Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
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 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. It's 602 973 4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white as the man who's going to speak to us this afternoon.
John Shelby Spong was the Episcopal Bishop of Newark before his retirement in 2000 as a leading spokesperson. For an open scholarly and progressive Christianity Bishop Spong has taught at Harvard and at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California.
He has also lectured at universities conference centers and churches in North America Europe Asia and the South Pacific. His books include a new Christianity for a new world rescuing the Bible from fundamentalism.
Resurrection myth or reality why Christianity must change or die and his autobiography here I stand. It says history will recognize him as one of the major change agents of modern Christianity and that doesn't underestimate the power of this particular man and Bishop.
So, please join with me as we welcome here MCC alone.
Say first of all, it has been an absolutely wonderful day to be here. 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.
I think the first time I met him was when I attended the Metropolitan Community Church National Gathering. It's which could general conference. Is that what it's called? It was in Phoenix. And I don't know how many people are there.
But it's the biggest bunch of people 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 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. It's that simple. It's not a very complex issue.
But we were struggling with that because I had ordained a gay man. Now that's not news. We've had gay clergy forever In the history of the church. 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 Nick and I recognized his partner and You know, it's 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 and Introduce them to the congregation. So I brought.
There you have John Shelby Spong beginning a conversation at a 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.
Did you hear what was said earlier? How can we call it the body of Christ if it excludes anyone? 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.
I mean it it is very clear to me as I listen to his presentations that Bishop Spong has a very difficult time. Understanding someone like myself has a very difficult time. Even even Contemplating the idea that someone such as myself could could possibly take another perspective or could possibly be intelligent.
Understand anything about scholarship. So on and so forth 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's this such a huge bias now. He'd say the same thing about me, but at least I can understand where he's coming from. I don't see any evidence that he is able to Enter into my worldview in any way shape or form.
He just puts us all together in in one lump sum shall we say him and there you have him discussing his Participation in the ordination of an openly homosexual man. So, you know, what's going to be coming in November?
There has been so much discussion about the The Ergin and Amir Kanner debate that I think I want to encourage folks to sort of take a step back. It's it's certainly been taking up a lot of my time as well but mainly because when someone calls themselves a Baptist a conservative Baptist and says the things that the Kanner brothers say or especially Ergin Kanner says and in a public format the people who are closer to you tend to get more of your your attention more of your emotional energy.
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 as much interest there. However, I think if we were to Pause for just a moment and step back and we look at these two debates.
There's a particular reason why I wouldn't 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 a lot of folks, you know, I I think you might want to reconsider that.
It's only two weeks later Going to Orlando why. Well a couple things first of all, Orlando Lynchburg. Orlando Lynchburg, just think about that for a moment a moment. Okay. I mean just just think about the you know, the accommodations.
Some things to do Orlando Lynchburg. All right, that was simple enough unless you're really into visiting Civil War sites. It's how much more going down there so that 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 in the secular workplace and in our society.
Now don't 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 those questions. No, don't get me wrong at all however. It's not often that you get the Barry Lynn's and John Shelby spongs the world to actually expose themselves to conservative Biblical scholarship in response to them and any of you who have seen the Barry Lynn debate know exactly what happened in that situation 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.
Next reason that I think I would encourage especially people who are a long long ways away To consider Orlando over Lynchburg is pretty simple. We can't guarantee who's going to get into this thing in Lynchburg.
We don't know. I mean the the new the new church seats 6 ,000 people but there's more students than that at Liberty University and If 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 there's no way that any of us can guarantee you're gonna you could be able to get in. They're not selling tickets. Nothing like that's no registration. Which is fine because you know my primary desire is to see the folks there at Liberty the the students and the local people have that opportunity, but Obviously In Orlando that's controlled.
We we need to sell tickets, and we've sold tickets to a lot of Bishop's bongs supporters and So I I would like to at least be a 50 -50 fair. You know I have at least as many of you know supporters there.
Because I think that it's going to be a very challenging debate. It's going to be it's going to be going into more depth I think than the Barry Lynn debate did because you know Barry Lynn obviously had read the basic Stuff that's out there.
That's been out there for a long time Skenzonian Mullen Cots and stuff like that and Daniel hominiac, and it had read the standard pro homosexuality stuff and he had done his thing and When we got into the debate he's having to borrow my Bible, okay?
