiastic constructions and things like that?

Have you heard at all about that? Nope. Nope, I haven't heard a word. They're doing a conference on it.

I'm going to get some taste, but it should be, I don't know if you've heard of Dr. Warren Gage, but he's pretty good at that type of thing.

No, that would be new to me. It sounds like a good way to get a book published. Actually, I heard about it when

I was at the Ligonier conference this year. Ah, okay. They were down there promoting Knox Theological Seminary.

We don't want to knock Knox. Aside from that, I asked what

D. James Kennedy thought about it. He hasn't had time to take a look at it yet, really.

Right. Let me get to my question, though, before I get off on a biblical prophecy, a -mil, post -mil, or pre -mil position here.

I didn't say a -mil because that would be if I did it in a

British accent, it would be a -millennialism. I said a -millennialism because that's what

I like. It's probably British, and it's probably also like a

Georgia. That's a -mil. That's what we call it over here. Anyway, a -mil.

I don't know that eschatology has ever been more poorly discussed than it has been today, actually. Well, we'll just tune into Jack Vanity later.

Oh, there you go. Roxella should be able to get me all fixed up. Who's the guy that's changed his charts like at least four times?

That's pretty much everyone on TBN. 1

Timothy 1 .13. I want to get this out before I probably lose you on my cell phone, but 1

Timothy 1 .13, what if someone said, hey, this is probably problematic for the reform position?

And I assume what they mean is the fact that Paul says he obtained mercy and then because he did what he did in ignorance and unbelief.

How would you address the fact that someone said, this passage is problematic for the reform position?

I would say that they are taking a passage that talks about very clearly in the context the fact that Paul is addressing his apostleship and the mercy that's been shown to him in the position that he has and confusing that with the discussion of salvation.

It says, I thank Christ Jesus, our Lord, who has strengthened me because he considered me faithful, putting me into service.

Even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor, yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief and the grace of our

Lord was more than abundant and the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom

I am foremost of all. Yet for this reason I found mercy so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate his perfect patience as an example of those who would believe in him for eternal life.

Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. So it would be pretty amazing to try to turn this into saying, well, you deserve mercy or you obtain mercy based upon some people deserve mercy because what they're doing, they're doing in ignorance, whereas a person who does something in a high -handed fashion, they don't deserve mercy, as if mercy could be deserved.

All he's simply pointing out is that he is the chief of all sinners, yet he was shown mercy.

He does say he acted ignorantly in unbelief as far as the persecution that he undertook after the stoning of Stephen of the church, and that's reflected in the fact that when the

Lord met him on the road, he says, who are you, Lord? The Lord then reveals himself to him and he is changed, so on and so forth.

But still, the only point that he's making is that if God can turn someone like me around, then he can turn anyone around.

I am the foremost of all sinners, and therefore his mercy and his grace is all -powerful.

The idea that, well, that means that in every place else where Paul talks about the freeness of God's grace and the fact that it's not based upon any choice, and so on and so forth, that's just mixing context.

Well, I understand that because I don't personally believe that Paul is all of a sudden teaching a new doctrine here, but I mean, in verse 16,

I mean, it does appear that he is talking about salvation at some point in these passages. I mean, just after, maybe in verse 15, and then in verse 16, he says, howbeit for this cause

I obtain mercy. And I mean, if you think he's referring to the same cause he was talking about in verse 13, or is that from the immediate verse?

Well, no, he says in 16, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate his perfect patience.

So the point was that God had a purpose in being merciful to him and in converting him.

And of course, even to this day, we talk about an Apostle Paul -like experience, a situation where an individual who was just not a candidate at all from our perspective is literally knocked off his horse and converted, and God demonstrates a trophy of his grace and his mercy in that context.

But the idea that somehow God's mercy and grace is based on something in us, that is, well,

I was shown mercy, and that mercy came to me because I was ignorant.

Well, there's a lot of people in this world who have acted in ignorance, who have not been given mercy.

The point is, in his life, even though he had persecuted the church, even though he had been this individual who from the outside would have just been the last person you'd ever expect, even the

Apostles hid from him when he first came to Jerusalem, because even though they had walked the Lord and knew about his mercy and grace, they still hid from him, because they're like, whoa, come on, we're afraid of this guy, and so on and so forth.

So the mercy, what you're saying is, number one, the mercy he is speaking of is not of a salvific nature.

Well, no, I... And that's the verse 13. And then number two, the word because there is not like a cause and effect, that relationship,

I obtain mercy, you know. Well, no, I... The only reason I obtain mercy is only because I acted in unbelief.

It's just simply part of a sentence, and I'm simply saying that he does say, in verse 13, he was shown mercy in regards to the fact that he was...

God did not bring his judgment upon him as a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a violent aggressor against the church of Jesus Christ.

