October 28, 2004

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

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

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

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

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

James White. And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line. I think our phones are still working even though it rained today, and so 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number for contacting the program today.

We are going to start off today, we had a request, someone came in the channel and was discussing back when we had provided a response, we've responded to Charles Stanley and and Dave Hunt, oh by the way, by the way,

David Cloud is back. I'm gonna try to throw this up in the blog real quick.

I leave early tomorrow morning for Peoria, Illinois, I'll be speaking on the five solas up there, information on the on the website.

And so I'm not gonna have, probably not gonna get a chance to continue the textual criticism discussion until at least once before the the debate and the cruise and stuff.

But I was forwarded a review of Debating Calvinism by David Cloud that came out yesterday.

And I just wanted to read some of this for you, just to give you an idea. David Cloud is the King James only fellow that runs the

O. Timothy thing, the whatever they call it thing, a way of life literature, that's what it is.

And we have tried numerous times, he does O. Timothy magazine, and we've tried numerous times to get him to debate, he likes to speak against Calvinism, and I guess he says he lives in Africa so he doesn't debate.

But of course we'd be more than happy since he's got to have some connections here in the

United States to do a debate with him. But anyway, he was speaking in,

I forget where it was, back in Pennsylvania, Ohio someplace, maybe St. Louis, I've forgotten now exactly where I was when he was going to be doing a thing on the subject of Calvinism.

And we had contacted him and, you know, how about doing a debate? Well if you're gonna be speaking against Calvinism and you're confident of your position, why don't you debate me?

So on and so forth, and they never did. So he's just come out with a review of debating Calvinism. It says debating

Calvinism, five points, two views, by Dave Hunt and James White, is a fascinating volume for those who are interested in this important issue.

This book is a follow -up to Dave Hunt's 2002 book, What Love Is This?, which in our opinion is a devastating blow to tulip

Calvinist theology. Subtitle, Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God, Hunt's book is available from The Berean Call.

I'm surprised that they've got it back in print again. They must be just sort of reprinting it at Kinko's or something, because it's not from a regular publisher.

At least it wasn't last time we checked. Anyway, going back to the thing here, James White wanted to debate

Hunt on this topic, and this new book is the result. Wrong. I still want to debate Dave Hunt on the topic, and Dave Hunt won't debate me on the topic.

But right now, scheduled for December 1st, we're supposed to be doing a radio program for one hour.

That's not a debate, but we'll do our best. James White wants to debate

Hunt on this topic, and this new book is the result. With the volume before me, I must say that White has more than met his match.

Hunt calmly, but enthusiastically, calmly? But enthusiastically answers every point that White makes, while White in his rebuttals to Hunt does a lot of huffing and puffing and dodging the issue and pretending that Hunt does not know what he is talking about.

But at the end of the day, he simply cannot refute Hunt's doctrine with the Scripture.

White's arguments are complicated, arcane, and scholarly, and lack the ring of that simplicity that is in Christ that we find in sound

Bible doctrine. Now listen to this. This is really, really interesting. White's statements are filled with things like compatibilism, monergism versus synergism, electing grace versus irresistible grace, effectual calling versus general calling, effective atonement versus hypothetical atonement, libertarian free will versus the bondage of the will, etc.

His theology is so complicated that he repeatedly claims that Hunt does not understand him, even though the man is of sound intelligence and has studied the topic diligently.

If Calvinist... I need more volume in my headphones. That's what more volume means is headphones. Can't hear myself.

Thank you. If Calvinist theology is that complicated, it is not the truth.

Instead, it is a matter... no. It is a matter... it is a form of arcane Gnosticism that only the rare individual can master.

So what I would like to do is... I would love getting a little bit better. I would love to... there you go.

We found the right button there. We're back on track. I would love to see David Cloud explain the relationship...

now it's getting too loud... explain the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the doctrine of the

Trinity without utilizing standard theological language. That's all there is to it.

I'd like to see that happen. So if you talk about compatibilism, if you have a name for your relationship between God's sovereignty and man's will, if you talk about monergism versus synergism, that is whether there is one force that brings about regeneration or two cooperating, things like that.

Electing gracers, if you use just standard historical terminology, that's arcane and scholarly.

Hunt's arguments, on the other hand, are knowledgeable and wise, but uncomplicated and faithful to the testimony of the

Scripture taken as a whole. I wonder... I wonder, you know, David Cloud's a King James Only guy.