This man's an ordained ministry United Church Christ. He's having to borrow my Bible to read a few verses from Romans 1. He didn't even bring a Bible to a debate titled is homosexuality compatible biblical Christianity.
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 email or something. I don't know but He had obviously never encountered anyone who had likewise read that material and could refute it and I think spong is is obviously a very intelligent man.
He is he is a good speaker. 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 and So there's there's all sorts of reasons why I think I would encourage folks that if you're if you're thinking about traveling Don't worry.
We're gonna videotape the canter debate and It's gonna be gonna be available, and I know there's a lot of folks I just love to be there when I see this you know and I you get to ask questions, but you know Don't have nearly as much control over what's gonna happen in Lynchburg as we do is what's gonna happen in Orlando.
We in Orlando. We have 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 and so on and so forth so I think that would be an excellent An excellent thing to to keep in mind as you're considering.
What's going to be going on during that period of time there in September October November of this year? It is going to be a very Very challenging period of time 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 how long it would take 11 minutes 39 seconds 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 so keep us.
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. I'll be over in England speaking and things like that. Despite that I'm going to be spending a lot of that time preparing that material.
I mean, I've got the care debate on a 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's who knows Bill Shishko and knows me and has listened to Bill Shishko's material.
Maybe read my material knows. That's of all the debates I'm doing between now and the end of the year the one that I Feel that I'm gonna have to spend the most time on without question in study is the one with Bill Shishko.
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 the canter debate is Centuries old as far as that goes and dealing with a lot of misrepresentations of Calvinism.
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. 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.
We've already got one phone call ago there in just a moment. I did want to Just at least get in one little section here from the dr. Davis sermon again the long-lost dr. Davis sermon especially because it's somewhat related to I think one of the greatest faux pas in the Arrogant canter sermon one that I have I have asked him about he has yet to comment on it in an email.
And that was what came up last on the last program everybody caught the Esau Romans 9 Can't call it exegesis you can't call it is a Jesus just Just cutting a sentence in half and completely ignoring the first half the sentence the only way you could really describe it.
It was absolutely incredible that he could make the comments that he did and and everybody caught it. I can't imagine there's any serious Biblical student at Liberty University who? Did not it was not saying they're going.
Yeah. What did he just say you know if anybody looked it up? And just looked at the You know verse before you know two verses before they'd be going wait a minute that the two verses before making. The exact opposite point that he just made and yet everybody around me is is Amening.
What does this mean you know and You know that happens when when people try to get around biblical truth. It has a way of well Romans 9 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 yes, that was God's 2x4. That was what God used me to wake me up. Well, here's the section From dr. Davis's sermon Romans 9. I think he did a lot better than than Eric and Cantor did. And then we'll go to our phone calls eight seven seven seven five three three three four one in Romans 9.
17 and 18 the Apostle Paul talks about wicked Pharaoh, and how God hardened his heart even worse so that Horrible judgments were poured out upon Pharaoh his son and all of Egypt 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. If you choose righteousness gotta multiply your choice to you. And if you choose wickedness God will help you harden your already stubborn heart.
In verse 22 of Romans 9 if you want to look at it 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 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 is really a form of of plagianism. He just attributed to man the ability to choose righteousness.
He just ignored Romans 8 7 through 8 that says man does does not have the capacity does not is not able to do what? Is right in God's sight is not able to submit himself to God's law. I just he just ignored the biblical teaching about man's slavery to sin and hatred of God and just Ripped Romans 3 10 through 18 right out of the Bible.
There's none who seeks after God. There's none who does good and here you have this this power. Powerful will of man that is able to choose righteousness and so if you get glory it's because you've chosen righteousness if you get the hardening and the destruction is because you've chosen that and and God's not Involved in this anywhere and yet when you read the text.
The text is making the exact opposite point. Only by cutting out these 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? We we saw Ergen Kanner do it last week with with Romans 9 11 through 13 and Esau and After Paul makes this statement. Then he says in verse 14. What shall we say then?
There is no injustice with God is there may it never be now notice Paul keeps bringing up these imaginary objectors 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 now folks if you make the same objections. That the people opposing Paul make that that should tell you something that that shouldn't that should make you a little bit worried.
Because that means you are objecting to the Apostles teaching all right, and so how many times do you hear people saying oh well if God chooses outside of what we do if. If it wasn't because of what Esau or Jacob did but it was solely based upon God's freedom.
