April 20, 2006

Alpha & Omega Ministries iconAlpha & Omega Ministries

5 views

Comments are disabled.

00:15
of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded
00:21
Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.
00:28
Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.
00:34
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
00:44
United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is
00:51
James White. He's the man who's going to speak to us this afternoon.
00:57
John Shelby Spong was the Episcopal Bishop of Newark before his retirement in 2000, as a leading spokesperson for an open, scholarly and progressive
01:05
Christianity. Bishop Spong has taught at Harvard and at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California.
01:11
He has also lectured at universities, conference centers and churches in North America, Europe, Asia and the
01:17
South Pacific. His books include New Christianity for a New World, Rescuing the
01:22
Bible from Fundamentalism, Resurrection, Myth or Reality, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, and his autobiography,
01:31
Here I Stand. It says history will recognize him as one of the major change agents of modern
01:37
Christianity, and that doesn't underestimate the power of this particular man and bishop.
01:43
So please join with me as we welcome him to CLA. I want to say first of all that it's been an absolutely wonderful day to be here.
01:53
I've known Troy Perry for a long time, I've admired him for a long time, but it's really good to see the impact that he has had on his own home community.
02:05
I think the first time I met him was when I attended the Metropolitan Community Church National Gathering, which is a general conference, is that what it's called?
02:15
It was in Phoenix, and I don't know how many people were there, but it was the biggest bunch of people
02:21
I think I'd ever seen in an auditorium. And I was struggling in my own church, and I'm going to talk about that a little bit later, with the issue of whether or not we are the body of Christ.
02:31
Now that's not the way my critics would have said it, but my sense is that if a church is closed to any human being, it cannot possibly be the body of Christ.
02:41
It's that simple. It's not a very complex issue. But we were struggling with that because I had ordained a gay man.
02:50
Now that's not news. We've had gay clergy forever in the history of the church.
02:55
What was news was that I ordained an open and honest gay man, and his partner participated in the liturgy by leading the prayers, and I recognized his partner.
03:07
And in an ordination service, I would normally, when it was over, bring the whole family of the ordinant up so that I could introduce them and introduce them to the congregation.
03:18
So I brought... There you have John Shelby Spong beginning a conversation at a
03:25
Metropolitan Community Church, which of course is a homosexual church, and just a reminder of what is coming up at the beginning of November in Orlando.
03:35
Did you hear what was said earlier? How can we call it the body of Christ if it excludes anyone?
03:43
Well, think about what that means. First of all, it tells us a lot about how Bishop Spong is going to be approaching the particular issue.
03:52
I mean, it is very clear to me as I listen to his presentations that Bishop Spong has a very difficult time understanding someone like myself.
04:03
He has a very difficult time even contemplating the idea that someone such as myself could possibly take another perspective or could possibly be intelligent, understand anything about scholarship, so on and so forth.
04:21
Reading his weekly commentaries that come to my email box, and yes, I voluntarily signed up for them, but reading his weekly commentaries again over and over again, there is just such a huge bias.
04:32
Now, he would say the same thing about me, but at least I can understand where he is coming from. I don't see any evidence that he is able to enter into my world view in any way, shape, or form.
04:42
He just puts us all together in one lump sum, shall we say. And there you have him discussing his participation in the ordination of an openly homosexual man.
04:53
So, you know what's going to be coming in November. There has been so much discussion about the
05:01
Ergin and Amir Kanner debate that I think I want to encourage folks to sort of take a step back.
05:09
It's certainly been taking up a lot of my time as well, but mainly because when someone calls themselves a
05:16
Baptist, a conservative Baptist, and says the things that the Kanner brothers say or especially
05:21
Ergin Kanner says in a public format, the people who are closer to you tend to get more of your attention, more of your emotional energy.
05:33
The people who are far, far away, as certainly John Shelby Spong will be far, far, far away from the average listener to this program, we don't tend to invest as much interest there.
05:46
However, I think if we were to pause for just a moment and step back, and we look at these two debates, there is a particular reason why
05:54
I would be encouraging, because I'm seeing all sorts of people saying, I'm coming to Lynchburg, I'm coming to Lynchburg. And I've said to a lot of folks, you know what,
06:02
I think you might want to reconsider that. It's only two weeks later going to Orlando.
06:08
Why? Well, a couple of things. First of all, Orlando, Lynchburg. Orlando, Lynchburg.
06:15
Just think about that for a moment, okay? I mean, just think about the accommodations, hotels, and things to do.
06:23
Orlando, Lynchburg. All right. That was simple enough, unless you're really into visiting Civil War sites.
06:29
There's so much more going down there. So that's first thing. Second thing is, as far as the culture is concerned, as far as what you see on television, as far as you hear in the mainstream media, which of the two issues is going to impact you more directly as far as your conversations with people in the secular workplace and in our society?
06:52
Don't get me wrong. I think the issue with the Canners is vital because that's going to determine how you answer so many of those questions.
06:59
Don't get me wrong at all. However, it's not often that you get the
07:05
Barry Lynn's and John Shelby Spong's of the world to actually expose themselves to conservative biblical scholarship in response to them.
07:14
And any of you who have seen the Barry Lynn debate know exactly what happened in that situation.
07:21
And I really think there's a lot of folks in this listening audience who would want to be there to observe that rather than to just view it on DVD or listen to it on MP3.
07:32
The next reason that I think I would encourage, especially people who are a long, long ways away, to consider
07:38
Orlando over Lynchburg is pretty simple. We can't guarantee who's going to get into this thing in Lynchburg.
07:45
We don't know. I mean, the new church seats 6 ,000 people, but there's more students than that at Liberty University.
07:56
And if a large portion of them show up, there's no way that if someone comes from California or Oregon or Maine or Florida, there's no way that any of us can guarantee you're going to be able to get in.
08:10
They're not selling tickets, nothing like that. There's no registration, which is fine because, you know, my primary desire is to see the folks there at Liberty, the students and the local people have that opportunity.
08:24
But obviously, in Orlando, that's controlled. We need to sell tickets and we've sold tickets to a lot of Bishop Spong's supporters.
08:35
And so I would like to at least be a 50 -50 affair, you know, have at least as many supporters there, because I think that it's going to be a very challenging debate.
08:46
It's going to be going into more depth, I think, than the Barry Lynn debate did because, you know,
08:51
Barry Lynn obviously had read the basic stuff that's out there, that's been out there for a long time, from Skenzonian, Mullincott, and stuff like that, and Daniel Hominiac, and had read the standard pro -homosexuality stuff.
09:06
And he had done his thing. And when we got into the debate, he's having to borrow my
09:11
Bible, okay? This man's an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. He's having to borrow my Bible to read a few verses from Romans 1.