Did he appreciate when Dave Hunt used the New World Translation rendering of Acts 13, 48 in What Love is

This, and then sort of like in a John Kerry flip -flop, took a different approach in debating

Calvinism? I didn't see anything about that. In fact, all he does is just simply quote

Dave Hunt's final denial from the book, and of course doesn't quote anything from me, for the rest of his alleged review.

That's the entirety of the review. Everything. Right there. That's it. He didn't discuss that.

You know, I would think that would be somewhat relevant. Well, anyway, David Cloud.

We've invited David Cloud to come on the program. We'll adjust our time to fit his. We can record it and do the presentations, and then have him on and have live calls and the whole nine yards, and, you know, if you're willing to go around and speak against Calvinism and speak in defense of King James Only -ism, come on,

Dr. Cloud! Let's... both sides together. Wouldn't that be a better way of doing things?

I think it would. Well, anyway, we had somebody come to the channel, talking about all the reviews we've done to various people and played

Dave Hunt and Charles Stanley and Adrian Rogers and so on and so forth, and they said,

I'd really love to hear you respond to Paige Patterson, and I had mentioned, I don't know,

January, February, I had downloaded... maybe it was after that, now that I think about it...

Yeah, it may have been as late as April, now that I'm thinking about it. I was teaching the second half of Systematic Theology, and I gave these

URLs to my class so they could listen to what Paige Patterson had to say. He spoke for three days in chapel at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and this is...

what I'm going to be playing is a section from that, and I had said at one point we were going to respond to it, and I don't know why we never did.

Various and sundry other things came up. It's just sort of how it works, and so we never did. And so I grabbed hold of the audio, and I was going to skip past this first part, but you know what?

I've decided not to, because I think it's relevant. Because sometimes, honestly, when

I listen to people who attack Reformed Theology, they attack the Doctrines of Grace.

It's just so obvious that they've never ever really considered anything that anyone's ever said about the subject.

It's just painfully clear that they don't know what they're talking about. But that can't be said here, and the way to demonstrate it can't be said here is to listen to a fairly lengthy section here, but since...

well, when you hear it, you'll see that there's no reason not to listen to it all. Here is Dr. Patterson.

I'm just going to sort of jump into it. Dr. Patterson, going through biblical passages that seem to teach

Calvinism. They seem to teach the sovereignty of God and a divine election, and the reason

I'm doing this is that once he then begins to disagree with these, it's very clear we're not in a situation where he hasn't listened.

He certainly knows what the passages are and doesn't seem to disagree with what they say, at least initially, and that makes it all the more serious,

I think. It's one thing when people are just ignorant, but Dr. Patterson isn't ignorant. He's giving...

in this first section, he's going to lay it out. So here's Paige Patterson from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

I should have looked at the exact date. This may even be as late as April, but it was sometime earlier this year. I actually watched the streaming video on the internet.

It may still be available out there. I'm just going to start to jump in here around five and a half minutes into the sermon, but listen as he presents these passages from Scripture.

"...then he also called, and whom he called, then he also justified, and whom he justified, then he also glorified.

What on earth shall we say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

He who did not spare his own son, but delivered him up freely for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Why, who will bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

Who shall condemn? It is Christ who died, furthermore is risen, and is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword, as it is written, for your sake we are killed all the day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Yet in all of these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our

Lord. What a wonderful pinnacle of God's truth for us today.

But unfortunately, as gorgeous as it is, it institutes a critical problem for us, because the scripture says,

Whom he foreknew, them he did predestine to be conformed to the image of his

Son. And so we are introduced to the biblical concept of predestination, or election, or foreordination, or whatever you call it.

For all the years of the history of the church, it has been a front -burner topic.

Nor is it true only of the church, for even in ancient Israel, as the

Old Testament text reveals, it was the subject of considerable talk and theory.

And so when we come to the New Testament, we move on through church history. We come to a pregnant moment when

Erasmus, that wonderful intellect of the church, is riding in favor of the freedom of the will, and over against him

Martin Luther, the flaming Augustinian monk from Wittenberg, plies his trade against Erasmus and writes his book on the will as it has been subdued by sin, and therefore not fully free.

And so the duel goes on and on. Indeed, as I have often noted, it is primarily the reason why you construct cafeterias on a campus such as this one.

It certainly cannot be to eat the food, although yours is far above average, it's still institutional food.