Then there's there's injustice with God. And so we have the the objection raised. What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God is there may it never be by no means for he says to Moses goes back to Ezekiel or Exodus the 33 for he says to Moses and Here and I know 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. The English translations that says I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion whom I have compassion. The problem is That we do not have a verb to mercy someone we don't have a verb to mercy and literally, it is I will mercy whom I will mercy and I will compassion whom I compassion.
The point is There is absolute freedom on God's part in regards to Mercy and compassion they cannot be demanded. Remember, dr. Davis has said earlier. Well justice is everybody getting the same chance.
Well when it comes to mercy compassion and grace, there is no such thing as chance. These are outside the category. These are outside the category of justice. This isn't law this is mercy and So he quotes from Moses.
I will have mercy on whom I have mercy. I'll have compassion who I have compassion. And then he interprets that passage from Exodus 33 in Romans 9 16 therefore so then You have this Old Testament text.
So then it is not of the willing one Fell on toss neither the trek on toss the man running. But the God mercying and and again the the Parallel is is much clearer in the Greek than it is in most translate the translations.
If you look at it in the original language, it's very very clear. Very very clear. Therefore not of the willing and neither of the activity the running the striving but of the mercying of God. So you have not of man's will.
Not of man's activities. God's mercy. You couldn't make it any clearer than this you couldn't make it any Plainer than this it's 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.
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's saying you might object there's injustice with God.
Which is not what you would do to Ergin Cantor's interpretation of it, would it? If if Paul is actually saying what Ergin Cantor said no one would even raise the issue of injustice would they? But Paul raises the issue of injustice.
So obviously Ergin Cantor missed it entirely and completely. 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 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 God could have brought his wrath to bear upon Pharaoh and taken him out of this world and done so justly right.
Was he not a terrible horrible pagan. Was he not involved in idolatry? Was he not a sinner worthy of the wrath of God? Well, of course and so. That may be true, but that's not why God did what he did.
Is it he says for this very purpose I raised you up. He put Pharaoh in that position. To demonstrate his power God's power in him. And how'd that happen in the destruction of? One of the greatest nations on the earth at that time.
The destruction of the Egyptian gods. The despoiling of the Egyptian gods. 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.
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 in the proclamation of his name the more in tune you are with biblical truth.
The higher those things will be on your priority list. Romans 9 17. What is the interpretation of what God did with Pharaoh. Romans 9 18. So then? He mercies. Whom he desires and he hardens whom he desires.
Direct parallel direct parallel. Both the term desires fell I. Therefore whomever he wishes he mercies therefore whoever he were she's he wishes he scleroni hardens multiple sclerosis. Arterial sclerosis, that's where it comes from scleroni to harden.
He hardens whom he desires now. Dr.. Davis. Just said he heart he he hardens those who choose to harden themselves. Always making man the one in control of God's actions. That's not what Romans 9 says.
That's not what Romans 9 says. And what's the proof of that real easy look at verse 19. You will say to me, then why does he still find fault for who resists his will? All of the excuses that men come up with for Romans 9.
It's about nations you go over here the Old Testament, and that's really not all of those things evaporate because if that's true. Then verse 19 shouldn't be there. Shouldn't be there. Why is he still find fault for who resists as well?
It's not what nation resists as well. It's who resists as well the objector knows. Exactly what Paul's saying and Paul doesn't say you don't understand. I was talking about nations or talk about positions of service.
That's all Paul says. Is it. No, it's not by the way our lines are full up. I Think it's first time some moved here. We our lines are full. If you call right now you get it you get a busy signal because we are full up.
Romans 9 tends to do that to people. Let me finish this up because I want to get through 22. And then we'll we'll we'll skip the break and jump right into our calls and get as much done as we can. Why is he still find fault for who resists as well?
That's personal and. And Paul's response in verse 20 is a response first of all I've even heard reform people say it's not really a response because it's just a mystery and we don't know. No, I Think Paul gives the perfect response and it's the only Response that can be given on the contrary.
Who are you? Oh, man, and Literally, that's the first portion of the Greek text. Who are you? Oh man. Who answers back to God the one who is so arrogant and so ignorant of Your created position to answer back to God the thing molded the plasma Will not save the molder.
