June 21, 2005

around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.

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

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

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

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

James White. And welcome to the Dividing Line on this,

I think it's Tuesday, isn't it? Yep, I think it's Tuesday. It's good to be back.

I feel wonderful. I just can't walk at the moment.

I've done something to my hip and it's not good. It's a bad thing. But when

I sit down, I'm fine. So I actually rode this morning. I rode my bike and rode real well.

Fastest speed I've had so far. Just getting off of it is sort of embarrassing.

Look at that guy. Wow, he's flying. Oh, he's stopping. Oh, wow, he's 97 years old.

That's what it looks like. It's pretty sad. Anyway, 877 -753 -3341.

I've got some clips to play here. And then we'll take your calls if there are any.

I don't see any little flashing lights as yet. Oh, thanks a lot, Centurion. I appreciate that.

It has nothing to do with that, actually. I just totally blew my left hip out. I'm not sure exactly how

I did it, but you know, it happens. And so we will get it fixed up and press on.

I may have to get my son out of bed early in the morning to, in essence, sort of shove the bike under me.

Just so I can keep going. I'm not going to give up.

I'm going to keep going. Oh, by the way, for those of you in other parts of the country, I just got back from the east and I was talking about the humidity back there.

It's just terrible. But what you don't have is what we had this morning.

There were places, it hit 113 .2 in my backyard yesterday afternoon, and there were a couple places in the valley that reported 117 yesterday.

The official, I think, was 114 or 112 or something like that. But very hot, headed for at least 110 today.

So the low in the morning, I got up early this morning, right as the sun was rising, you know, because when you're riding a bike, you don't want to be doing it in the middle of the day out here.

And it was still, the temperature while I rode today was 88. That was the low this morning in my house, was 88 degrees.

And once the humidity does hit, then you get the lows of 93, 94, even as high as 96 as your low temperature before the sun rises.

And I'll tell you something, then it gets a tad bit on the warm side riding one of those bikes. But that's, we're doing it again, and maybe

I'll tell you that later as to why we're doing that. But anyhow, I was, I have a recording here.

It is not a really good recording, all right? It's the best I've got, but especially the first, looking at the waveform here, the first 15 and a half minutes just stink.

That's just all there is to it. It's the only way to put it. I've run that 15 minutes through filters.

I've tried to take the pops out. I've amplified it 400%.

I've done everything I can possibly do to make it, it is listenable.

You can understand it. It's really good for about a minute, and then it just goes bleh. You can understand, you're gonna have to focus in on it.

My understanding is that this was a college Bible study, and Adrian Rogers, a well -known

Southern Baptist leader, was leading a college Bible study on Reformed Theology.

And once again, we encounter one of those situations where you have an individual who is obviously very intelligent, individual who in many areas, remember a few years ago, was it 2003?

I think it was 2003, Adrian Rogers was preaching through Romans, and he hit

Romans 9, and we took the time to listen to the sermons. We'd start and stop them, and we very fairly, and I think rather thoroughly, interacted with what he had to say.

And here is a further example of the fact that, in essence, in my experience, what happens is these type of gentlemen who go into the ministry, and I think this is endemic of many people, and it's maybe something we can learn from, maybe we can all learn something from this, but it seems that for many people, their theology freezes in place when they enter the ministry.

Theological growth, theological challenge, theological reading ends at the end of seminary, ends when you enter into the ministry.

And I think it's especially problematic amongst Southern Baptists because the fact that for so many of them, the emphasis is upon meeting these goals, the idea of the pastorate in many

Southern Baptist churches is the CEO, the chief executive officer who's in charge of this program and that program, and that's why you get a staff, we have a staff person in charge of this element and that element, and yada yada yada, and yet the pastor is still the, you know, the buck stops here, and so even if he has a music minister, he still is ultimately responsible for that, and all these things, and so I think part of the reason why there is this just stop in theological development is due to that.

And so you have people, they are taught a certain way of understanding things in seminary, and as a result, from that point on, and it doesn't matter how many times people respond to them, it doesn't matter how many times people challenge them to consider what they're saying, to consider biblical facts, historical facts, theological facts, tries to challenge them to, you know, think what this means in regards to the church, etc.

etc. etc. They don't listen. It's like no one is responding to them, or if they are, they're just doing the fingers -in -the -ear routine, la la la la la la,

I don't hear you, la la la la la la. I mean, it almost seems childish, but see, for many of them, their mind was made up a long time ago.

That's just it. They're not going in any way, shape, or form to be challenged.