And so it can't be for that reason you build cafeterias for places for students to drink coffee and discuss

Calvinism. That's the whole purpose of the cafeteria on a seminary campus.

Well, we have discussed it and we've discussed it and nobody seems to have the ultimate answer to it.

Enough of that. The time has come to arrive at an answer of how it is that men are free, perhaps, and at the same time

God has chosen to elect us providentially to salvation. Or which of the two is it, anyway?

And is there any way to understand? Well, today we will present the problem in such a way that hopefully just the presentation of it will begin a resolution.

First of all, I want to present to you today on the screens behind me, salvation as election.

And I want you to see what the Bible clearly says, not in just one place, but in many places about election.

So we begin with John 6 .65. Would you throw that up there? Here we go. Here it is.

And he said, therefore I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by my father.

Nobody comes to the father, Jesus said. Nobody comes to him, he said, unless the father has granted it.

Look at Acts 13 .48. Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the

Lord and as many as have been appointed unto eternal life, believe.

Now who is it that believed? Those who were appointed unto eternal life.

Those who were not appointed to eternal life did not believe, obviously. Look at Romans 9 .15

-17, if you will. Here's what it says. For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whomever

I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.

So then it is not of him who will, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

For the scripture says to Pharaoh, for this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name may be declared unto all the earth.

Why does Pharaoh act like he acts? Why does he refuse the children of Israel exodus from the land?

Because God raised him up for that very purpose, that he could show his power as over against Pharaoh.

Well, continue on and look at Romans 9 .18 -21. Therefore he has mercy on whom he wills, and on whom he wills he hardens.

Whoa, wait a minute. You mean he has mercy on some and others he deliberately hardens?

That certainly seems to be what he's saying. You will say to me then, why does he still find fault?

Who has resisted his will? But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say unto him who formed it, why have you made me thus?

Does not the potter have power over the clay from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another for dishonor?

The scripture seems to be saying that God in his creating purpose created some men to save them, and he created other men to damn them, to condemn them.

In the one he shows the merciful side of his nature, and in the other he shows the justice of his nature.

And indeed that exactly is the point of Romans 9 .22 -23. What if God wanting to show his wrath and to make known his power endured with much longsuffering, the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he has prepared beforehand for glory.

Some vessels he prepared beforehand for glory, and he shows his mercy in what he does for them.

But others he has made known his power in his wrath against sin, and he has prepared them vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.

Well, look at Romans 11, verses 5 -7. Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace, and if by grace that it is no longer of work, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

But if it is of works, then it is no longer grace, otherwise work is no longer work.

What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks, but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Looks like a case of judicial blinding, doesn't it? And the elect have obtained his grace.

Well, look again at Ephesians 1, verses 4 -5. This passage

Paul says, just as he chose us in him, when? Before the casting down of the ages, before the foundation of the world, before you were even an afterthought in the mind of your father, before you were conceived in the womb, before the foundation of the world, he chose us in him that we should be holy and without blame before him in love, having predestined us unto adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will.

Well, look again in 2 Thessalonians 2 -13. But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the

Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the

Spirit and belief in his truth. Look again at 1 Peter 1, verses 1 and 2.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ to the pilgrims of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the

Father in the sanctification of the Spirit and for obedience in the spring to the blood of Christ.

Look again, John 12, 37 -40. But although he has done so many signs before them, they did not believe him, the word that Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled which he spoke,

Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed. Therefore, they could not believe, because Isaiah said again, he has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, and I should heal them.

And finally, just a brief passage from 1 Peter 2, 8, and Jude 4, he is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.

They stumble being disobedient to the word to which they were appointed.

And in Jude, for certain men have crept in unnoticed long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men who turned the grace of God into lewdness and denied the

Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. Why have

I taken you through the concordance? Because I wanted you to see that there is no conceivable question, but that in eternity past,

God acted in his elected providences to choose some to be saved.

If you are saved today, if you're a born again, regenerate individual, it is because God set himself upon you before you were ever conceived in the womb.

And he saved your soul as a result of that which he purposed to do in eternity past.

If you have never been saved, you need to worry about it. Maybe you are not one of the elect.

Maybe you've been deceiving yourself all these years and you're a church member, but you're not one of the elect.

And therefore you should be concerned about why nothing's happened up till now. Probably God never purposed to save you back in eternity past.

And hence, you have not been saved. The Bible could not be more clear.