09:17
He didn't even bring a Bible to a debate titled, Is Homosexuality Compatible with Biblical Christianity?
09:22
I'm not sure maybe the term biblical got lost or just what, but maybe he has a filter that just filters that out of everything that comes into his e -mail or something.
09:29
I don't know. But he had obviously never encountered anyone who had likewise read that material and could refute it.
09:39
And I think Spong is obviously a very intelligent man. He is a good speaker.
09:46
He is much more charming in person, or can be. He can also be very cold, but much more charming in person than Barry Lynn.
09:55
And so there's all sorts of reasons why I think I would encourage folks that if you're thinking about traveling, don't worry, we're going to videotape the
10:06
Cantor Debate. And it's going to be available. And I know there's a lot of folks, I just love to be there when
10:12
I see this, and you get to ask questions. Well, you know, don't have nearly as much control over what's going to happen in Lynchburg as we do as what's going to happen in Orlando.
10:21
In Orlando we have rules, you know. We respect the truth, and the truth needs to be respected by how you engage in the debates and how you do those things and so on and so forth.
10:33
So I think that would be an excellent thing to keep in mind as you're considering what's going to be going on during that period of time.
10:41
There in September, October, November of this year, it is going to be a very, very challenging period of time.
10:48
I'm going to be spending the next number of months preparing various and sundry things. There's my use of various and sundry for this program for those of you who are waiting how long it would take, 11 minutes, 39 seconds.
10:57
Well, we get started 45 seconds late, so you can take that off. But anyways, and books and presentations and debates and everything else, it is going to be a very, very challenging period of time and even between now and then, lots and lots of work to be doing.
11:13
So keep us, you know, in your prayers and your support because even during the summer where it doesn't look like I'm necessarily doing debates,
11:24
I'll be over in England speaking and things like that. Despite that,
11:29
I'm going to be spending a lot of that time preparing that material. I mean, I've got the Karen debate on a
11:34
Monday and I'm debating Pastor Bill Shishko on baptism three days later. And I'll be perfectly honest with everybody and anybody in the audience who knows
11:44
Bill Shishko and knows me and has listened to Bill Shishko's material, maybe read my material, knows that of all the debates
11:52
I'm doing between now and the end of the year, the one that I feel that I'm going to have to spend the most time on without question in study is the one with Bill Shishko.
12:00
I mean, I've written a book on the homosexuality issue and so it's a matter of reviewing that material, seeing what new materials come out since then.
12:07
The Cantor debate is centuries old as far as that goes and dealing with a lot of misrepresentations of Calvinism.
12:14
The debate tomorrow night that I'm doing in Sedalia, Missouri, also on Calvinism. The debate May 7th with Shabir Ali, Islam, that's one
12:22
I've already been spending hours and hours and hours and hours and hours preparing for. So there you've got what's coming up, lots of interesting things.
12:30
We've already got one phone call. I'll go there in just a moment. I did want to just at least get in one little section here from the
12:39
Dr. Davis sermon again, the long lost Dr. Davis sermon, especially because it's somewhat related to,
12:45
I think, one of the greatest faux pas in the Ergon Cantor sermon, one that I have asked him about.
12:55
He has yet to comment on it in email and that was what came up on the last program.
13:01
Everybody caught the Esau, Romans 9, you can't call it exegesis, you can't call it eisegesis, just cutting a sentence in half and completely ignoring the first half of the sentence.
13:15
The only way you could really describe it. It was absolutely incredible that he could make the comments that he did and everybody caught it.
13:23
I can't imagine there's any serious biblical student at Liberty University who was not sitting there going,
13:33
What did he just say? If anybody looked it up and just looked at the verse before, two verses before, they'd be going, wait a minute, the two verses before are making the exact opposite point that he just made and yet everybody around me is amening.
13:53
What does this mean? That happens when people try to get around biblical truth.
14:00
It has a way of, well, Romans 9 is one of those types of passages that I remember years and years ago introducing that to a fellow and after he came to grips with it, he says,
14:10
Yes, that was God's two by four. That was what God used me to wake me up. Well, here's the section from Dr.
14:18
Davis' sermon, Romans 9. I think he did a lot better than Ergon Cantor did. And then we'll go to our phone calls, 877 -753 -3341.
14:28
In Romans 9, 17 and 18, the Apostle Paul talks about wicked Pharaoh and how
14:33
God hardened his heart even worse so that horrible judgments were poured out upon Pharaoh, his son, and all of Egypt.
14:43
That passage is giving what is a basic principle all the way through the word of God that God gives man more of whatever man chooses.
14:53
If you choose righteousness, God will multiply your choice to you. And if you choose wickedness,
14:58
God will help you harden your already stubborn heart. In verse 22 of Romans 9, if you want to look at it,
15:05
Paul refers to vessels of wrath fitted to destruction which simply means that destruction perfectly fits the man who is the deserving recipient of God's wrath just like glory perfectly fits with those who choose to be vessels of God's mercy which you see there in verse 23.
15:29
Now, again, though that sounds better than what Dr. Cantor said, it actually involves the exact same kind of upside -down eisegesis because what he just said is really a form of Pelagianism.
15:44
He just attributed to man the ability to choose righteousness. He just ignored
15:50
Romans 8, 7 -8 that says man does not have the capacity, is not able to do what is right in God's sight, is not able to submit himself to God's law.
15:58
He just ignored the biblical teaching about man's slavery to sin and hatred of God and just ripped
16:04
Romans 3, 10 -18 right out of the Bible. There's none who seeks after God. There's none who does good. And here you have this powerful will of man that is able to choose righteousness.
16:15
And so if you get glory, it's because you've chosen righteousness. If you get the hardening and the destruction, it's because you've chosen that and God's not involved in this anywhere.
16:27
And yet when you read the text, the text is making the exact opposite point.
16:33
Only by cutting out these portions, just chopping it up, ignoring sentences, interpreting only parts of sentences and ignoring the first part of the sentence, can you come up with this stuff?
16:44
We saw Ergen Cantor do it last week with Romans 9, 11 -13 in Esau.
16:51
And after Paul makes this statement, then he says in verse 14, what shall we say then?
16:58
There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be. Now notice, Paul keeps bringing up these imaginary objectors.
17:06
He brings up those people. He knows what people are going to be saying against his position. And so he raises the objections and he answers the objections.
17:13
Now folks, if you make the same objections that the people opposing
17:18
Paul make, that should tell you something. That should make you a little bit worried.
17:25
Because that means you are objecting to the apostles' teaching. And so how many times do you hear people saying, well if God chooses outside of what we do, if it wasn't because of what
17:40
Esau or Jacob did, but it was solely based upon God's freedom, then there's injustice with God.