Why did you make me like this? Will it and oh, there's so many people hate that. Oh. They hate the potter in the clay. They hate that analogy. Oh, you're dehumanizing us. We'll take it up with the 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 and He is the potter and I love him for that as a person who's gonna be ready to listen to what Romans 9 actually says.
As long as you still think that you're in charge your life and God isn't sovereign Romans 9 is gonna remain a closed book to you. You're always gonna hate it you're always gonna want to find some way around it.
Only by the grace of God can that change or does not the potter have a right over the clay. Why does a potter have the right over clay? Is there not an ontological difference a difference on the level of being Between the potter and the clay.
Well, of course there is and the potter has a right from the clay to make what he will. 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.
Notice same lump. It's not well I'm clay. But I've chosen to be good clay and I've chosen to be righteous clay. And so God can only make a fitting beautiful vessel for me. 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? And it's the exact opposite of what Paul is actually saying, isn't it? It is. There's no question about it. The potter has the right of the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use 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. And then that becomes the context of verse 22 Which was cited by dr. Davis. What if God?
Although willing To demonstrate his wrath and make his power known. Endured with much path 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 he prepared beforehand for glory even us whom he also called. Not from among Jews only but also from among Gentiles. Now listen to what he says. It's amazing to me. That's a pretty well-known people Will basically say well this prepared for destruction thing they prepared themselves.
So there's the text doesn't say they're prepared by God, excuse me. Hello verse 21 Potter. One lump honorable dishonorable, what do you mean. The text doesn't say who did this I? Know you can find it in scholarly commentaries, but scholars are not Immune from hiding their traditions in their commentaries, okay?
They're out there and. So it is clear what he's saying. What if God? Willing to demonstrate his wrath. He's willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known. And I ask you believer. Do you long to see God's power made known.
Do you long to see his wrath made known in regards the sins of men? Read the Psalms sometime. Read the Psalter. Read the people of God saying how long O Lord will injustice take place. God's willing to demonstrate his wrath and make his power known and yet he also endures with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
Every moment extended To the guilty children of Adam is grace. It is mercy. It is not redeeming grace. But it's still grace and He does this so as to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy.
Which he prepared beforehand for glory. Now if there's anything to be found in 23 saying he prepared beforehand for glory would be this. God by his mercy and grace has to change us. Will naturally make ourselves vessels of wrath will naturally be unfit for anything beautiful.
But he has to take out that hearthstone. He has to breathe upon that valley of dead bones to make them to come alive. So if there's anything to be found in in verse 23 He prepared beforehand for glory, but it not saying he prepared in 22.
That's what it would be. It would not be that oh, but they did it themselves. You know it no one requires the extension of God's mercy and grace. The other does not. Does not and so it's a tremendous passage.
It's beautiful, and it is it is simply sad at times to hear people Absolutely massacre the text we heard Eric and Kenner do it. We just heard dr. Davis do it. Why tradition tradition people have their traditions and they They simply at times are unwilling to allow the Word of God to speak.
Eight seven seven seven five three three four one is the number that everybody called and All the little lights are blinking. Let's. Let's get started with our phone callers, and let's start with Joe in Chicago.
Hi, Joe. Hey, how are you doing? 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 we'll make do.
Okay, I love you, and I feel like you're just Categorizing the non-cowardness which by blah blah blah blah blah and so I prayed about my basic thing is I've listened to your debate over The matics. Yes, sir.
Oh you appeal to him now. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure you will but you appeal to him of those words brothers and New not for that. My question to you is how can we miss the great doctrines of?
Salvation-for-all like in John 360. I'm not to bring it to the basic when the normal reading would never have saw.
Well, actually by a different standard. Yeah, well actually I don't go by any different standard. I use the exact same standard in challenging Jerry matics to allow Adel Foss to be defined by its context as I do to challenge You to look at John 316 not an English translation.
But in the original language the original readers of the Gospel of John would have seen the phrase pass happest. You own everyone believing it is your tradition to read into pass happest. You own 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 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. 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'll write would raise him up on the last day.
So I'm using the exact same standard because 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.
They have the Lord Jesus saying the Jews you are not my sheep I lay down my life for my sheep, etc, etc. So it's just a matter of allowing all the texts to speak and not allowing certain traditions to determine our exegesis.