It is as certain as it can be that everything I've just said is true.

If it were not for Matthew 10 .32, uh -oh, back to the concordance.

Here it goes. Matthew 10 .32, therefore, whoever confesses me before men, him will

I also confess before my father which is in heaven. Now, immediately, and we're going to go through, we're going to listen to some of these.

He's going to do the concordance thing. That means he's going in a canonical order. You'll notice that the passages that he read were in canonical order on the reformed side of things.

But we're going to be able to get a sense from the what is considered to be a contradictory position or a position that says something else.

We'll be able to determine just from that what the character of Dr.

Patterson's objections are. And immediately, as soon as you hear someone say, whosoever or whoever, you know that you've encountered the assumption that where you have the

Greek term pas or pan, you have everyone doing something, all the ones believing, such as in John chapter 3, which is frequently translated whoever.

It is a group without distinction that what is assumed by that is that if you have that phrase, it implies universal capacity or ability.

That is, outside of the decree of God, every person has the ability to confess that Jesus Christ is

Lord and be saved. Now, obviously, I believe that anyone who confesses

Jesus Christ as Lord, in the way that Jesus is talking about, has eternal life.

That is not even relevant to the issue of reformed theology, because we believe that.

And you say, well, how can you believe that if you believe that God elects some and he doesn't elect others?

Well, because we believe about God's sovereignty, we believe about man and sin, and the fact that the real question is, who is going to do these things?

Who is going to confess Christ and remain steadfast in that profession?

Who's going to do that? Who has the capacity? Who has the ability to do that? And even some of the passages that were already read address that very, very issue.

And so, if you don't just assume the concept of universal capacity and ability in the phrase whosoever, well, then obviously, in that particular context, you're not going to see this as being contradictory in any way, shape, or form to the previous passages that were already cited.

Well, surely that was just a slip of the tongue there on the part of our

Lord. Well, I don't know. Matthew 23, 37, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, one, the ones who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to her.

How often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

And how many times we've gone over Matthew 23, 37. In fact, I'm sure that we will hear all of the big three.

We know that the ones who are not willing were the Jewish leaders. We know that the ones who wanted to gather were their children.

This is referring to Jesus' ministry. And yes, at least he quoted it right and didn't skip the your children part.

But hey, I've heard R .C. Sproul miscite that one. So it's very, very common. But we've, of course, addressed that one many, many times before.

But you hear the direction in which these passages are being cited. And obviously, that there is a way of understanding them that is perfectly consistent with what came before isn't at the foremost of the discussion quite yet.

I was willing, you weren't willing. Well, John 1, 12 and 13.

But as many as received him. How many was that? As many as received him.

To them gave he the authority to become the children of God. To those who believe in his name, who are not born of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God.

Or John 1, 29. Now, we didn't get any discussion of that because verse 13 says they were not born of the will of man.

And it seemed that the assumption was whoever receives was again in this basis of that means everyone has that capacity rather than being descriptive of those who have been given that capacity, which would be consistent with the previous passages that had already been cited.

Now, you know, you know that if Dr. Patterson were addressing something such as the deity of Christ, and he was putting the passages, he starts off the passages to describe

Jesus Christ as God. And then he was going over passages that describe Jesus Christ as man, that he would put the two together, he would, he would exegetically seek to harmonize those passages.

And yet, at this particular point in time, you have these passages being presented, and there's clear ways of seeing them in harmony.

But we're going to see that what's going to end up happening is the passages that promote the freedom of God and his sovereignty are going to be unfortunately, very much compromised so as to maintain the sovereignty of man and the concept of the sovereignty of man's free will.

We'll continue with this after the break 877 -753 -3341. You may have a question that doesn't necessarily have to do with that.

That's all right. 877 -753 -3341. We'll be right back. A godly man, such a rarity today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

At the heart of the controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformation theology is the nature of justification itself.

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

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

Join Alpha and Omega Ministries as we embark on our first national conference and confront this very issue.

Justification the heart of the gospel with pastor and co -author of holy scripture the ground and pillar of our faith

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

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

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

Join us at the Los Angeles, California LAX Sheraton Ballroom on November 6, 2004 beginning at 8 45 a .m.

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

My understanding is that once again the magical voice inside the wall has an announcement so if now we interrupt this if you were hungry need to go pop popcorn this is the time to do it.