They're not going to think about it, and it all boils down to, look,

I learned this in Bible college, that's it, and I'm sticking with it, and besides that, this

Calvinism stuff causes divisions, and then that's it, and there's no more discussion of it.

And so, we're going to be listening to what Adrian Rogers had to say, and, you know, as we normally do, starting, stopping, and responding, and pointing things out as we go along, and recognizing, once again, here's a situation where you have, you know, an individual who is, you know, we're not, quote -unquote, picking on him as, you know, like we haven't picked on others, like we haven't taken the time to listen to what others have said, but you have someone here who, quite honestly, should know better, should know, and at times gives evidence of at least having heard, but just, you know, it does get frustrating.

There's no two ways about it. That's how it is, but this is what's being taught, and when you hear the same arguments being presented over, and over, and over again, there is a reason why those arguments, even if they are bad arguments, keep resurfacing, and that's because they keep getting repeated by folks who are in a high -profile position, and yet do not feel like they're under any obligation to, in reality, respond in a proper fashion to the challenges against them.

So, we're going to do our best to try to make this sound good. You'll probably hear it varying some.

Like I said, about the first minute's fine, and then it goes blah -blah -blah -blah, and in fact, I just realized there's a section here that I didn't end up fixing.

In fact, on the fly, we're going to, there, now it's a little better than it was before.

Aren't waveforms wonderful? Isn't this amazing what you can do? This is gonna be fun to do over here.

Well, hey, how many times have I heard you say, I'm good, you know? And you've got a rack full of expensive electronic equipment in front of you.

So, today is the day the Lord humbles me once again. Is that what you're telling me?

Hmm, yeah, he's got a way of doing that fairly regularly, hasn't he? Yes, he does. Okay, anyways, here we go.

Let's start things off here, and see if we can make this understandable. Rob and Vicki, thank you for letting me come.

It's a good crowd tonight, and I'm grateful to be here, and a little nervous.

I'm not used to crowds like this, but it is, really, really,

I really do love you, and I want to apologize for not coming sooner, and I do want to come back real soon, because I'd like to talk about some other things other than Reformed theology, but we'll talk about that tonight.

Bellevue Baptist Church exists for the purpose of what? Magnifying Jesus through worship in the

Word. And then what? Moving believers in Jesus to maturity in ministry.

Then, last of all, making Jesus known to our neighbors and the nation.

So, that's what I want to talk to you a little bit, and my life's verse is, well, I wouldn't say my life's verse, but my life is wrapped up around a verse that you all know, and it's

Matthew chapter 28, beginning of verse 18, and Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,

All powers given unto me in heaven and in earth, go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the

Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever

I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world, and in the age of my life, since Jesus saved me as a teenage boy, has been to share the gospel...

It clears up in a second, hold on. Do I believe in Reformed theology? Well, am

I a Calvinist? I don't call myself a Calvinist, but I don't think that we have to call ourselves.

Let me stop it just there for a moment. It's, there's about a minute and a half here where it looks really foggy, and then it clears up, and what you're going to hear mainly is some of the background noise, but then there's going to be some popping.

Like I said, it's first 15 minutes, and after that, whoever it was, and boy, do we understand this, whoever it was that was recording went, uh -oh, oh,

I didn't have this right, and you can just sort of tell everything just sort of clears up. So, you do have to concentrate a little bit, but I can certainly understand what he's saying right now.

He's talking about, you know, using names of, you know, Armenian Calvinists. I am not sure, but it sounded to me like he said

Armenian rather than Arminian. I don't know if that's just the southern accent, or if that is a common error that is made, not knowing the difference between Armenian and Arminian, but anyway, that's where we are at the moment.

N -A -B -T -T -I -S -P, which means re -baptized. You want to baptize you by immersion after you're saved, those re -baptizers, those

Anabaptists, and then after a while, they dropped the prefix A -N -A, just said those old

Baptists, and it's really not a name the Baptists chose. It's sort of a nickname, kind of like calling a fat man

Skinny or a bald man Curly. It was just, uh, it was a name given in ridicule, but I'm not interested really in a name given to a theology or being called a

Calvinist or a Baptist or whatever. I am committed to what the Bible teaches, and I just, I, you know, if we have any

Baptist doctrine, we need to get rid of it, and if we have any Presbyterian doctrine or Methodist doctrine, we need to get rid of it.

We need to see what the Bible teaches and just zero in on the word of God.

And again, I don't have, you know, many people would criticize him for saying that, and I, I'm not comfortable with that type of statement.

I mean, if you're a Baptist, and you hold Baptist theology, it's because you've studied it, and you believe it is biblical.