Sure, go ahead. Okay. First of all, you're saying that we have tradition my friend. I'm not the one calling one, sir.
Yes, sir, sir. I'm sorry. That's that's a grossly invalid Argument. I'm gonna. Sir sir, if I have to put you on hold I will then you'll still be able to hear me. But it's a gross. It's a grossly invalid argument.
And here's why. First of all, I use the term to describe my theological position. Do you have a theological position whether you want to? Aid in conversation enough to use a term that will communicate that or not is irrelevant.
First of all, you do have your traditions. I'm open about mine. I examine mine by scripture. You can hide behind. Oh, I don't use terms that doesn't change the fact that you have your traditions, sir.
So it's that's it. That's a completely irrelevant argument. That's that's that's you want it. You want to do a lot better than that, bro.
Well, wait a minute. What about John 316? What about John 316? You said you want to respond to that? Yeah, I want to. I want to respond thing of bias. My point is in my pocket every time I read the Bible what it means.
Well, sir, again, that's a very that's a very common But again a very very bad argument that you need to abandon immediately because you need to realize something. The Bible was not written in Greek brother.
There was no one. I'm sorry not written in English, brother. No, there was no one on planet Earth That used the word whosoever when John wrote his gospel sir that that language that language is not developed for another Thousand years and so the question 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. Okay, so no no, no, no, I'm gonna finish my response. You said you said the fishermen a Fisherman wrote it and if the fishermen wrote it with enough particularity to communicate the truth and the constructions He used are you saying we shouldn't listen to the to the language that they used if someone's reading your writings today.
Should they not look at the use the English language today and determine what you mean by that? Yes, yes, yes, sir, I I was very clear as anyone who's listened to my debate with gerrymantics knows I Went to the original languages of what Adel Foss meant we discussed hellos who we used the original languages.
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 God originally inspired to read our traditions into the English text is reprehensible 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. So I held gerrymatics to the exact same standard that I'm using and when 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. Just like you read the original languages. First of all he left excuse me. He left that up to others. Secondly.
No, he had not ever read a modern study on hellos who? Are you are you saying that a study? Which has only taken place in the past past two decades that he should be accountable for that.
I'm saying you're telling me God allowed the Bible the soul infallible ruling to me.
Where do you get that. Where do you get that. What do you say?
I'm just using this as an example the Marian Doctrine if Calvin could have decisively Come to an understanding.
Revelation. Sir, please all you're arguing now is that well a Calvin Calvin did not have infallible knowledge of Everything about the Bible and everything about the Greek language so therefore we didn't have the Bible.
I mean, please sir I mean think of what the man accomplished in light of what he came out of. No one is claiming that you have to have an infallible Exhaustive encyclopedic knowledge of everything. It would have been nice if he could have read an in-depth Exegetical studies and tactical study of hellos who but you know what he didn't have to.
Are you saying that we shouldn't study? Those things that we shouldn't continue to grow. The Granville Sharpe's rule that demonstrates the deity of Christ 213 and 2nd Peter on one was discovered at the end of the 19th century.
Does that 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. 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. 100 years of Calvinism and then. Why. Why.
Are you sure of that. When did when Clement or Ignatius Become the determiner of the meaning of cosmos in the gospel of John. When did you just abandon solo scriptura?
That's not what I'm saying my friend what I'm saying. I forget what you're trying to say and John's disciple catch what he was trying to say and go in that vein because you know.
That have you ever read Clement? Yes, and you didn't see the many references to the elect in Clement. Did you miss. Did you miss the the official the epistle to Dionysius that that has all the references to?
Like imputed righteousness and things like that. And repeated references to the elect there, too.
Did you miss those. Well not. Once again. Those are terms that we both share. I mean, I think that's where you categorize us in the wrong way. What I'm talking about is what world does not mean world.
Where were they. Well? I've never I have never said world does not mean world. I have said that world is defined in its context. The Bible says do not love the world. Does that fit your interpretation of world of every person who's ever lived.
Yes, or no. Say that either. No I'm talking about the normative reading. Of the normative reading there are 14 different uses of cosmos by John alone. Which one is your normative reading? Easy. John chapter 17.
I do not pray for the world. I pray for those you've given me out of the world. That clearly differentiates between the disciples and the world right. That's my point. So world there doesn't mean every single person.
Does it?