Okay. Very the support is just wonderful that I get around here

I tell you. Just want to remind folks that if you are planning on getting tickets pre -ordering tickets for the debate or the conference or both you need to do that by Sunday evening.

I think it's very fitting that we would you know put that deadline on Reformation Sunday which is this

Sunday October 31st. Is it? And we'll just mute him we don't really need him for this segment anyway and so I thought

I'd just bring everybody up to speed and remind you once again that if you are flying into LAX for the debate and conference you need to remember that the

Sheraton has 24 hour day 15 every 15 minutes shuttles that can pick you up and take you right to the

Sheraton from LAX and um say what?

Let's let's see how you you multitask bucko. I can multitask. Unicleman says

I'm on one of your phone lines. Oh he is he's right there. Oh hi Unicleman how are you? Mike? Hello?

Hey Mike. I think he went away. I'm good I'm good talking.

I think he's chicken. I think he's chicken. You probably gotta mute what you got. No no no.

No it says no I'm here he's here. Hello hello Mike. I think our phone lines went wonky.

No no no no wonky. He's right there all you have to do is all you have to do is speak up. You're supposed to be speaking up Unicleman.

All right anyway uh I love technology. Sunday Reformation Sunday is the deadline midnight we're going to be taking uh all the pre -order uh html code off the website.

Oh you're going to be knocking on Mittenberg's door and they're not going to open it for you. That's right that's right.

So so Mike do you have just nothing to say there? What what's up with that? Oh you know what?

What? I bet you he's been talking. I just hey Mike you there? I'm here. Hey. Who's fault?

Oh wait a minute I I've got to ask the question of Rich. His fault was that.

Okay well you know I I. Mike? Rich who was that? Well I.

Was it what I said? It was what I said wasn't it? I borrowed some parts from the from the soundboard to uh take to LA next week.

And you didn't change the settings on the setup so it kind of looks like can't be heard.

You can hear now. Oh hello. Oh in fact someone's calling my phone now let's see who that is.

Hey let me while you guys talk I'll talk to whoever's on the phone. Okay we'll just mute James and we'll take over.

Hi so what were you gonna say Mike? Let me just add on to what uh what uh you were just saying there folks if you have not uh made arrangements yet to come out to the uh the first 2004 yeah well the first Alpha Omega National Conference and the debate with uh with Doug Wilson.

Folks this is something you want to make sure you take advantage of. Uh apparently there's still a hotel link up on our website is that correct?

Yeah in fact I tried it the other day and it still comes up with $89. Yeah so you might want if you need a place to stay and you can get your tickets for free you might still want to take advantage of that if if uh if you can.

Um folks this is going to be a great time uh the facilities are fantastic it's a chance to meet

Dr. White and a lot of our other speakers Phil Johnson um get a chance to get up and shake Doug Wilson's hand you know it's going to be fantastic.

And we have special speakers from coming all the way from London eh? We do?

London? Yeah right here. Oh goodness. Okay um I think

I'll sign off now. We're being serious there for a moment and well he came back. Yeah okay.

Well we had the guys yelling in his phone I'm here I'm here can't you hear me?

Well thanks for having fun at my expense guys. Always always pleased to do that. See you next week

Mike. Okay bye. Okay so that announcement is over with.

Oh it was over when it started actually. Okay all righty then well the program shows back.

It shows back on and and the bike den called me too that's uh I'm not sure what that means but I'll have to call them back.

So uh and we probably don't have any other callers do we? Uh not not currently. Not currently? Not currently.

Uh you know you get on a roll and nobody wants to interrupt you. Uh I'm not on a roll I'm just playing just playing a little stuff here but that's interesting.

Okay well we return until until we are delivered from from that uh to listening to uh

Paige Patterson's uh sermon. Uh there are three parts at the uh

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary on the subject of Calvinism and basically what we're getting here of course is the alleged two sets of passages that teach two different things but as we go through them we discover that they're not teaching two different things.

Uh that if the the two perspectives would be allowed to both speak we could see that these passages that are being cited do not in point of fact um in any way impact a proper understanding of God's sovereignty and and all the things that were a part of the passages that were read in the initial presentation.

So we continue with that. Jesus coming toward him and he said there he is look behold the

Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the elect. Now is right who takes away the sin of the world.

Now immediately you can tell we didn't hear any type of mockery in essence in the reading of the first set of of texts but you can already tell where the speaker is going to be coming down uh when the you have this kind of uh takes away the sin of the elect.