If you're a Presbyterian, you hold a Presbyterian theology because you believe it's biblical. I, I guess what he's trying to say there, obviously, is that for everyone, sola scriptura, the scripture should be the final, infallible rule of faith in regards to what we believe.

No question about that, and at least, thankfully, we will get into some scripture passages in the discussion of, quote -unquote,

Calvinism here. I want to say at the outset, I believe in the sovereignty of God. A man doesn't believe in the sovereignty of God, he's a sheer fool.

And I believe not a blade of grass moves without God's permission. I believe he knows the name of every star, and he put them all there.

He is almighty. And again, every time we've listened to presentations over the past number of years, where we have responded to everyone from Norman Geisser to Dave Hunt to Herb Rivas, and all the individuals in between that we have listened to, they will all say this.

But the question is, do you apply, in a meaningful fashion, the end result of what your statement is?

If not, a blade of grass moves without God's knowledge.

Is that passive knowledge? Is that his sovereign knowledge? Is that his will that is involved there?

These are all the issues that really need to be addressed to really have any meaningful discussion here whatsoever.

I believe in coordination. I believe in predestination. I believe in calling. I believe in election.

I believe in all of that. Why do I believe that? Because I can read the Bible. Anybody who can read the

Bible has to believe all of that, because it's right there, black print on white paper. And you can just sit down and read that and have no difficulty with that.

But I want to talk to you about Calvinism in its extreme form and tell you why

I'm not a five -point Calvinist. Okay, now notice, there's first indication, Calvinism in its extreme form, why

I'm not a five -point Calvinist. So, what is a non -extreme form? Once again, the idea of redefining what

Calvinism is, so as to identify its natural form, or its full form, as what is extreme, because no one wants to be extreme.

Now, there are five points in historic extreme Calvinism. Some call it hyper -Calvinism.

There you go. First major error. Extreme Calvinism, hyper -Calvinism, five -point

Calvinism, all the same thing. If this is the first time you've heard us responding to someone like this, you're a little bit surprised.

We would be, quote -unquote, picking on somebody. We're not picking on anyone. We are looking for accurate representation.

And here's the first error we've heard many people make, and that is that five -point

Calvinism is hyper -Calvinism. That is untrue. That is a misrepresentation, and you can't possibly have seriously sat down with meaningful books.

And there are many, and I'm not referring to just my own. I know I've written a number of them, but R .C.

Sproul has written a bunch, and Boyce wrote a bunch, and you can go back and Spurgeon and all that. You can't have sat down with those works and seriously interacted with them at all and make that kind of a statement.

It's not just an error of mind, it is an error of tradition. This is what

I'm going to tell people, and I don't care how many times people correct me, I'm going to keep telling them this. Because they don't have the right to define this,

I'm going to call this hyper -Calvinism. It's just simply wrong. And there are five points.

You know they spell what to us? That's the little memory device, and the

T stands for total depravity. And that means we are just about as bad as we can get.

Total depravity. To be depraved means to be evil. The U stands for unconditional election.

Now let me stop with the total depravity. Nothing there about ability, nothing there about the entirety of man's being influenced, touched by sin.

And it's not that you're as bad as you can be. That's again, not the definition. That's just not an accurate identification of what the issue really is.

That is that salvation begins from the heart and mind of God, and it is without any conditions whatsoever.

God determines it. Unconditional election. God just sent we all.

Again, very very shallow. Yes, it's true, it's unconditional. Why is it unconditional?

Because there can be no fulfillment of a condition within the creature that can determine

God's actions. That means God's actions in time become determined by the actions of creatures in time.

And now you've got all sorts of problems with the eternality of God, the relationship of God to time, and all these other things that should be brought in, but aren't even mentioned.

The next thing is the L, which is limited atonement. And of course, one would like to think that someday you'd hear someone say, now of course, we limit the atonement as well.

We do not limit its scope. We do not limit its intention. We do not limit its purpose.

But we do limit its effect. That is that the atonement is limited and that it is only meant to make salvation a possibility, but it is not intended to save anyone.

That would be nice to hear. I am despairing after many years of ever hearing anyone that honest about the issue.

If you'll take the time, for example, to listen to the presentations

I make at the Phoenix Foreign Baptist Church and the Sunday School Lessons, when I present someone else's viewpoint or when

I know someone has a specific response to my own viewpoint, I do tell people exactly what is being said by other individuals.