He says he acted ignorantly in unbelief when God showed... when Jesus Christ revealed himself to him, he did not continue in that, because the grace of our

Lord was more than abundant, the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. He was changed in his heart. And then he specifically says, in verse 16, that for this reason

I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate his perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in him for eternal life.

So he was being... He's saying, I'm being... I was being used as an example.

My conversion experience isn't like everybody else's conversion experience. I was in a situation where I was opposed to the gospel,

I was opposed to the church, but God showed his mercy, and if he can be merciful to me, then he can be merciful to anybody else.

And so, it's not... I'm not trying to say, well, there's nothing salvific here, because in verse 15 it obviously is, so on and so forth.

But the point that he's making is that he has been used as an example. Verse 16 says, so that in me as the foremost,

Jesus Christ might demonstrate his perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in him for eternal life.

And so, God chose to let Paul go that direction, and to experience what he experienced, so that in his salvation the example might be given.

Well, the way I kind of look at it is, you either have to take the position that you just discussed, or you take the extreme position and say,

Oh yeah, Paul now is teaching that God chose to save him only because he merited it about his ignorance and his unbelief.

And that would totally contradict everything else that he taught us at that point. Exactly. Okay, well, I absolutely appreciate you taking my call again.

Alrighty. God bless, Jeremy. Take care. Bye -bye. Let's talk with... Did you want me to change...

Oh, you want to go straight to David because he's calling from Singapore? Do you want to do that?

Yes. Oh, okay. It just takes a while. Alright, let's talk with David. Hi, David. Good morning,

Doctor. Good morning. Good morning. How are you? I'm very, very good. Yes, sir. How are you, sir? I'm doing well.

I'm not sure if I've missed your great eschatological statement. Did it happen at the start of the show? It did. It did.

What did I miss? Which way did you go? You went for left behind, didn't you? Well, actually, it didn't...

No one really cared. I mean, everybody in the channel fell asleep and no one really cared at all.

That's a shame. Well, I'm intently keen. I just missed the start of the show. Yes. Yes, we took a position and we swelled the ranks of the amillennialists.

The amillennialists, not the amillennialists. That's right. The amillennialists. That's a surprise millennialist, is it?

I've got two quick questions for you today. One is a bit silly at the end, but the first is a little bit more serious. I'm having an internet discussion with a chap about the whole predestination thing, and he has told me that he has...

He goes through a view called the Mollinism, which I've never even heard of. He calls it the middle knowledge Mollinism. Yes. I wonder if you've come across that before.

Yes, it's very, very popular. Ironically, it is held today almost totally by Protestants, even though it is the brainchild of a

Jesuit. Luis de Molina, which is why it's called Mollinism, was a Jesuit theologian who developed the concept of middle knowledge in direct obedience to Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the

Jesuits, who commanded his followers to find a way to, in essence, shortcut the preaching of the

Reformation on the sovereignty of God by maintaining the free will of man, and yet in such a way as to combat the

Reformation. So Molina developed over many years a philosophical concept of middle knowledge that's based upon the idea that God has knowledge of all possible universes.

And so what he does is he has perfect knowledge.

It's a special kind of knowledge called middle knowledge of what any free creature will do in any given situation, given any set of circumstances.

And so based upon this knowledge, he is able to construct a scenario where, in essence, he's micromanaging all circumstances.

They already knew what happened. Well, he micromanages so that he places free creatures in circumstances where they make the decisions that he wants them to make, but they make them freely.

And so it allegedly allows the person to believe both in the sovereignty of God, in that he's going to accomplish his final outcome, but also assert the free will of man.

Most open theists, for example, reject Molinism for the reason that it is a micromanaging system, and it really seems like a shell game.

I mean, what kind of freedom is it if God manipulates the circumstances to where, while you act freely, you will only act in the way that God, by middle knowledge, knows you're going to act?

Is that really libertarian freedom? And open theists would say, no, it is not.

Now, of course, the main problem with middle knowledge is that strange individuals like myself go, excuse me, but let me ask you a question.

Where did you get that from the Bible? And they didn't. It's a philosophical construct. There's no exegetical basis to it.

It's created ex nihilo, and then it's brought to the text. And I remember talking with someone only a few months ago, and I was asking about Acts 4 .27

.28, Genesis 50 .20, and I was told, well, I can understand that as being consistent with middle knowledge.

And I'm like, wait a minute, where does that say? Where does

Genesis 50 talk about middle knowledge? But for the philosophically minded individual, it doesn't have to.

This can be a construct that you come to on your own that maybe no one even understood until Louis de Molina came along, and so now we understand it better.

And so obviously the biggest proponent of middle knowledge or Molinism in the United States right now is

William Lane Craig. And this comes out very frequently in his debates with the atheists, and that's one of the reasons why, to be honest with you, when

I hear his debates with atheists, once theological issues come up, I just feel that he's got a real weak basis at that point, because he's not an exegete, and at that point he relies upon a philosophical construct that isn't biblical.