Well yes he does take away the sin of the elect but the word is world and in the context in which

John would be speaking uh his hearers would understand what he's referring to. These are Jewish individuals and they would understand world to mean that the gospel is going to go beyond the

Jews but at the same time as Jews they would recognize that when the Old Testament sacrifices were offered they were not for every single individual when the when the sacrifice was offered on the altar it wasn't for the

Egyptians unless that Egyptian draw drew near unto God and so this this this you know substituting words trying to make a point yeah it's common people on both sides you know do that I understand that but it does give us an indication of where he's going to be going and we see there is nothing in the passage that would force us to believe that Jesus Christ dies ineffectually that he tries to save individuals he wants to die for individuals he wants to substitutionarily atone for individuals and he does so but his sacrifice is in vain unless they add something to his work and there's nothing in the passage in John 1 29 that would say that John 3 15 16 16 for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have life everlasting well nothing new about that one there we have the whosoever error the assumption of the fact that if all the ones believing receive eternal life then everyone has the ability to do that and we've addressed that one many many times again if you're looking for a written place that's addressed in in debating

Calvinism if on the website my open letter to to Dave Hunt actually goes into more detail on that particular subject but it's the same whosoever error notice that there's in each one of these it is the assumption that a particular term or phrase has a particular meaning now here's an individual who knows the

Greek language and yet obviously does not necessarily address that in that particular context look at act 17 30 truly the times of this ignorance god winked at or overlooked but now he commands all men everywhere to repent how can you command someone to repent and be sincere about it if they cannot repent because they were not one of the elect and here you have the further argument that is very very popular on other radio programs that a commandment implies ability so when when

Jesus says be perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect and that means we have the ability to be perfect the idea being that if that in essence

God's law could not be announced to imperfect people unless God then likewise enabled them to keep all that law as if God is under some obligation to remove the very decrepit situation the very depravity the very inability that flows from man's sin this is part and parcel of Arminian thinking that somehow to be truly fair God has to extend grace to every single individual to at least get them back to what might be called a moral neutral point the idea that we could be fallen in Adam the idea that we could have have a depraved nature that is incapable of coming to Christ John 644 which was actually 665 was read earlier but John 644 says that in that in that context that that just simply isn't a possibility within this system and that's how you people hear people saying well if you want to have true freedom you've got to have libertarian free will if you and if if God's to be fair then he's got to extend this kind of grace and and these type of things are repeated over and over again when the text does not substantiate the argumentations being made or acts 18 4 and he reasoned in the synagogue every

Sabbath and persuaded both Jews and Greeks why do you need to persuade anybody because of course it is the will of God to utilize the preached word to be the means by which the elect are drawn to Christ it is our privilege to be able to persuade men it is our privilege to be able to proclaim the gospel message to men it is not that God is limited to that but that God has chosen to utilize that another example of where category errors take place in the common objections that are raised against reform theology if they are elect they are irresistibly going to be saved is that not correct no it's not correct because of course while they will be saved the irresistible term is normally used of the grace of God that brings regeneration and the means that God chooses to use that is to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and so we see now here misrepresentation coming in misrepresentation that to me seems extremely unusual in light of the passages that were read before unless it was just simply gathering those passages and not taking the time to read those passages consider those passages and understand how people have understood those passages down through history at all is not irresistible grace that doctrine that says once they're elect they're going to come to Christ somewhere no that's not what irresistible grace means irresistible grace flows from the doctrine that was just described which is the divine electing grace of God that God has chosen a certain elect people their number is fixed their identity is known and that at his point in the irresistible grace part is it is his point in his choice at the time when