I try to prepare my folks. I realize if I, for example, if I, this last

Sunday, was talking a little bit about John Dominick Crossan, the man that I'm debating in September, end of August, September, the debate in the

Cruz in Seattle. It's right there on the website. You need to take a look at that. If you've been holding things off, don't hold them off any longer.

I was trying to explain to folks, because a lot of folks just, you know, you see these guys on TV, they say these odd things, and you're left going, why in the world are they saying this, and you don't know why.

I was trying to explain, given that we were studying the Synoptic Gospels anyways in Sunday School, the relationship between the background material that I had provided when we had first started a number of years ago and what

Crossan and others are saying. I was trying to present his position as he presents it in one of the books that I was passing around letting people read or take a look at.

Now, if I just give one side, or if I grossly misrepresent, give a very, very shallow view, inaccurate view, a view that even

Crossan himself would not recognize of his perspective to my people,

I might be able to make myself look a lot better. In fact, I could probably prejudice their thinking to such a point they will never listen to what he has to say.

I could probably do that, but I would have to sacrifice my view of truth to do that. I would have to be dishonest.

And what's more, while I might be, through prejudice, protecting, from my perspective, a large portion of them by poisoning their minds against ever listening to what he or anyone like him would ever say, there's another percentage of individuals sitting in front of me who hear what

I have to say and they may well interact with a John Dominic Crossan or with someone who knows

John Dominic Crossan. And if I have given them an inaccurate representation, a false representation, am

I not so much more putting them in danger because they may go, well, wait a minute, you know,

White told me this, but now I sit down and I read his book, or now I sit down and I talk with this professor and that's not what he said.

Why couldn't he accurately represent what

Crossan was saying? Maybe there's something going on here. And it seems that the decision, whether it has been a purposeful decision or not, it seems that the decision of the large portion of Southern Baptist leaders has been, you know what?

We're going to lose a certain percentage to Calvinism. We are not going to view this as actually something that needs to be discussed.

We're not going to view it as something that is part of our own history. We're not going to put forth the best arguments here.

We don't want a dialogue taking place, and we've heard people like that. We're just going to view this as the enemy, and we are going to take our losses.

There's going to be a certain percentage of high school guys, especially, who are just going to insist on going and reading those books, and there's nothing we can do about it.

And so, you know what? We're not going to worry about accurately representing it. We're not going to worry about the fact that people are going to be able to document that we are attacking a straw man.

We're going to take the straw man perspective. We're going to attack the straw man, and we're going to play the percentages here.

The larger percentage of our congregations are going to hear this.

They're going to be poisoned in their mind against anyone who would even sound like they're saying this, and therefore, we're going to give up the percentage.

How else can it be interpreted? Maybe they haven't sat down in some room someplace and said, what are we going to do about Calvinism?

Well, I think we just go ahead and lose the 5 % and just go from there. Okay, that's what we'll do. I don't think that's really necessarily how it worked, but that seems to be how it works out in time.

That seems to be how it works out on a practical level, and this is how you see it working out in this type of presentation.

And then the I stands for irresistible grace. If God is going to save you, then nothing you do about it.

I mean, his Holy Spirit is going to zap you, and you're gone. His Holy Spirit is going to zap you.

Yeah, I start getting a little bit on the worked up side when I hear

Norman Geisler describing regeneration as being rewired, as being given a new brain.

The Holy Spirit zapping you. Yeah, I do find that highly offensive when you consider the glory of the subject that is being discussed.

We are talking about resurrection here. Did Jesus just zap Lazarus? Is that really how?

And you know what? I do not believe that Adrian Rogers would ever use that language in that context.

He wouldn't do it. He would never show disrespect for the Son of God in raising

Lazarus to life by saying Jesus zapped Lazarus. But when it comes to resurrection in the spiritual sense, to regeneration, well then we can mock it by using terms like you get zapped and there's nothing you can do about it.

And that bothers me too. That is irresistible.

There's no way that you can resist the Holy Spirit of God. And so if you're one of the elect, you're going to be saved.

If you're one of the elect, there's nothing you can do about that either. And here again,

I would love if they would be just so kind as to say, and you would never want it any other way.

If you are not one of the elect, you're a God -hater. God is constantly extending common grace to you.

God is giving you life. God is doing all these things and you hate him and you spit in his face and you use his gifts to your own selfish ends.

But they don't say that part because that wouldn't really help you make the presentation now, would it? And so that is irresistible grace.

And then the last is the perseverance. P stands for the perseverance of the saint.

Once you're saved, then you persevere and you go on to heaven. Of course, it would be nice if the right emphasis was there, which it rarely is.