That's really useful. Do you mind if I ask you one more question? Sure. Far more important, on this great feast day of eschatology,

I'm just wondering if you're... The feast day of eschatology! See, you didn't have to start the

Dick Van Dyke thing. I was going to leave you well alone on that. I'm not... You started. You started.

Don't blame me now if this all goes bad. What I want to know is, are you aware of Blake's poem

Jerusalem? Jerusalem? I know the song Jerusalem. Jerusalem, Jerusalem...

No, no, no. And did those feet in ancient times walk upon England's green and pleasant land? Do you know that song?

No, no I don't. Oh, magnificent song, based on a complete nonsense that Jesus was brought to England when he was a young boy.

But in the second verse, Blake goes on to say, I will not cease from mental strife, nor shall my sword sleep in my hand.

For we have built Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land. And I want to know if you think the new Jerusalem will be in England.

I think there's strong evidence for that. And I want to know if that fits in with your new...

Ah, millennialism. You know, let's just put it this way. I think I could probably sell a lot of books if I said that, you know?

Especially over in England. Because I don't see a whole lot of good theology coming out of the

United Kingdom these days. So I might just sell, you know... Can I use your name as a recommendation?

You do that. It'll sell like hot cake if you use my name. Okay. All right.

Well, thank you, David. I'll look into that. Do take time to investigate that.

I think you're just missing it out of hand is what I'm thinking. All right. Thank you much. Take care. Bye. You know, you all have to give me a little bit of credit, because I really tried to fight using that for a while.

Oh, boy, look at that time. Let's get back to Larry really quickly. Hi, Larry. How you doing?

Doing pretty good. I've got a question based on... It's about baptism.

I've been a Christian for about four years, and the guy that was there when

I was first having, you know, a lot of questions about God and that sort of thing, he's the guy that kind of led me, you know, in the right direction.

And, of course, I know that God was actually just, you know, using him to get to me, of course.

But I've been talking to him over the past couple years about baptism, and he believes baptism, among other things, are essential for salvation.

And what I mean is that we're not saved by grace through faith alone, but he uses passages like Acts 238.

He'll use a passage out of Colossians, out of 1 Peter. He uses Paul's conversion to say, well, if Paul was, you know, saved without his baptism, why does

Ananias tell him to, you know, arise and be baptized, washing away his sins?

And I've tried to tell him that it's the, you know, there's a comma there, calling on the name of the Lord. Right.

I've been through all these passages over and over and over, trying to get him to the understanding that, you know, we're saved by grace through faith alone, apart from anything that we do, and that baptism is, you know, an act of our obedience, showing, you know, what has happened on the inside.

Where do you think I should go from here to help this guy? I understand that. Yeah, I understand.

You can't open someone's eyes to the fundamental issues of man's depravity.

And, in fact, there are folks on our channel that are dealing with someone who's a member of the Church of Christ right now as well.

And I'm not sure if this individual is, but that sounds very similar to their theology. And, really, it sounds like,

I'm not sure if you've read the little article on our website where I dealt with those passages and basically said it seems to me that the best way to approach this subject is from the recognition of man's total depravity, the nature of sin, the efficacious nature of the atonement, and to then really see these isolated passages that are separated from one another as exactly what they are.

But the fact of the matter is everybody who has experience in talking with someone who is convinced of these things, when you can go from a discussion of the high purposes of God and the atonement of Christ and eternal decree and all the rest of these things, and it keeps just almost thunking back to Acts 2 .38

as if just the repetition of the verse was enough, without dealing with what for means or anything like that, you're really not getting anywhere.

And until there is a conviction of sin and a conviction of the true dependence of that individual upon the sovereign grace of God, you're not going to get through to them.

And there comes a point where, to be honest with you, you have to start asking yourself the question, when am

I getting into the area of wasting time? When am I getting to the point where I've said everything that I need to say,

I'll have to allow the Lord to bring somebody else in this person's life because I've exhausted everything there is to say to this person.

And that's not an easy decision to make, but it is a decision that sometimes we do have to make, and I certainly have had to make it myself.

So look at our website if you haven't looked at that article, for the article on Baptismal Regeneration, it's in the

General Apologetics section. And if you already have looked at that, then it sounds to me like you've really been going the right direction all along, and it's just a matter of patience.

So thanks a lot for calling today. Everybody, thanks for calling in. And for all the folks on the channel for participating, we'll see you next week, next

Tuesday morning, 11 a .m. Mountain Standard Time, here on The Dividing Line. God bless.

...standing at the crossroads, can't let this moment slip away. We must contend for the faith our fathers fought for.

We need a new Reformation day. ...brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -0318, 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.