My friend you need to slow down. What you just quoted was John 17. What's different? That's my whole point. I'm understand why you wouldn't see it that way John 17.
The high priestly prayer of the Lord Jesus and John chapter 17. We're gonna Can we go a little bit long mr. Pierce. Try to get the rest of the rest of the folks in because there's our lines are completely.
I'm sure you are completely filled today. And so John 17 9 I am. I ask on their behalf. I do not ask Perry to Cosmo on behalf of the world. But of those whom you have given me for they are yours. Notice the differentiation he Differentiates between those who are in the world and those have been given to him.
And then in verse 11 says I am no longer in The world which is a completely different use of cosmos than you have in verse 9.
Just there. 179 does not mean every single human being. Does it those you have given me?
So he gave them out of the world. So is everyone. How do you know? It's a wait a minute. The the disciples aren't everyone.
He says I'm not praying for everyone. The world needs everyone there. I'm not praying for everyone. He's only praying for a select few.
That's my point doctor. Okay, and so when he then says. I do not ask you to take them out of the world. But did you keep them from the evil one? They are not of the world even if I am NOT of the world.
Those uses the word world obviously do not mean every single human being because the apostles were human beings, right?
We talked about the world in the first John sense the evil of the world the people who are unbelievers.
So there's many different uses of the term world. So when you originally said, oh you changed the meaning of the world world I recognize that every use of cosmos has to be defined by its context and you're saying I'm the one changing the definition of the word world.
That doesn't make any that doesn't make any sense. Joe. I Just got done. Honestly, I just got I I got done just a few moments ago talking about Romans chapter 9. Yes, sir, did you agree with what I said in Romans chapter 9.
I.
I'm one of the the previous chapters are that's what. Okay.
So so when when he says it does not depend on human will or exertion. He's talking only about nations there. He's not talking about an actual person who wills. He's talking about a nation. That's my belief.
Because and you can you can instantiate that in the text.
Because what he starts off saying what he's talking about Israel.
Well, he starts off what he starts off saying brother is verses 5 and 6 and in verse 6 He says it is not as though the Word of God has failed for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.
Doesn't that make it very personal he then differentiates between persons not nations. You're missing the context brother. If it was just about if it was just about nations then Pharaoh's just a nation whoever he Mercies is just a nation.
Whomever he hardens is just a nation nations. Then say why does he still find fault? This is all about nations. Nations answer back who answers to God the thing molded is a nation. Come on, Joe. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Come on Joe I'm sorry. You just you just said it was Israel right as a nation.
But now you're taking and Pharaoh when God wants something to be done he elects it to salvation. I believe in an event in life every single person's going person's going who. This is how God chose a nation and 100 itself in the way of that God's when you spare for his own glory.
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. That's just That's just where we run into God's election or something.
Joe, I'm sorry. I.
Sorry, but every at all statement. It's not an every at all statement for everybody except in Christ. I just believe and 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. Hey, thanks for your phone calls day. Appreciate it. We got lots of other folks trying to go. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you. Have a good day. Okay, we've got other we filled the phone lines up so let's let's continue getting them going here. Let's talk with the gym down in the south of Arizona, Rio Rico. How you doing, Jim?
Hey, dr White Jim Kirby down here. Yes, sir. How you doing? I'm.
Calming down. Okay. I just I just want to follow up. That was. That was a good phone call from standpoint.
Really what 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, and Very rarely if if ever hear you referring to this in the context of figures of speech and I would invite Joe to look at EW Bollinger's book on figures of speech because what's being dealt with there are figures of speech known as metonymy and in synecdoche and Bollinger contends that those figures of speech were known by the Hebrews and Greeks in the ancient world.
So it was not something foreign and plus the fact that we use figures of speech we may not Know them by by name. But we use figures of speech all the time. And he refers to the world there in the context of John 6316 as a as a metonymy of the subject.
I would just invite if there are other listeners on there to look at Bollinger's figures of speech. This is what nailed it down. For me is 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 chapter 11 where he says if their fall that is the Jews falls as the riches of the world and cosmos.
And their fail of failure riches for the Gentiles world as there is parallel with Gentiles. It has it has to be limited there I would take the riches there's being being salvific in nature if their fall is the riches or the Salvation coming to the world.
Well, how much more that is the the Jews fullness?