And that is the reason you persevere is because it's a divine work. The faith that you have is the work of the

Holy Spirit within you as the result of regeneration. It's all a whole, but you don't want to tell people it's all one whole like that because then they start seeing how everything's related to one another and that doesn't help your presentation either.

Every road has two ditches. On the one side, I think it's hyper -Calvinism. On the other side, it's Armenianism. Armenians taught that.

So either way, you don't have to wreck the car on either road. You just stay on the road, which is viable.

Now I'll try to answer some questions. Why I am not regenerated.

Okay, so here you have his argumentation. I see people in the chat. The wind's blowing in there. Nope, just bad recording, folks.

We've still got about, looking at it, about seven and a half, eight minutes before it cleans up and it sounds just fine and we'll get there over time.

Until then, quit your whining. Anyways, here we have the great issue.

Issue that came up over and over again in the book, Debating Calvinism. Here's the big issue. What is the relationship of faith and repentance, faith and regeneration?

Can a spiritually dead person, you had the affirmation, every man's a sinner. Well, what does that mean?

What does the Bible say about, not the capacities of the unregenerate man, but the incapacities of the unregenerate man?

And has Dr. Rogers taken the time, and is he willing to take the time, to consider what is being said?

From the other side, the other side of the ditch, the hyper -Calvinist, haha, that is the regular, plain old

Calvinist. If you're expecting to hear some new insights there, I'm sorry, it's not going to happen.

I've just not heard that. Once I find it, I'll play it for you, but I don't get it. I don't hear it.

That's the way it is. Hey, I just realized it's 1131. That means we need to take a break and we'll continue on with Dr.

Rogers' examination of the five points of hyper -Calvinism.

Oh, goodness. When we come back, we'll be right back. August 27, 2005, at the

Sea -Tac Marriott, for an historic debate between Evangelical Christian apologist Dr. James R.

White and world -renowned Jesus Seminar co -founder and Bible skeptic Dr. John Dominic Crossan, as they debate a topic which every

Christian should be concerned about. Is the Bible true? Seating and tickets are limited, so call today, 877 -753 -3341 or visit

AOMIN .org to reserve your seat today. That's 877 -753 -3341 to be a part of this historic event that will illuminate the fault lines of faith between conservative and liberal

Christians alike. More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together.

They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements.

And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.

This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book,

The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture, the

Papacy, the Mass, Purgatory and Indulgences, and Marian doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the

Christian life and the heart of the Gospel itself that cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at AOMIN .org.

I just happen to think that if you're going to represent what other people believe, you might want to do so in an accurate way.

The sound quality will not be good for another seven minutes of the recording, which we may not even get to today because we do have some calls, but a call so far, which happens to be on the same subject, so that'll be good.

But we will continue on, press on. They say, well, a dead man cannot hear.

Actually, what's being said there was, can a dead man hear? Well, we're talking about spiritually here, we're talking about capacity and ability.

We're talking about the very, I mean, what a wonderful study it is to study the word hear in the

Gospel of John. Jesus said there were those who could not hear. In John chapter 6, why did the disciples walk away?

Because of the fact that Jesus had difficult words, and they said, who is able to hear?

Akuo them. Akuoin, the infinitive. Who is able to hear them?

It's a common phrase, so again, it amazes me that, especially in a college

Bible study, because in a college Bible study, you're going to have these young people who are inquisitive, they got some time on their hands, they might do some reading and go, wow, what he's presenting is very shallow.

It doesn't really represent the other side, and if it's that shallow, maybe, maybe for some reason, that shallowness is hiding something.

God came walking in the garden. God said, Adam, Adam. I really don't consider that an overly overwhelming refutation of the

Reformed position. Specifically, since God comes walking in the garden and says,

Adam, where are you? And Adam heard him, that means that Adam has had the ability to spiritually hear as a spiritually dead man.

Something tells me that that's not exactly the point of the discussion, but if you're expecting him to switch over now to an insightful discussion of John chapter 6 or something, that's not really going to happen.

The problem comes when we talk about death.

They say, well, what can a dead man do? What death is in the

Bible. For example, in Luke chapter 16, it talks about a rich man who died, and in hell he lived.

He was dead, but he was not annihilated. Again, you could read in 1

Timothy chapter 5, verse 6, and the Bible speaks there of a woman who, she's dead, but she can certainly hear.

Of course, up to this point, nothing that he said is relevant to any meaningful presentation of Reformed theology.

It is only relevant to a straw man. It is not relevant to the issue of can a spiritually dead person apprehend spiritual truths?

