October 28, 2004

Webcasting 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 and 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.

David Cloud’s Review and the Call for a Debate

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 responded to Charles Stanley and Dave Hunt. Oh, by the way, David Cloud is back. I'm going to 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 website. And so I'm not going to have a probably not going to get a chance to continue the textual criticism discussion until at least once before 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 oh, 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 going to 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. It says, 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 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 vs. synergism, electing grace vs. irresistible grace, effectual calling vs. general calling, effective atonement vs. hypothetical atonement, libertarian free will vs. 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 theology is that complicated, it is not the truth.

Instead, 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 vs. 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 Onlyism, 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. He was talking about all the reviews we've done of various people and played Dave Hunt and Charles Stanley and Adrian Rogers and so on and so forth.

And he 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 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, or they attack the doctrines of grace, it's just so obvious that they've never ever really considered anything that anyone has 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 at 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 the 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's certainly, he 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 sort of jump in here around five and a half minutes into the sermon. But listen as he presents these passages from Scripture.

Patterson’s Case for Election 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 sakes 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 writing 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 believed.

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 is 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 wills, 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 is 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, then it is no longer of works, 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 and 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 through the blood of Christ.

Look again, John 12, 37 to 40. But although he has done so many signs before them, they did not believe him, that 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 elective 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 yourselves 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.

The Objections to Election and the Meaning of “Whoever”

All right. Now, if we stopped right there, and I've been watching the chatter in the channel, everyone's thought is, well, there you go. That's, you know, I mean, there's some things there that I wouldn't put it that way.

But there it is. There's presentation. So how, then, could Dr. Patterson continue? Well, this is how he did.

If it were not for Matthew 10 .32, 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 is 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 and 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, Jerusalem won the ones who killed the prophets and stoned those who were 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 have we 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 were 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 believed in his name, who were not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of 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 that if Dr. Patterson were addressing something such as the deity of Christ and he was putting the passages he starts off the passages that 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 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 alright. 877 -753 -3341. We'll be right back.

The Gospel Invitation, Matthew 23:37, and the Book of Mormon

A godly man is such a rarity today. So many stars, strong and true Will quickly fall away.

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 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 .00. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 -26-GRACE. If you'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.

Once 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-TU, Philip Johnson. Nationally renowned Reformed Christian artist, Steve Camp.

And the founder of Alpha and Omega Ministries and author, Dr. James White. Join us at the Los Angeles, California, LAX Sheraton Ballroom on November 6, 2004, beginning at 845 a .m. Seating is limited, so order your tickets now at aomin .org.

That's www .aomin .org.

Technical Problems and the Conference Announcement

And welcome back to The Dividing Line. My understanding is that once again, the magical voice on the other side of the wall has an announcement.

We interrupt this program for a special announcement.

If you were hungry and needed to go pop popcorn, this is the time to do it.

Okay. The support is just wonderful that I get around here, I tell you. I 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 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, every 15 minutes, shuttles that can pick you up and take you right to the Sheraton from LAX.

And say what?

Let's see how you multitask, bucko. I can multitask. Unical Man says I'm on one of your phone lines. Oh, he is. He's right there. Oh. Hi, Unical Man. How are you? Mike. Hello. Hey, Mike. I think he went away.

I think he's chicken. I think he's chicken. You probably got to mute is what you got. No, no, no. No, it says no, I'm here. See, he hears us. 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 speak up.

You're supposed to be speaking up, Unical Man.

All right. Anyway. I love technology. Sunday, Reformation Sunday is the deadline, midnight. We're going to be taking all the pre-order HTML code off the website.

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

So, Mike, do you have just nothing to say there? What's up with that? 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've got to ask the question, Rich. His fault was that. Okay. Well, you know, 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 sound board to take to L .A. next week. And you didn't replace it. And changed the settings on the setup, so it kind of.

It can't be heard. You can hear it now.

Oh. Hello. Oh, in fact, someone's calling my phone now. Let's see who that is. Hey, let me. Hey, while you guys talk, I'll talk to whoever's on the phone.

We'll just mute James and we'll take over. Hi. So, what were you going to say, Mike?

Let me just add on to what you were just saying there. Folks, if you have not made arrangements yet to come out to the first 2004, yeah, well, the first Alpha Omega National Conference and the debate with Doug Wilson.

Folks, this is something you want to make sure you take advantage of. 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 you can. Folks, this is going to be a great time. The chance to meet Dr. White and a lot of our other speakers, Phil Johnson.

Get a chance to get up and shake Doug Wilson's hand. It's going to be fantastic. We have special speakers coming all the way from London, eh? We do? London? Yeah, right here.

Oh, goodness. Okay. I think I'll sign off now. We were 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. I'm 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 show's back.

The show's back on and the bike den called me, too. Oh, that's exciting. I'm not sure what that means, but I'll have to call them back. And we probably don't have any other callers, do we? Not currently.

Not currently. You know, you get on a roll and nobody wants to interrupt you.

I'm not on a roll. I'm just playing a little stuff here. Oh, that's interesting. Okay. Well, we return until we are delivered from that to listening to Paige Patterson's sermon. There are three parts at the 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, that if 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, in any way impact a proper understanding of God's sovereignty 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. No, he's 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 texts. But you can already tell where the speaker's going to be coming down when you have this kind of, 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, 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 sacrifice was offered on the altar, it wasn't for the Egyptians unless that Egyptian drew near unto God.

And so this substituting words to try to make a point, yeah, it's common. People on both sides 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.