God chooses to enter into their life he does so and he does so irresistibly the grace that brings regeneration cannot be resisted by the dead sinner it brings spiritual life that's what it's all about and here again we have it it's it's odd that in a seminary context you would have this level of misrepresentation of the other side would you have this kind of misrepresentation i would have to ask if this was a debate over inspiration or inerrancy would you have this level of misrepresentation if this was a debate over something such as the trinity or the deity of christ or the resurrection i would hope not i would hope that that that what you should have in this context is fair representation of the other side you need to respond to the strongest the other side offers not to the weakest of the side offers i mean sometimes you end up having to deal with the weakest all the time but in a seminary context uh that that is what we should expect but it's it's not what we are getting at this particular point in time why would you be out there trying to persuade them romans 9 33 why would you be out there before we listen to romans 9 33 why would you be out there trying to persuade them if you're if you're reformed to the glory of god because god has has placed within your heart a desire to uh as paul put it to you feel you've been set for the defense of the gospel and you recognize that god is glorified when his truth is proclaimed and because he places love within your heart and so just as the psalmist shed streams of water from his eyes when he saw those who would not keep god's law in the very same way uh we have a it it is impossible for us to love god's truth without seeking to share it with others without seeking to proclaim it to others without seeking to bring it defense and and uh without seeing to persuade people of its of its truthfulness and so there is nothing inconsistent whatsoever though it's very clear that dr patterson believes there is uh a a uh inconsistency in believing these things and in believing what the scripture is saying and believing in reformed theology and i don't know how he could believe that if he sat down for any period of time with a person who really does know reformed theology and would be able to explain those things that that's what's always left me a little bit confused is hasn't anyone you know ever listened to the other side at that point that's that's that's what leaves me confused as it is written the old eye lay in zion a stumbling block and a rock of offense and whosoever believes on him so will not be put to shame or romans 10 what well again uh whosoever it's the whosoever error there's there's no question about the fact that whosoever believes in him shall not be ashamed that does not address the the very context of romans 9 33 uh that demonstrates that that the whosoever does not include uh this this universal capacity does that include pharaoh did that include pharaoh who is hardened by god to accomplish his purposes uh if if it did i i mean that's that's that's extremely odd uh that would completely destroy paul's entire entire point what is this stone of stumbling and rock of offense why would god have that there if there is this this universal salvific uh intention uh none of this makes any sense to to interpret these passages in the pat in the way that they're being uh being interpreted uh well uh earlier we made reference to matthew chapter 23 verse 37 which is one of what's what we call the big three around here the reason i call it that is when i wrote the potter's freedom responding to dr norman geisler i i added up the number of times that matthew 23 37 uh second peter 3 9 and and uh first timothy 2 4 were cited either alone or in conjunction with uh themselves and uh discovered that there would have been very little argumentation uh biblically from dr geisler's perspective in chosen but free if he had not had a continuous reference to those passages and yet he never offered a meaningful interpretation a meaningful exegesis the passage it certainly never addressed the alternate interpretations of like matthew 23 37 he did touch a little bit on some alternative translations or understanding of first timothy 2 4 but not second peter 3 9 and so uh we call them the big three because they're the ones that are repeated repeatedly matthew 23 37 numeric standard says jerusalem jerusalem who kills the prophets and stones those who are center how often i want to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks on her wings and you were unwilling the problem is that when the passage is cited out of its context it is rarely seen to be the very end of a lengthy section of judgment upon the scribes and pharisees woe to you woe to you and in fact uh matthew 23 37 is very very similar uh in its content and context to matthew 23 13 but woe to you scribes and pharisees hypocrites because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people for you to not enter in yourselves nor do you allow those who are entering to go in notice again you have two different groups of people who are in view here and the pharisees are not only themselves unwilling to enter into the kingdom they are in rebellion against god but they are actively involved in seeking to keep others from entering into the relationship that christ is describing here verse 15 woe to you scribes and pharisees hypocrites because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte and then he becomes when he becomes one you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves and so this is the lengthy diatribe and that's used in a proper sense there in a technical sense on the part of lord jesus regarding uh matthew 23 37 so with that in mind uh we have our our good friend pierre calling and has a question about matthew chapter 23 verse 37 hi pierre hi how are you i am well i had some questions about your view uh because you had asked me once before my view on it and i wanted to understand uh your on on what matthew 23 uh yes uh to you who who is jerusalem well in the context here he's talking to the uh uh the jewish leaders you see the jewish leaders as being jerusalem uh certainly i mean who who killed the prophets and stoned those who were sent to her it wasn't the uh it wasn't some farmer uh out in the plain someplace it was uh the jewish leaders and and the scribes and the pharisees and and here you