Can a spiritually dead person exercise saving faith? Can a spiritually dead person exercise repentance, things that are pleasing to God?

Can those who are spiritually dead do what is pleasing to God? Nothing relevant to that point so far, but again, remember, if you're in a college

Bible study, Adrian Rogers is your pastor, and he comes to teach that Bible. I've been in very, very, very, very, very large

Southern Baptist churches, and when the big guy, the guy that you almost never actually meet, you only see him when he's preaching, and when he's given the invitation and stuff, and you're sort of scared of him a little bit, when he comes to your college

Bible study, there aren't going to be many people standing up challenging what the guy's got to say, and he's now gone on for two minutes about how dead people can do things.

And so, you just sort of take it, well, that must prove that dead people can do these things. Death in the Bible is not annihilation.

Death in the Bible is not annihilation. Who said that it is? Why prove a point that's irrelevant to the actual issue?

How on earth could a dead man hear until he's first given life? Of course the dead can hear.

The dead can understand, and unsaved people can know truth. Can an unsaved person know truth?

Of course they can know truth. Can an unsaved person embrace and love truth, and obey truth, and change themselves from being a slave to a servant of truth, change themselves from being a hater of God to a lover of God?

Those are the real questions that, if we're really going to get anywhere, need to be addressed.

Turn to Romans chapter 1 for just a moment. Let's turn to this one. And look if we will in verse 19.

And if this gets too deep, and you say, what difference does this make? Well, just listen in.

Alright. Let's begin in verse 18. God speaks of His wrath. And it says,

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, this is Romans 1 18, against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

And the word here literally means that hold back the truth, or that smother the truth, or stifle the truth.

And he's right. Katakanton means to suppress. That's the better translation. To suppress the truth.

But what truth is it that they are suppressing? According to the context, is that truth about the existence of God that is a part of the created order.

That's what all men are involved in suppressing, is that they know that God exists. They know that they should honor

Him as God and give thanks. They refuse to do so. The result is idolatry. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them.

Now he's not talking here about regenerated people. He's talking about sheer, raw pagans.

God has shown it unto them for the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world are clearly seen.

These are dead people. These are dead people. He's talking about spiritually dead pagans. And has nothing to do, does it, with the embracing of the gospel message.

It has nothing to do with the clear statements that no man is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

That no man is able to hear the words of life. All the rest of these things. Now, how could

Adrian Rogers get the position Adrian Rogers is in without hearing these things, without knowing these things?

I don't know. The invisible things of Him, that is God's spiritual nature, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even

His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

Some hyper -Calvinists have gone so far as to say, well, man has to be regenerated before he can even believe, because if God didn't give him life what could a dead man do?

Now, again, if this is the first time you've heard this, first time someone's referred this to you, it is a misrepresentation, it is, and I don't know of any scholar anywhere that would substantiate his viewpoint on this right now, that's truly a scholar anyways, that knows anything about history, that it is hyper -Calvinism to believe these things.

The affirmation that regeneration is the sovereign act of God, that it is that which

God alone can do, that it is not the result of what men do, is not hyper -Calvinism, that's just simply

Calvinism. That's just all there is to it. So let's just play one little more section here, and then we'll start taking our phone calls.

We have two of them up right now, and actually, you know what? We're right at 11 minutes at this particular point in, and that makes for a very good stopping point.

And I'm just going to make, let's see, Rogers is 11 minutes in, and that way

I have a little note that tells me where we are. And so there's about three more minutes of the bad stuff, and just to prove that I'm not,

I'm not, bad stuff, the stuff is not clear. Just to prove to you, let me just play you something from about 19 minutes in.

There's a lot of ways to say what black print means on white paper. See? That sounds a whole lot better.

We all come in from the outside, and it's going to sound a whole lot, be a whole lot easier, and so on and so forth. So, we will do that, but since at least one of the calls we've got is on the subject of the program today, that's going to make it easier to stick with it.

So let's talk with Brian about John 644. Hi, Brian. Hello, Dr. White. How are you doing?

I'm good, thank you. How are you? Doing good. Good. Hey, I just wanted to call in and talk a little bit about your blog, today's blog, regarding Dr.

Lavender's argument on John 644. And I love the point that you make, that you had a sentence there, it's a common error of beginning

Greek students to think in rigid categories that do not allow for the fact that language is language. And I would like for you to comment regarding the subjective mood there on John 644, regarding the subjective mood used in John 316, regarding might not perish.

Well, actually, if you looked at Lavender's comments, he actually goes after, if I recall, Dan Wallace on that very issue, on that very clause.