17:47
And so we have the objection raised. What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?
17:54
May it never be, by no means. For he says to Moses, goes back to Exodus 33, for he says to Moses, and here, and I know
18:04
I've explained this before, we have lots of new folks who listen, so I just want to explain this so that everybody is on the same page.
18:11
The English translation says, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
18:16
The problem is that we do not have a verb to mercy someone.
18:24
We don't have a verb to mercy. And literally it is, I will mercy whom
18:31
I will mercy, and I will compassion whom
18:36
I compassion. The point is, there is absolute freedom on God's part in regards to mercy and compassion.
18:46
They cannot be demanded. Remember, Dr. Davis said earlier, well, justice is everybody getting the same chance.
18:53
Well, when it comes to mercy, compassion, and grace, there is no such thing as chance. These are outside the category of justice.
19:05
This isn't law. This is mercy. And so he quotes from Moses, I will have mercy on whom
19:11
I have mercy, I will have compassion on whom I have compassion, and then he interprets that passage from Exodus 33 and Romans 9 .16,
19:18
therefore, so then, you have this Old Testament text, so then, it is not of the willing one, thelontos, neither the trechontos, the man running, but the
19:34
God mercying. And again, the parallel is much clearer in the
19:42
Greek than it is in most translations. If you look at it in the original language, it's very, very clear.
19:49
Therefore, not of the willing, neither of the activity, the running, the striving, but of the mercying of God.
19:57
So you have not of man's will, not of man's activities, God's mercy.
20:03
You couldn't make it any clearer than this. You couldn't make it any plainer than this.
20:10
It's right there, but people miss it because they chop stuff up and they don't want to listen to what's actually being said.
20:18
So the apostolic interpretation, the apostle Paul's own interpretation of what he said about Jacob and Esau, he recognizes that you can correctly understand what he was saying, and if you correctly understand what he was saying, you might object there's injustice with God, which is not what you would do to Ergen -Kanner's interpretation of it, would it?
20:39
If Paul was actually saying what Ergen -Kanner said, no one would even raise the issue of injustice, would they?
20:45
But Paul raises the issue of injustice, so obviously Ergen -Kanner missed it entirely and completely.
20:52
Verse 17, for the scripture says to Pharaoh, for this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.
21:03
Now notice, he does not say you were an evil, terrible, horrible pagan. Now Pharaoh was, and we need to recognize that at any point in time,
21:13
God could have brought his wrath to bear upon Pharaoh and taken him out of this world and done so justly, right?
21:22
Was he not a terrible, horrible pagan? Was he not involved in idolatry? Was he not a sinner worthy of the wrath of God?
21:29
Well, of course. And so, that may be true, but that's not why
21:36
God did what he did, is it? He says, for this very purpose I raised you up. He put
21:41
Pharaoh in that position to demonstrate his power, God's power, in him.
21:47
And how did that happen? In the destruction of one of the greatest nations on the earth at that time.
21:55
The destruction of the Egyptian gods, the despoiling of the Egyptian gods. For this very purpose
22:02
I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.
22:07
And I have said many times before, how high on the list of priorities, my friends, how high is the demonstration of God's power and the proclamation of his name?
22:17
The more in tune you are with biblical truth, the higher those things will be on your priority list.
22:30
Romans 9 .17. What is the interpretation of what God did with Pharaoh? Romans 9 .18.
22:36
So then, he mercies whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.
22:48
Direct parallel. Direct parallel. Both the term desires, stelae, therefore, whomever he wishes, he mercies.
22:57
Therefore, whoever he wishes, he sclerunae, hardens.
23:06
Multiple sclerosis, arterial sclerosis, that's where it comes from. Sclerunae, to harden.
23:14
He hardens whom he desires. Now, Dr. Davis just said he hardens those who choose to harden themselves.
23:22
Always making man the one in control of God's actions. That's not what Romans 9 says.
23:30
That's not what Romans 9 says. And what's the proof of that?
23:37
Real easy. Look at verse 19. You will say to me then, why does he still find fault for who resists his will?
23:45
All of the excuses that men come up with for Romans 9, it's about nations, and you go over here to the
23:51
Old Testament, and that's really not a... All of those things evaporate. Because if that's true, then verse 19 shouldn't be there.
24:02
Shouldn't be there. Why does he still find fault for who resists his will? It's not what nation resists his will. It's who resists his will.
24:07
The objector knows exactly what Paul is saying.
24:13
And Paul doesn't say, oh, you don't understand. We're just talking about nations. We're just talking about positions of service.
24:19
That's not what Paul says, is it? No, it's not. By the way, our lines are full up.
24:28
I think it's the first time since we moved here. Our lines are full. If you call right now, you'll get a busy signal because we are full up.
24:34
Romans 9 tends to do that to people. Let me finish this up because I want to get through 22, and then we'll skip the break and jump right into our calls and get as much done as we can.
24:44
Why does he still find fault for who resists his will? That's personal. And Paul's response in verse 20 is a response, first of all.
24:51
I've even heard Reformed people say it's not really a response because it's just a mystery and we don't know. No. I think
24:57
Paul gives the perfect response, and it's the only response that can be given. On the contrary, who are you?
25:05
Oh, man. And literally, that's the first portion of the Greek text.
25:12
Who are you? Oh, man, who answers back to God.
25:20
The one who is so arrogant and so ignorant of your created position to answer back to God.
25:31
The thing molded, the plasma, will not say to the molder, why did you make me like this, will it?
25:39
And, oh, there are so many people that hate that. Oh, they hate the potter and the clay.
25:44
They hate that analogy. Oh, you're dehumanizing us. Well, take it up with the
25:49
Holy Spirit. That's where the text came from. And only the person who, by God's grace, has been brought to understand that I am the clay.
26:01
And he is the potter, and I love him for that, as a person who's going to be ready to listen to what
26:07
Romans 9 actually says. As long as you still think that you're in charge of your life, and God isn't sovereign,
26:12
Romans 9 is going to remain a closed book to you. You're always going to hate it.
26:19
You're always going to want to find some way around it. Only by the grace of God can that change.
26:27
Or does not the potter have a right over the clay? Why does a potter have the right over clay?
26:33
Is there not an ontological difference, a difference on the level of being, between the potter and the clay?
26:41
Well, of course there is. And the potter has a right from the clay to make what he will.
26:47
Does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
26:53
Notice, same lump. It's not, well, I'm clay, but I've chosen to be good clay.
27:00
And I've chosen to be righteous clay. And so God can only make a fitting, beautiful vessel for me.