It's just well, there's no question that unfortunately and I sound like I'm all of a sudden in a it sounds really odd. There's no question that this 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. I'm sure dr. Davis and I for example would utilize the exact same kind of exegetical methodology exact same hermeneutical principles to defend the resurrection of Christ or the deity of Christ or the person and of the Holy Spirit as as We'd be on the same page.
But when you come to this one issue all of a sudden all bets are off all of a sudden everything changes and it just doesn't 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 and Somebody's protect protecting their tradition by in essence Hiding things and and hiding the proper hermeneutical method which would not lead to the result of their traditions.
So yeah, most definitely it's not just a matter of looking at context and saying well all here is all without distinction. It falls into the category of a legitimate figure of speech. Yeah, which I hardly ever Anybody referred to and yet this is this this is this is called scholarship.
This I mean that that was the Bollinger's baby. Yeah, I've seen Bollinger misused.
He obviously is touching upon something that is important and that is we all use figures of speech. There are figures of speech that that all of us use and we need to know what was what was? Contemporaneous with the original writings to know what figures of speech are.
I mean man a modern English is really a mess on that level. I'm not sure that anyone a thousand years from now is be able to make sense of almost anything it said the day given how much of that is context dependent and dependent upon figures of speech, but the same is true back then and If you can demonstrate the utilization of those things in contemporaneous documents the great you can.
And yeah, it is generally being ignored by the 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. All right, thank you sir, thanks for calling in today.
Let's continue on here and get to Aaron. Hi Aaron. How you doing? Let me yes, sir. I can hear me. Well. I can hear you just fine. I'll try and move quick.
I have two questions concerning evidences of salvation. I've been getting kind of very mixed responses kind of odd to be a 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 very strange.
So your opinion would be appreciated even though We believe in salvation by faith or justification by faith I've been getting somewhat of a feeling of of this double talk of where there are kind of a there's kind of a score system on sins like As long as you don't commit adultery and murder you're giving you're showing an evidence of salvation but committing a few little white lies here and there are are Are not bad enough.
And even though I we would never preach antinomianism it seems like every Christian from the day they live to the day they die they 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 is this faith alone.
Is faith alone enough enough to Face my hope on or is there or do I have to be concerned of I mean? Do people have to be concerned that there's that they're showing? Too much sin in their life that they're not really showing enough evidence of salvation.
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 in In balance in The 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 see whether we're in the faith.
They care nothing about the fact that in first John 5 when when John says these things I've written to you You may know that you have eternal life these things refer to the rest of the book which talks about loving your brother and and Walking in the truth and and so on 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 to recognizing that as Peter says you've been called to be holy. Therefore be holy and so there is that element of especially evangelicalism out there.
Which basically has Christianity ending on at about 1215 on Sunday afternoon? And if you're really spiritual it picks up again for about an hour Sunday evening. And maybe Wednesday night. But that's the extent at which the 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 are constantly gazing at their navel. They're constantly examining every single word and every single thought and and are attempting to Examine everything so closely that so they never experience forgiveness.
They never experience What it means to have an advocate before the father a recognition that we live in a fallen world and that we ourselves are fallen. And obviously the the proper Balance is found in between those two extremes.
One that is brought about by the Spirit of God's work in the person's life when we say faith alone. We are as and this is I think one of the important issues. We need to recognize that we're talking about faith as the work of the Spirit of God.
Not to the kind of faith that many people promote today, which is a on-again-off-again. Human type of activity, but even in John chapter 6 when 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 I believe is in the Reformed perspective because we recognize that is the Spirit of God who is working these things in us. The that faith and repentance are gifts the 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 your nose clean or you're gone. Or we'd have to become libertines and universalists something along those lines.
Everyone's gonna get saved. Let's not worry about it. 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 Holy Spirit of God.
It's something that God is doing that's why. Any one of us is persevere persevere in the faith as as we have 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 Sunday. Drop a 50 in the plate and that's what you need. And sadly, that's the state of a lot of American Christianity and There's a lot of I've said many times if if your taxes were to double by walking through the church door next Sunday morning What would happen to the average attendance of most churches?
Not one that you tell you very yeah very quickly.
One 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. Those same people.
As I mentioned earlier, they they seem to think like lying deception small acts of theft. Thanks to you know, the Internet. I'm almost every teenager these days and because become a music thief basically They don't really see 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. Well, you've you've completely moved out. I understand that I understand it. And it's it's certainly understandable When you're talking about something like murder Over against them like that and that goes against Paul's own lists where he puts right next to murder disobedient to parents.