I'm not sure if you followed it over there, but that's something that he went after Dan Wallace on, because Dan went over to that passage, well, not went over that, but he made the reference to the fact that you have the same type of situation here, where you have the use of the subjunctive, for example, in the

Hinnock Clause, which is a purpose or result clause. And as I've pointed out, rather fully, and I believe that Lavender has tried to do the same type of argument against me on what

I wrote to Dave Hunt in my open letter, anyone who can go to our website can look at the open letter that I wrote to Dave Hunt, and I went into John 3,

I discussed this issue, and that is that when you look at the phrase that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life, people look at that and they go, well, it's whosoever believes in him might not perish, but have eternal life, and so there is this doubtful affirmation, there is the possibility that some will, etc.,

etc., and that's not in any way, shape, or form what is being addressed. When you have a conditional sentence, when people study

First Year Greek, they're presented with these rigid categories of the indicative is stating this as a fact, the subjunctive is conditionals and doubtful affirmation.

Well, conditionals and doubtful affirmation are two separate things, but in First Year Greek, they're not going to be spending a lot of time hammering into the fact that, for example, third class conditional sentences can be used in a wide variety of ways, and some of those ways have nothing to do whatsoever with doubt, they have nothing whatsoever to do with hesitating affirmation, the sense of, well, maybe, maybe not,

I don't know, no, that is, again, a very basic error that people make in John chapter 3, the

Son is given in order that, and if the Son had not been given, if God's love had not resulted in the

Incarnation, then the entire rest of John 3 .16 from the Hinnah on, which is

Hinnah is normally translated in order that or that, and in the New American Standard, it's that whoever believes, from Hinnah on could not possibly exist.

In other words, it says in order that every believing one, everyone believing in Him should not perish, but the opposite of that, when you have a may and then

Allah, you have not this, but that. So, in order that everyone, every single one believing, eis auton, that is in the

Son that has been given, will not have this, but instead will have that. What will they not have?

They will not have destruction. They will not have perishing. They will not perish, but instead have eternal life.

That is why the Son was given, and the Son functions as providing that contrast between destruction and eternal life for only a particular group of people, and it's pas ha piscuon, everyone believing.

The one's believing. That's what it's all about. Now, the two verbs that follow

Hinnah are put in the subjunctive in John 3 .16, and that is to perish, and then to have, and then eternal life.

And so, if you're going to follow Lavender's very, very wrong understanding of the subjunctive, then you'd have to translate it.

All the ones believing in Him, I'm sure he'd use whosoever, all the ones believing in Him might not perish, but might have eternal life.

And the idea being, hmm, well, there might be some who won't perish. Even without believing in Him, and there might be some who believe in Him who do perish.

He would probably not want to say that. Exactamundo, but you see, that's the problem.

When your tradition is determining your exegesis, and even your Greek grammar, you don't want to be put in a position of having to consistently apply what you're coming up with there in John 6 over John chapter 3.

You may have noticed at the end of the blog article today, it says continue tomorrow. I raised that issue and point that issue out in the second half, which is already on the website, but it will post at 1 a .m.

Mountain Standard Time, because it was just too long to put in one thing, so I break it up, and that way it posts over two days, and that means you have to keep coming back to the blog to read it.

That's how it works. May I make one more observation? Regarding this,

I've just been doing a paper on John 644, and in it, I go to some degree into these third -class conditional sentences.

And I noticed that they're really if you go back to Mounce's and Wallace's grammar, both point out that there are two subdivisions.

Actually, Wallace calls it a fifth -class conditional, but Mounce puts them both as third -class conditionals, the first one being future more probable, and where basically in the antecedent or the protasis, the verbs in the subjective, and then there's what he calls the present general conditional, where you have the antecedent, where the verb is the subjective, and then the consequent, where the verb is in the present tense.

And that, Wallace says, is a general conditional that states an axiomatic general truth.

And I think even Wallace may say that this is what John 644 is. In other words, it does away completely with the idea of a might or a left uncertain idea here.

There's just absolutely nothing in the construction, and there is absolutely nothing in the context.

To be honest with you, the reason that I addressed Dr. Lavender's stuff

I mentioned at the beginning, people will come into channel they'll send me emails, they'll say, hey, have you seen this guy?

And I'll go, yeah, for a long time now, for many, many years, ever since I think

I first heard of him right after The Potter's Freedom came out, so we're looking right around four or five years about five years now, and I can tell by the way that it's being pointed out to me that for many people, they just look at this and they go wow, this guy's using

Greek. And that must mean it's true. How do you respond to this?