27:07
Well, I've chosen to be bad clay, so God can only make bad stuff out of me. That's exactly what Dr. Davis just got done saying, isn't it?
27:14
And it's the exact opposite of what Paul is actually saying, isn't it? It is. There's no question about it.
27:21
The potter has the right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use.
27:27
And it's not the clay's decision. How anyone can try to turn into that clearly, obviously, is a person who does not want to hear what the text is saying.
27:38
And then that becomes the context of verse 22, which was cited by Dr. Davis. What if God, although willing to demonstrate
27:48
His wrath and make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which
28:00
He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
28:07
Now listen to what he says. It's amazing to me that some pretty well -known people will basically say, well, this prepared for destruction thing, they prepared themselves.
28:20
The text doesn't say they're prepared by God. Excuse me? Hello? Verse 21?
28:27
Potter? One lump? Honorable? Dishonorable? What do you mean the text doesn't say who did this?
28:34
I know you can find it in scholarly commentaries, but scholars are not immune from hiding their traditions in their commentaries.
28:44
Okay? They're out there. And so it is clear what he's saying.
28:50
What if God, willing to demonstrate His wrath, He's willing to demonstrate
28:56
His wrath and to make His power known, and I ask you, believer, do you long to see God's power made known?
29:02
Do you long to see His wrath made known in regards to the sins of men? Read the
29:09
Psalms sometime. Read the Psalter. Read the people of God saying, how long,
29:15
O Lord, will injustice take place? God's willing to demonstrate
29:21
His wrath and make His power known, and yet He also endures with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
29:29
Every moment extended to the guilty children of Adam is grace.
29:36
It is mercy. It is not redeeming grace, but it's still grace.
29:41
And He does this so as to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which
29:50
He prepared beforehand for glory. Now, if there's anything to be found in 23 saying,
29:58
He prepared beforehand for glory, it would be this. God, by His mercy and grace, has to change us.
30:07
We'll naturally make ourselves vessels of wrath. We'll naturally be unfit for anything beautiful.
30:14
But He has to take out that hearthstone. He has to breathe upon that valley of dead bones to make them to come alive.
30:22
So if there's anything to be found in verse 23, He prepared beforehand for glory, but it's not saying
30:29
He prepared in 22. That's what it would be. It would not be that, oh, but they did it themselves, you know.
30:34
No, one requires the extension of God's mercy and grace. The other does not.
30:41
And so it's a tremendous passage. It's beautiful. And it is simply sad at times to hear people absolutely massacre the text.
30:52
We heard Ergin Kenner do it. We just heard Dr. Davis do it. Why? Tradition.
30:58
Tradition. People have their traditions. And they simply at times are unwilling to allow the word of God to speak.
31:09
877 -753 -3341 is the number that everybody called. And all the little lights are blinking.
31:16
Let's get started with our phone callers, and let's start with Joe in Chicago. Hi, Joe. Hey, how are you doing,
31:23
Dr. White? How are you, sir? I'm good. Can you hear me? Not overly well. It sounds like you're on a speakerphone, but we'll make do.
31:31
Okay. I love you. You are the man. I'm definitely standing with you when you take on that bishop with homosexuality.
31:40
I love you, man. But this Calvinism thing, I just feel you're so way off on this. And it's just like you're a good brother, and I feel like you're just categorizing the non -Calvinists, which, by the way,
31:50
I am, and a pastor for 10 years. And I just feel like you undermined us in how we take the
31:57
Scripture. And, of course, this is your show. You can talk. But I wanted to say, I came to Rich. I emailed him.
32:03
I said, I want an equal time debate with you on this show about the whole thing. And, you know, he said he had to check my references and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
32:11
And so he said, just call up. And so I prayed about it over time. So here I am. And my basic thing is
32:19
I've listened to your debate over the Marian doctrines with Maddox. Maddox. Yes, sir.
32:25
Okay. Thank you. And when you appealed to him, now you can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure you will.
32:30
But you appealed to him for the natural reading of those words, brothers, and knew not until, you know,
32:39
Jesus was born. You appealed to him for that. My question to you is, how can we miss the great doctrines of salvation for all, like in John 3 .6?
32:49
I mean, I'll just bring it to the basic. When the normal reading, John's readers would never have saw a doctrine made up by Calvin, some, you know, hundreds of years later.
33:00
They would have known Jesus loved the whole world. Well, actually, I don't go by any different standard.
33:07
I use the exact same standard in challenging Jerry Maddox to allow Adolfo to be defined by its context, as I do to challenge you to look at John 3 .16,
33:16
not in English translation, but in the original language. The original readers of the Gospel of John would have seen the phrase, everyone believing.
33:24
It is your tradition to read into, a meaning that the original never conveyed, and so the original readers would have understood that the love of God is demonstrated to the world in the fact that by the giving of the
33:35
Son, every person who believes in Christ will have eternal life. There is nothing in the text that says, and that means everybody has the capacity to believe.
33:44
Jesus addressed that in John 6 .44 and said, no one is able to come unto me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.
33:52
So I'm using the exact same standard, because of the fact that that's not the only text that addresses the issue of how a person has eternal life, and when you allow those texts to speak for themselves, they talk about the sovereignty of God.
34:05
They have the Lord Jesus saying to the Jews, you are not my sheep, I lay down my life for my sheep, etc.,
34:11
etc. So it's just a matter of allowing all the texts to speak, and not allowing certain traditions to determine our exegesis.
34:18
Do you have 30 seconds for us to keep dialoguing, because I would like to comment on what you just said. Sure, go ahead. Okay, first of all, you're saying that we have tradition, my friend.
34:26
I'm not the one calling myself after a dead man's doctrine. You're naming yourself a Calvinist. Sir, sir, sir, sir,
34:33
I'm sorry, that's a grossly invalid argument. But you're calling yourself a Calvinist. Sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, if I have to put you on hold,
34:42
I will, then you'll still be able to hear me, but it's a grossly invalid argument, and here's why.
34:48
First of all, I use the term to describe my theological position. You have a theological position.
34:54
Whether you want to aid in conversation enough to use a term that will communicate that, or not, is irrelevant, first of all.
35:02
You do have your traditions. I'm open about mine. I examine mine by scripture. You can hide behind, oh,
35:08
I don't use terms. That doesn't change the fact that you have your traditions, sir. So that's a completely irrelevant argument.
35:15
You want to do a lot better than that, bro. Well, let's just stay on track here. I was saying that you were being inconsistent, and not only are you being inconsistent, and I love you, bro.
35:23
I call you because I love you. I don't call other people. Well, wait a minute. What about John 3 .16? What about John 3 .16? You said you wanted to respond to that.