have the same context when it says how often i want to gather your children together well who are who are the children of jerusalem if jerusalem itself being addressed here is not the jewish leaders uh the very same people we see for example opposing jeremiah uh the jewish kings uh the and now no no jewish kings left and so who has the leadership in jerusalem at this time it's the scribes and pharisees and those who are well again this is the very end of an entire section says woe to you scribes and pharisees i mean that's that's the context all the way through matthew chapter 23 isn't it it is if it isn't jewish leaders then why a sudden complete change in topic well it's not really a change in topic but can i just uh uh cite uh also that the fact that this same passage is contained in i'm sorry in luke uh chapter 13 verse 34 without all the preceding diatribe of which you spoke so he's making the same statement in a totally different context clearly he is not referring to the jewish leaders he in jerusalem is simply a symbolic of the nation israel the children are the people of israel uh who has a general rule uh who has a in general have rejected the prophets and while they may not have personally killed them individually i'm sure that they they like paul gave consent to doing this if not outright certainly by their rejection of the prophet well actually i don't know that uh that uh matthew luke 13 34 is the exact same uh jesus said the same things more than once okay and it's very clear that in matthew chapter 23 he says this as a part of judge the judgment upon the scribes and the pharisees now in luke chapter 13 you have actually a somewhat different uh context and uh there's question as to which one matthew or luke is is following the chronology and things like that but uh the point is that verse 34 in luke 13 is followed by verse 35 behold your house has left you desolate and i say to you will not see me until the time comes you say blessed is he who comes in the name lord the point is both of them are in judgment context these are neither one of these passages uh are really worthwhile bringing into the issue does man have the capacity in an unregenerate state uh to resist the grace of god that brings uh regeneration to the elect has nothing to do with it whatsoever uh and it is a reading into it of some outside concept that says oh see look uh here jesus says that he wanted to uh save all the israelites that's all it says here here jesus says he wanted to do something and he couldn't do it because they resisted and therefore uh you don't have irresistible grace well irresistible grace isn't even talking about that irresistible grace is talking about a completely different subject so in either context you you don't have what the common usage of these passages is now honestly i don't i don't seem i don't recall i haven't looked i don't is this this passage doesn't end up being cited in uh third nephi or anything like that right actually it is it is okay i check with his third nephi but it's definitely in the book of mormons yeah okay i but i don't remember the application that is made of it do you uh not right off the bat and i'll top my head clearly in there and it's probably in a different context from does it say jerusalem jerusalem there too and i also ask another question about this um to me it doesn't make any sense listening to your explanation of this passage in light of a god who uh uh is all intelligent why would he be um upset about the fact that um the uh these people would be rejecting him if they he knows that they have no capacity to do otherwise it doesn't make any sense that an intelligent being would get all himself all upset and that um somebody is doing precisely what he set him out to do i can i can certainly understand again given the fact that you have an anthropomorphic god and your god is is an exalted man no no no i i know that that's that that's the answer that that's where you're wrong is that uh you talk you talk about intelligent being and you're talking about that in the context of a non -sovereign non -eternal exalted man i mean you you can't take that out of the out of the context here because when i give you my answer my answer i already mentioned it before uh god has given his law and yet it was also god's purpose that for example christ die upon a cross well isn't that against his law when jesus christ knew he was going to raise lazarus from the dead he knew he had the power he knew what's going to happen he knew what the purpose was he still cried did he not it says jesus wept didn't he that that was just a big play wasn't it yeah well even from your perspective uh jesus is an intelligent being he knew what he was going to do there wasn't a question to be able to accomplish it yet he wept tell me why he wept well see i have a different perspective on why he wept i don't think he was weeping for the death of lazarus is that what i don't i don't think he was either but why was he weeping he was weeping because of the lack of faith that these people had okay lack of faith about the presence of death and things like that i think he was weeping for their if you will ignorance about things weeping he himself knew what he was doing this whole thing in my opinion was was planned he deliberately delayed his coming to lazarus that lazarus would die yep yep that but he waited long enough so that uh he was good and dead so there was no question exactly you know he just fainted or whatever i i agree a thousand percent so in other words god had a purpose and yet jesus's emotions were still real so what pierre i'm trying to tell you is god has a purpose in what he's doing in this world and yet what he says about grieving over man's sinfulness is just as real in the very same context just on a much broader plane than just simply the situation in john chapter 11 thank you for your call today thanks for listening to the dividing line as well we'll be back oh goodness uh tuesday yes we will be here tuesday morning lord willing and i get back from pure illinois in one piece for the dividing line thanks for listening god bless been brought to you by alpha and omega ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at p .o

box 37106 phoenix arizona 85069 you can also find us on the worldwide web 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 join us again next tuesday morning at 11 a .m