And it really bothers me, and I understand that. Look, if you've not had the opportunity to use the language, he's throwing all this stuff at you, and then he makes his conclusions and since you cannot evaluate all this stuff he's thrown out you're intimidated, whatever it is, you go, wow, there must be something to it when in reality, there's nothing to it at all.

I mean, to anybody who actually reads the language, you're sitting here going, dude, go on to second year, it'll get better I mean, that's what you're doing, and yet But wait a minute, isn't that what goes on in so many commentaries today?

If it's in print, and it's got Greek in it, then wow, the conclusions must be there, and that's why

I keep telling people look, you've got to use discernment, you've got to demythologize scholarship, you've got to recognize that just because someone throws out these terms and stuff, that doesn't mean, if they don't explain, and this is what

I try to do, it's not always easy to do, but if they don't explain the relationship between what they just threw out there, and what their conclusions are, then

I would suggest you need to be extremely skeptical, because that's where the rubber meets the road, that's where you demonstrate you actually know something about this language is if you can sit down with someone who doesn't know it, and explain why what you just said is relevant to how they are to understand it if they don't do that, and Lavender doesn't, then you should just simply go thank you very much, talk to you some other lifetime and move on from there.

You would say that the issue here for Lavender would be that his traditions are so clouding things that he doesn't see that or he makes these simple mistakes.

I don't know him personally I do know, however, that tradition can be so strong, absolutely so strong, that you can utilize your knowledge and if it's specialized knowledge, then you can even use your specialized knowledge and you can twist things.

I've told the story many many times about a very well -known theologian who wrote a commentary on Matthew and he made some comments about, in the

Beatitude, hungering and thirsting and he really made some applications that the fact of the matter is, you go into the language and you go into usage and it's just not there.

He went too far maybe it was just a devotional thing, whatever, and I had a minister come to me once at this very large church

I was referring to before he said, hey, I was just reading this guy and this really preaches, man this is good stuff, but I've never heard anyone else say this so I give the guy credit that he recognized, hmm,

I've never heard this before and so I've never heard it before and I've looked at some other commentaries and boy some pretty sharp folks didn't come up with this, hmm, let's check it out and so he came to me, he knew

I knew the language and said, hey, is there something to this? and so I took the time, this was back when

I was skinny and had hair but I took the time, I was, I'm not sure if I was in seminary at this point or whatever but I just checked it out,

I looked into the languages, I provided him with some other comments, I looked at the grammar, looked at the lexical stuff, and basically the conclusion was no, sorry, that's not you cannot substantiate the point that this person is making,

I'm sorry, it may preach good, but that's not what the text is really saying, there's too many holes with this and that's why nobody else is saying it.

Well, a few weeks later, he preached and he preached on that passage, and guess what he did?

He preached exactly what the commentary had said, despite the fact that I had pointed out, you can't defend it.

And after the service, we passed each other in the hallway and he just sort of looked down, he got this wry grin on his face and he said,

I know, I know, but it preaches so good. And you know, you just you put your hands up and go, you know, what that illustrates, you've got to determine what quote unquote preaches good means.

What does that mean? What's the application there? How do you determine that? Is it in the short run, in that you can get people all excited and you can get them to do what you want them to do at the invitation at the end, and you can get people to give some more money to the offering plate or get excited about stuff.

Is that what makes good preaching? And for many people, yeah. Even if it leaves those it's sort of like what

I was saying earlier, okay, there's a small percentage of people in this congregation who may check this out someday and you know what they may discover that this really isn't true and that may cause them a big problem, but you know what, 99 % of the people sitting in front of me are never going to do that.

They're never going to know the difference and so I'm going to go with what does the best for 99 rather than you silly people who are always going to be in small churches who are going to go for the audience of one and not play the percentages and you're going to preach what's actually true and accurate representation of what's in the text itself.

And you know what, that is really a dividing line today. Yeah, very good. That's a great point. That's really a dividing line today between churches.

And unfortunately, the numbers on the two sides of that dividing line are not at all equal.

Hey Brian, thanks for calling. Thank you, Dr. White. God bless you. God bless you. Thanks for listening. Thanks for everybody. Sorry, Ray, we'll get to you on a question about PC &D on Thursday if you want to call then.

Thursday evening, dividing line, 7 o 'clock Eastern Daylight Time, 4 o 'clock here where it'll be very warm.

It won't be quite as hot. What is it right now? It's only 102. That's not too bad. Heading for 110 today.

But anyways, that'll be 7 o 'clock Eastern Daylight Time. The dividing line. See you then. God bless. of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.