35:30
Yeah, I want to respond first to my first thing of bias. You're being biased in the way you're looking at scripture.
35:38
Think of it this way. I am 29 years old, okay? I am a college graduate with a
35:44
Bible college degree. My point is, brother, I don't know the English language like you even know the
35:50
Greek language. I don't know participles. I don't know tenses, okay? You're telling me that a man reading
35:56
John 3 .16, a fisherman, has to derive at this tense to understand.
36:02
Brother, I don't think it was what you're saying. If I have to have you to translate it for me, then just say my
36:10
Bible by itself is not good enough, and I'll carry you with me in my pocket, and I don't mean to disrespect you, and then you can tell me every time
36:16
I read the Bible what it means. Well, sir, again, that's a very common, but again, a very, very bad argument that you need to abandon immediately because you need to realize something.
36:26
The Bible was not written in Greek, brother. There was no one, I'm sorry, not written in English, brother. There was no one on planet
36:32
Earth that used the word whosoever when John wrote his gospel, sir. That language did not develop for another thousand years.
36:41
I don't understand that. Okay, then the question has to be, where are you getting the idea that whosoever means anybody has the ability when there is no word whosoever in the original language?
36:53
Okay, here's my point. No, no, no, no, I'm going to finish my response. You said the fisherman.
36:59
A fisherman wrote it, and if the fisherman wrote it with enough particularity to communicate the truth and the constructions he used, are you saying we shouldn't listen to the language that they used?
37:12
If someone's reading your writings today, should they not look at the use of the English language today and determine what you mean by that?
37:18
A hundred percent, so please, before we get into individual passages, I just want to stick with this first thing I was coming with not being consistent.
37:25
My point was, in your Marian dialogue, you said sola scriptura, not sola ecclesia, that I could read this
37:33
Bible as a believer, a priest before God, and interpret it. Now, did you mean it in its original language?
37:40
Yes, yes, sir. I was very clear, as anyone who's listened to my debate with Jerry Mattox knows,
37:48
I went to the original languages of what Adel Faust meant, we discussed heos hu, we used the original languages.
37:56
I was very, very clear, and I do hold men accountable. If they're going to stand before the people of God and open the word of God, then we as English -speaking people had better, if we've got the opportunity to do so, make sure that what we're saying is accurate in light of what
38:11
God originally inspired. To read our traditions into the English text is reprehensible.
38:16
Now, I recognize that God has used men who could only read the English text, but I can guarantee you, if they had the ability to be able to check that English translation, they took that ability, and they would be willing to learn in light of those things.
38:31
So I held Jerry Mattox to the exact same standard that I'm using in what
38:36
I discuss this issue. There is no difference whatsoever. Okay, so you're saying when John Calvin did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, that John Calvin couldn't read the original languages like you read the original languages?
38:48
First of all, he left that up to others. Secondly, no, he had not ever read a modern study on Heos Hu.
38:58
Are you saying that a study, which has only taken place in the past two decades, that he should be accountable for that?
39:05
I'm saying you're telling me God allowed the Bible, the sole infallible rule of faith, to not be interpreted correctly for a thousand, two thousand years.
39:14
I'm saying that's what you're saying to me. Where do you get that? I'm just using this as an example, the
39:22
Marian doctrine. If Calvin couldn't decisively come to an understanding of what Christ wanted in this word to be a doctrine, if he had to wait for you, and I don't mean to insult you,
39:32
I love you, I'm glad you do what you do, but he had to wait for this revelation to come, then God didn't have an infallible rule.
39:38
Revelation? Sir, please, all you're arguing now is that, well, Calvin did not have infallible knowledge of everything about the
39:48
Bible and everything about the Greek language, so therefore we didn't have the Bible. I mean, please, sir, think of what the man accomplished in light of what he came out of.
39:57
No one is claiming that you have to have an infallible, exhaustive, encyclopedic knowledge of everything.
40:04
It would have been nice if he could have read an in -depth, exegetical study, syntactical study of Heos Hu, but you know what?
40:11
He didn't have to. Are you saying that we shouldn't study those things, that we shouldn't continue to grow?
40:17
Granville Sharpe's rule that demonstrates the deity of Christ, Titus 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1, was discovered at the end of the 19th century.
40:24
Does that mean that before then, God didn't have a clear word for his people? No, but we have come to understand it with greater clarity and can defend it better.
40:33
Is that a bad thing? No, and I'll be very clear to what exactly I am saying. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is, for the first 200 years of Christianity, you could not prove to me
40:44
Calvinism. Why? Why? Well, because the early church fathers didn't ever interpret world to mean this limited amount of people.
40:54
Are you sure of that? Now, if you could show me, I mean, I would love for you to show me. Back up a truck.
41:01
When did Clement or Ignatius become the determiner of the meaning of cosmos in the
41:10
Gospel of John? When did you just abandon Sola Scriptura? That's not what
41:16
I'm saying, my friend. What I'm saying is, if it was so obvious to John and his readers, then why wouldn't Paul's disciple catch what you're trying to say, and John's disciple catch what he was trying to say, and go in that vein?
41:28
Have you ever read Clement? Yes. And you didn't see the many references to the elect in Clement?
41:34
Did you miss the epistle to Dionysius that has all the references to, like, imputed righteousness and things like that, and repeated references to the elect there, too?
41:45
Did you miss those? Well, no. Once again, those are terms that we both share. I mean, I think that's where you categorize us in the wrong way.
41:51
What I'm talking about is where world does not mean world. Well, I've never said world does not mean world.
41:58
I have said that world is defined in its context. The Bible says, do not love the world.
42:04
Does that fit your interpretation of world, of every person who's ever lived? Yes or no? I didn't say that either. No, I'm talking about the normative reading.
42:11
Normative reading. There are 14 different uses of cosmos by John alone. Which one is your normative reading?
42:18
How about you show me one where it's a limited group of people, obviously, to the readers. Easy. John chapter 17.
42:26
I do not pray for the world, I pray for those who have given me out of the world. That clearly differentiates between the disciples and the world, right?
42:32
That's my point. So world there doesn't mean every single person, does it? My friend, you need to slow down.
42:39
What you just quoted was John 17. What's different? Just to slow that down, because that's my whole point.
42:46
I don't understand why you wouldn't see it that way. John 17 what? If I can look at it. The high priestly prayer of the
42:53
Lord Jesus in John chapter 17. Can we go a little bit long, Mr. Pierce? Try to get the rest of the folks in, because our lines are completely filled today.
43:04
John 17 .9. I ask on their behalf. I do not ask peri tu cosmu, on behalf of the world, but of those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
43:18
Notice the differentiation. He differentiates between those who are in the world and those who have been given to him.