Those texts demonstrate that in essence We are using a humanistic view of sin rather than the view of sin is found in the New Testament where you have The the the vice lists that Paul gives and Romans and Galatians.
That are very challenging to us because they they do point out to us that we cannot make that kind of easy distinction between those particular perspectives and just simply say well You know, it's fine to go on with this kind of the the issue the issue in in Scripture Aaron is 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.
That is the issue there I need to go to John in Tennessee real quick because we're running out of time. Hi, John. How are you?
Good, sir. How you doing? I always catch you at the end of your show. I Called you about a month ago. I was the guy that uh goes to the King James only Church. Okay, I'll do some work. I Just wanted to.
Originally what I want 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 Church of Christ hmm, and this issue has come up again and again and I believe the last thing we said about it in regards to Jacob and Esau was that uh, he somehow made it seem to where Jacob had done something you know, I guess a better way than Esau and and I Ended down on that and I said, well, does that did that make Jacob meritorious off?
Mm-hmm. And But coming up again and again in our discussions and also, you know discussions about John 6. Mm-hmm question I had for you. I sat down with my pastor the other day and we talked about this and he seems to believe that the Greek indicates that people fit themselves for destruction and the verse that talks about you know, the Potter and the clay and.
You may have already addressed that. I'm not sure I did a little bit earlier, but it is always good to to emphasize this. 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 now notice That there you have one one Potter you have one lump of clay.
It is and if he wants to talk about the Greek it is ec to out to. For Amitas now that the use of that term out to is translated. They're the same so the emphasis is upon the fact that there is one Potter and there is one lump of clay 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 and because it's good. He turns that into into honorable vessels and then he's got one lump of clay over here and it's it's the lesser type.
It's the it's the Walmart type. Okay, and so he makes that into vessels for common use. That's that's for putting trash in and things like that or garbage and things like that. No, there is one lump of clay.
The clay is all the same. The differentiation is focused upon the Potter who has the right to do this. Okay. So that's the first thing if you want to talk about Greek then the use of out to I'll toss a tail top out to there the genitive to out to in verse 21 would point out the fact that we're talking about the same lump one lump and Then notice there is Two you have you have men and then day if you want Greek if you're writing this down put men and then day de pronounced day you have indeed one for honorable use and then another for dishonorable and since it uses the same Root term to may which means honor and then autumn a that would be dishonorable.
So 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 okay, and Where are those two uses where those two uses then go in verses 22 and 23.
What's the parallel what's what's the fulfillment of the clay and vessel issue in verses 22 and 23? It is the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and the vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory those are the two fulfillments and so the the problem is there's the the only thing that he can be pointing to in verse 22 is That the the term Qatar Tidzo prepared beforehand is in the passive and Probably what he's trying to say is and this is what a Lutheran Lenski does and I there's a paper by the way at a omen or 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 this This prepared is they've prepared themselves. 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, 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 that would in context fit into that Different difference between the two phrases is the fact that he does not have to extend any type of power or energy for reprobation.
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. 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 that he by grace has to extend that power to change us from being God haters into being God lovers.
But there is nothing in the text that would say oh no. No, this is all this is all of a sudden the clay preparing itself I mean, that's just that would absolutely completely destroy The context for the the passage itself and so I know where he's getting it from but the the point is that some people say well, you see that could be a Middle or it could be a passive.
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 if verse 21 wasn't there. Then you could you could try to make an argument.
But verse 21 is there versus 22 and 23 or the continuation of the argument of verses 19 to 21. So it is completely a contextual to take it the way that he's taking it. Okay. Thank you brother. 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. So we still went long you still got more than you expected. Thanks for all the calls today.
They were excellent. I think they've illustrated our points very very clearly and That was that went fast that that went that went very quickly. Thanks for listening to the dividing line today I will be leaving first thing in the morning for Sedalia, Missouri.
You've got a debate tomorrow night those in view in the area I hope that you will be able to be with us at that time and Then next week Lord willing back in the dividing line Tuesday morning. See you then.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries. If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at p .o Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org That's a o m i n dot o RG or you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks.
Join us again next Tuesday morning at 11 a .m. For the dividing line.