43:26
And then in verse 11 he says, I am no longer in the world, which is a completely different use of cosmos than you have in verse 9.
43:33
But you didn't show me what I was asking. I was asking for a place where world did not mean the world in its entirety, but Christ was directing that world.
43:43
He wasn't using it. He was using it to represent people, but not the entire world's population. Where can he represent the population?
43:51
And he calls it world, and he doesn't mean the entire world. He means the limited world, and that fits in perfectly. Just there.
43:56
17 .9 does not mean every single human being, does it? That's what he says. I'm not praying for every single human being.
44:03
That's what he just said. I'm not praying for every single human being, but I am praying for the human beings, my disciples.
44:09
That proves my point, not your point. Those you have given me. So he gave them out of the world.
44:16
Which is everyone. How do you know? Wait a minute. The disciples aren't everyone? He says
44:23
I'm not praying for everyone. The world means everyone there. I'm not praying for everyone. He's only praying for a select few.
44:28
That's my point, Dr. White. Okay, and so when he then says, I do not ask you to take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one, they are not of the world, even if I am not of the world, those uses of the word world obviously do not mean every single human being, because the apostles were human beings, right?
44:45
Which changes to the evil of the world. Now it talks about the world in the first John sense. The evil of the world.
44:51
The people who are unbelievers. I'm totally with you. So there's many different uses of the term world. So when you originally said, oh, you changed the meaning of the word world,
45:00
I recognize that every use of cosmos has to be defined by its context.
45:05
And you're saying, I'm the one changing the definition of the word world? That doesn't make any sense.
45:11
Joe, I just got done dealing with... Hold on a second. I got done just a few moments ago talking about Romans chapter 9.
45:19
Yes, sir. Did you agree with what I said in Romans chapter 9? I did because you were building a straw man all up until the point of, who is it applying to?
45:29
I'm under the belief that it applies to the nation of Israel. That's what the whole context of the previous chapters are.
45:35
That's what Paul says, I wish myself a curse for these people. I agree that these people are turning into an individual thing, which is not.
45:44
And you are, for your sake. Both people are wrong. I believe it's for the nation of Israel. And who are we to judge that God picked a nation, he favored the nation, and good for the nation of Israel.
45:55
Now he favors people. God has his own priority in who he does that with. I'm a pastor.
46:01
Someone else was born in a wheelchair in India. That is God's business and God's business alone. Okay, so when he says, it does not depend on human will or exertion, he's talking only about nations there.
46:13
He's not talking about an actual person who wills. He's talking about a nation. That's my belief because...
46:19
And you can substantiate that in the text. Because what he starts off saying, what he's talking about is
46:25
Israel. Well, what he starts off saying, brother, is verses 5 and 6. And in verse 6 he says,
46:30
It is not as though the word of God has failed, for they are not all Israel, who are descended from Israel.
46:37
Doesn't that make it very personal? He then differentiates between persons, not nations.
46:43
You're missing the context, brother. If it was just about nations, then
46:50
Pharaoh is just a nation. Whoever he mercies is just a nation. Whomever he hardens is just a nation.
46:57
Nations then say, why does he still find fault? This is all about nations. Nations answer back.
47:03
Who answers to God? The thing molded is a nation? Come on, Joe. That's absolutely ridiculous.
47:09
Come on. You set me up for something, Dr. White. No, Joe, I'm sorry. You just said it was
47:14
Israel, right? As a nation. I did say it was Israel. But now you're taking these verses that apply to the individuals that affected
47:22
Israel's history. And God is going to do with these individuals, Jacob, the very one who found
47:29
Israel upon his name, you know, Israel and the 12 tribes, he's going to do with Jacob whatever pleases him.
47:35
And Pharaoh. Yes, I believe in limited election on God's behalf.
47:41
Like when God wants something to be done, he elects it to be done. I don't believe that he just does it in salvation.
47:47
I believe in events in life. He elects things to happen. He elects people. He elected me to be a pastor.
47:53
He called me to be that. I mean, these individuals were in the way of Israel, and he used them as vessels of wrath.
47:58
I agree with you to the point of the bigger messages. The bigger point is he's not saying this is now how every single person is going to get saved, and this is why every single person who goes to hell is going to hell.
48:11
He's just saying this is how God chose a nation and didn't choose the rest of the nations. Like why didn't he choose
48:16
Babylon? Why didn't he choose Egypt? This is why. Because God does what pleases him.
48:21
And I agree with that 100%. And if Pharaoh gets in the way of that, God's going to use Pharaoh for his own glory.
48:26
So in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory even us whom he has called, that's not everybody who's saved.
48:36
That's just where we run into God's election or something. Joe, I'm sorry.
48:43
I'm sorry, but... It's an every and all statement. I don't believe it's an every and all statement for everybody except in Christ.
48:49
I just believe it. I don't think I'm alone on this. You may not be alone, brother, but you ain't driving it from the text, okay?
48:55
Hey, thanks for your phone call today. Appreciate it. We've got lots of other folks trying to get on. Thank you. Thank you very much.
49:01
Amen. I pray for you, my brother. Okay, thank you. Have a good day. All right. We've got other...
49:07
We filled the phone lines up, so let's continue getting them going here. Let's talk with Jim down in the south of Arizona, Rio Rico.
49:14
How are you doing, Jim? Hey, Dr. White. Jim Kirby down here. Yes, sir. How are you doing? I'm calming down.
49:21
Okay. I just want to follow up. That was a good phone call from the standpoint of really what
49:27
I wanted to talk to you about. Yeah, when I saw your topic of that, you know this is going to fit in pretty well. Yeah.
49:33
And I very rarely, if ever, hear you referring to this in the context of figures of speech.
49:39
And I would invite Joe to look at E .W. Bullinger's book on figures of speech, because what's being dealt with there are figures of speech known as metonymy and synecdoche.
49:51
And Bullinger contends that those figures of speech were known by the
49:56
Hebrews and Greeks in the ancient world, so it was not something foreign. And plus the fact that we use figures of speech.
50:03
We may not know them by name, but we use figures of speech all the time.
50:09
And he refers to the world there in the context of John 3 .16 as a metonymy of the subject.
50:17
I would just invite, if there are other listeners on there, to look at Bullinger's figures of speech. This is what nailed it down for me.
50:25
It's not just your opinion, my opinion. Furthermore, when he says that the world is not limited, all he has to do is look at Romans 11, where he says,
50:34
If therefore, that is the Jews, falls as the riches of the world, the cosmos, and their failure, riches for the
50:43
Gentiles, the world there is parallel with Gentiles. It has to be limited there.
50:49
I would take the riches there as being salvific in nature. If therefore, it's the riches or the salvation coming to the world, how much more?
50:59
That is the Jews' fullness. Well, there's no question that, unfortunately, and I sound like I'm all of a sudden in a...
51:07
it sounds really odd. There's no question that this perspective, and I've made this point many, many times, the individuals who are presenting this type of argumentation, they will use one form of hermeneutic only for this issue of election, and then on everything else.
51:25
I'm sure Dr. Davis and I, for example, would utilize the exact same kind of exegetical methodology, the exact same hermeneutical principles to defend the resurrection of Christ, or the deity of Christ, or the person of the
51:38
Holy Spirit. We'd be on the same page.
51:44
But when you come to this one issue, all of a sudden, all bets are off. All of a sudden, everything changes.
51:49
And it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but whenever a hermeneutical method changes, that is the red flag that we just ran into somebody's tradition.
52:00
And somebody's protecting their tradition by, in essence, hiding things, and hiding the proper hermeneutical method, which would not lead to the result of their traditions.
52:10
So, yeah, most definitely. But it's not just a matter of looking at context and saying, well, all here is all without distinction.
52:15
It falls into the category of a legitimate figure of speech, which I hardly ever hear anybody refer to.
52:22
And yet, this is scholarship.
52:28
I mean, that was Bollinger's baby, is his figures of speech. Yeah, I've seen
52:33
Bollinger misused. He obviously is touching upon something that is important, and that is we all use figures of speech.
52:39
There are figures of speech that all of us use, and we need to know what was contemporaneous with the original writings to know what figures of speech are.
52:47
I mean, man, modern English is really a mess on that level. I'm not sure that anyone 1 ,000 years from now is going to be able to make sense of almost anything said today, given how much of that is context -dependent and dependent upon figures of speech.
52:58
But the same is true back then, and if you can demonstrate the utilization of those things in contemporaneous documents, great, you can.
53:10
And, yeah, it is generally being ignored by the discussion. But, hey, Jim, I hope it's nice down there, because you're a couple thousand feet above us, but the heat is coming.
53:20
Well, it's nice. It is. All right, thank you, sir. Thanks for calling in today. God bless. Bye -bye. Let's continue on here and get to Aaron.
53:28
Hi, Aaron. How are you doing? Is that me? Yes, sir. Hi. Can you hear me well? I can hear you just fine.
53:33
I'll try and move quick. I have two questions concerning evidences of salvation.
53:39
I've been getting kind of very mixed responses, kind of odd to be a
53:47
Reformed Baptist and having the Southern Baptist Convention say, you're welcome here, and whenever they give a sermon about the subject, they always have to completely bash my side of things, so it's very strange.
53:58
So your opinion would be appreciated. Even though we believe in salvation by faith or justification by faith,
54:08
I've been getting somewhat of a feeling of this double talk of where there's kind of a score system on sins, like as long as you don't commit adultery and murder, you're showing an evidence of salvation, but committing a few little white lies here and there are not bad enough, and even though we would never preach antinomianism, it seems like every
54:36
Christian from the day they live to the day they die, they do not meet a perfectly sinless life, so even though we wouldn't preach it, we certainly live to some degree like antinomians because we certainly do not put absolute priority on being sinless, and I'm just wondering, is faith alone enough to base my hope on, or do
55:01
I have to be concerned of, I mean, do people have to be concerned that they're showing too much sin in their life that they're not really showing enough evidence of salvation?
55:15
I don't know if I worded that right, but I hope I did. Well, the issue of assurance is a very large issue, and the grounds of assurance require the ultimate in balance in the
55:27
Christian life, and people err on both sides. There are those who obviously care nothing about examining themselves, as Paul commands us to, to examine ourselves to see whether we're in the faith.
55:38
They care nothing about the fact that in 1 John 5, when John says, these things I've written to you that you may know that you have eternal life, these things refer to the rest of the book, which talks about loving your brother, and walking in the truth, and so on and so forth, and so there are those who ignore that element of Scripture, and they don't have any concern about living in a godly way, recognizing that, as Peter says, you've been called to be holy, therefore be ye holy, and so there is that element of, especially evangelicalism out there, which basically has
56:11
Christianity ending at about 1215 on Sunday afternoon, and if you're really spiritual, it picks up again for about an hour
56:17
Sunday evening, and maybe Wednesday night, but that's the extent at which the faith actually impacts your life, and on the other side, you have imbalance for those who never have any joy in their life because they're constantly gazing at their navel, they're constantly examining every single word, and every single thought, and are attempting to examine everything so closely that they never experience forgiveness, they never experience what it means to have an advocate before the
56:45
Father, a recognition that we live in a fallen world, and that we ourselves are fallen, and obviously the proper balance is found in between those two extremes, one that is brought about by the
56:56
Spirit of God's work in the person's life. When we say faith alone, we are, and this is
57:02
I think one of the important issues, we need to recognize that we're talking about faith as the work of the
57:08
Spirit of God, not the kind of faith that many people promote today, which is an on -again, off -again, human type of activity, but even in John chapter 6, when
57:17
Jesus talks about those who will find him to be a perfect Savior, he does so on the foundation of those who are looking to him, present tense, ongoing, those who are believing in him, present tense, ongoing, and the only way to balance the biblical evidence,
57:30
I believe, is in the Reformed perspective because we recognize that it is the Spirit of God who is working these things in us, that faith and repentance are gifts of the
57:39
Spirit of God, that God works within us. Otherwise, we'd either have to go one of the two directions and have to become completely law -oriented, works -oriented, keep yourself in this and you better keep your nose clean or you're gone, or we'd have to become libertines and universalists, something along those lines, everyone's going to get saved, let's not worry about it.
57:58
Instead, the only balanced interpretation that I know of is one that recognizes that the reason you can have a present tense, ongoing command for faith in John 6 is because that's the work of the
58:07
Holy Spirit of God. It's something that God is doing. That's why any one of us has persevered in the faith as we have.
58:16
And so the issue really is finding balance between those two. There are a lot of churches that find it a whole lot easier to fill the pews by not mentioning godliness, by not mentioning holiness, by not mentioning that element of things because you can get folks to show up on a
58:31
Sunday morning, drop a 50 in the plate and that's what you need. And sadly, that's the state of a lot of American Christianity.
58:39
And there's a lot of, I've said many times, if your taxes were to double by walking through the church door next
58:45
Sunday morning, what would happen to the average attendance of most churches? That should tell you. Yeah, very quickly.
58:51
One thing that's been disturbing me is the people who would advocate that someone who has committed adultery or murder would, oh, well, they're not showing evidence of salvation.
58:59
Those same people, as I mentioned earlier, they seem to think like lying, deception, small acts of theft, thanks to the internet.
59:11
Almost every teenager these days has become a music thief, basically. They seem to put a level on sin, like some sins are okay to commit every day for the rest of your life, like little white lies, and others are like, well, you've completely moved on.
59:28
I understand that. And it's certainly understandable when you're talking about something like murder over against them like that.
59:36
And that goes against Paul's own lists, where he puts right next to murder disobedient to parents.
59:42
Those texts demonstrate that, in essence, we are using a humanistic view of sin rather than the view of sin that's found in the
59:49
New Testament, where you have the vice lists that Paul gives in Romans and Galatians that are very challenging to us, because they do point out to us that we cannot make that kind of easy distinction between those particular perspectives and just simply say, well, it's fine to go on with this kind of.
01:00:08
The issue in Scripture, Aaron, is it a continuous thing that we love to do, or is it something that we do not love to do and that we are seeking to repent of?
01:00:22
That is the issue there. I need to go to John in Tennessee real quick, because we're running out of time.
01:00:28
Hi, John, how are you? Good, sir. How are you doing? I always catch you at the end of your show. I called you about a month ago.
01:00:34
I was the guy that goes to the King James only church. Okay. I know you from work. I just wanted to, originally what
01:00:43
I wanted to talk to you about was the Jacob and Esau issue. I've been having an ongoing Bible study slash debate with a pastor from the local
01:00:51
Church of Christ. This issue has come up again and again. I believe the last thing we said about it in regards to Jacob and Esau was that he somehow made it seem to where Jacob had done something,
01:01:07
I guess, a better way than Esau. I pinned him down on that, and I said, well, did that make
01:01:14
Jacob meritorious of salvation as opposed to Esau? This keeps coming up again and again in our discussions, and also discussions about John 6.
01:01:31
The question I had for you, I sat down with my pastor the other day, and we talked about this verse also. He seems to believe that the
01:01:38
Greek indicates that people fit themselves for destruction in the verse that talks about the potter and the clay.
01:01:46
You may have already addressed that. I'm not sure. I did a little bit earlier, but it is always good to emphasize this.
01:01:52
We're looking at Romans 9 .21. Does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, another for common use?
01:02:00
Notice that you have one potter. You have one lump of clay.
01:02:07
If he wants to talk about the Greek, it is ektu autu foramitas.
01:02:13
The use of that term autu is translated there, the same. The emphasis is upon the fact that there is one potter, and there is one lump of clay.
01:02:23
The clay is not what is differentiating it. It's not like he's got one lump of clay over here that's good, and he sees that it's good.
01:02:30
Because it's good, he turns that into honorable vessels. Then he's got one lump of clay over here, and it's the lesser type.
01:02:37
It's the Walmart type. He makes that into vessels for common use.
01:02:42
That's for putting trash in and things like that, or garbage and things like that. No. There is one lump of clay.
01:02:48
The clay is all the same. The differentiation is focused upon the potter, who has the right to do this.
01:02:54
That's the first thing. If you want to talk about Greek, then the use of autu, autas, aute, auta, autu there, the genitive, tu autu, in verse 21, would point out the fact that we're talking about the same lump, one lump.
01:03:07
Then notice there is tu. You have men and then de.
01:03:12
If you want Greek, if you're writing this down, put men and then de, D -E, pronounce de. You have indeed one for honorable use, and then another for dishonorable.
01:03:24
Since it uses the same root term, teme, which means honor, and then auteme, that would be dishonorable.
01:03:32
It's very clear that, again, talking about the original language, one lump, and then you've got two different uses of the one lump.
01:03:43
Where do those two uses then go in verses 22 and 23?
01:03:49
What's the parallel? What's the fulfillment of the clay and vessel issue in verses 22 and 23?
01:03:57
It is the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and the vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory.
01:04:03
Those are the two fulfillments. The problem is the only thing that he can be pointing to in verse 22 is that the term katartidzo, prepared beforehand, is in the passive.
01:04:21
Probably what he's trying to say is, and this is what a Lutheran Lenski does, and there's a paper, by the way, at aomin .org.
01:04:28
If you go to Reformed Apologetics, scroll down, you'll find a whole discussion of this in regards to Lenski's attempt to say that, well, this prepared is they've prepared themselves.
01:04:39
The only way you can do that is to ignore the context that came beforehand where you have one potter, one lump, two results of his work, and like I said,
01:04:49
I did say at the beginning of the program, if there is anything to be read into the fact that it does not say he prepared for destruction in comparison to verse 23, which where it says he prepared for glory, the only thing that would, in context, fit into that difference between the two phrases is the fact that he does not have to extend any type of power or energy for reprobation.
01:05:18
We are already on our way to hell. He doesn't have to do anything to send us there. We already want to be there.
01:05:25
We hate God. We don't want to do what's right for his sight. He doesn't have to do anything. The energy, the power, the miracle is that he can take out a heart of stone and give a heart of flesh.
01:05:34
He, by grace, has to extend that power to change us from being God -haters into being
01:05:40
God -lovers. But there is nothing in the text that would say, oh, no, no, this is all of a sudden the clay preparing itself.
01:05:49
I mean, that's just, that would absolutely completely destroy the context for the passage itself.
01:05:57
And so I know where he's getting it from, but the point is that some people say, well, you see, that could be a middle or it could be a passive.
01:06:09
Well, again, the middle, A, first of all, is the most unusual way to take it. And secondly, the passive fits because this is the continuation of the thought of verse 21.
01:06:19
If verse 21 wasn't there, then you could try to make an argument. But verse 21 is there, verses 22 and 23 are the continuation of the argument, verses 19 to 21.
01:06:29
So it is completely acontextual to take it the way that he's taking it. Okay? Thank you, brother.
01:06:35
All right. Thanks for calling. All right. God bless. Bye -bye. All right. Well, we went about six minutes long because we got about a minute late start.
01:06:46
So we still went long. You still got more than you expected. Thanks for all the calls today.
01:06:52
They were excellent. I think they illustrated our points very, very clearly. And that went fast.
01:06:59
That went very quickly. Thanks for listening to Dividing Line today. I will be leaving first thing in the morning for Sedalia, Missouri.
01:07:06
We've got a debate tomorrow night. Those of you in the area, I hope that you will be able to be with us at that time.
01:07:12
And then next week, Lord willing, back at Dividing Line Tuesday morning. See you then. Crossroads.
01:07:31
You let this moment slip away. We must contend for the faith above us far more.
01:07:38
We need a new Reformation day. Brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.
01:08:14
If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.
01:08:19
Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the
01:08:25
World Wide Web at aomin .org. That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G. Where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.