God Centered vs. Man Centered

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 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White Welcome morning. Welcome to the dividing line. My name is James White. This is the only dividing line for this week

I will be traveling on Thursday will be in the New York area on Friday Saturday and Sunday, I'll be at to both grace and hope reformed

Baptist churches Hope reform Baptist Church on Sunday morning grace a reformed

Baptist Church Sunday evening in the Long Island area I've been at both churches many many times.

Look forward to seeing lots of old friends there We'll be speaking for Jeremiah cry on Friday and Saturday.

Hope to see you all then Lord willing back to a regular schedule next week and the week after that. I'm not sure what's gonna happen because I will be in Detroit During that period of time and I just realized

I did not move my calendar on the wall over there So I know I leave the 16th, but be watching for live

Jesus or Muhammad programs. I'll let you know on the blog whether we'll be able to do any live

Dividing lines or anything like that Who knows we might even you know, it might be possible to do a dividing line from the

ABN studios That would be interesting And who knows we'll see what we can work out

I know they do Skype things and so it would be a possibility I suppose But we will we will see

Be that as it may I wanted to address Really an absolutely central and vital issue on The program today most of you know that in the

Lord's Providence. I Have found a way To pursue physical health while at the same time doing the vast majority of the studying that I do

I have a Tremendous amount of things I need to read and tremendous amount of things. I need to listen to presentations lectures debates

Whatever else it might be in the form of the people that I'll be debating in the future Lectures and debates they've done in the past However, it might be and it's it's wonderful today the technology

We have as long as I can get a book in PDF or document format

I can mp3 it I can listen to it at faster than the normal rate of speed all while I am pursuing

Continued health on the back of a bicycle around around the deserts of Arizona which

I'm doing a lot of these days and while doing so I decided to go back and Listen to some of my previous encounters with Robertson Janice because of course as you know,

I will be debating Dr. Sim Janice three times over the next few months twice in September and once in October in the process of Listening to a debate we did at the

University of Utah I've always wondered what the Mormons thought about the debates we did there

We did two debates on Roman Catholicism one with Jerry Matta ticks and one actually three now, I think about it Very first debate we did was with a

RCIA teacher up there but we had Jerry Matta ticks and we had Robertson Janice in and Some Janice and I once again sort of reprised a little more focused discussion of the subject of the mass

Is the mass a propitiatory? sacrifice and as I listened to that encounter

I was struck yet once again with what I think is one of the most important things for us to understand when it comes to the subject of the gospel itself and I'm going to link to that particular debate

As it is available on our website, I'm going to link to it when I Put up the the blog for this program and I would highly recommend that you listen to it

As I as I have listened to it as I have gone over it I have seen that it it was a very very very useful debate and one of the things that it

Illustrated on a on a very clear level to him who has ears to hear anyway was the difference between God centeredness and Man centeredness.

I have used the terms theocentric reading of Scripture and Anthropocentric reading of Scripture, but all that means is

That when you approach a text There are overarching considerations that Enter into how you read that text and I have said for a very very long period of time that if you think that the primary message of the

Bible is focused upon mankind upon man and Obviously man is central to the activities

Describing the Bible the history of God's working with his people all these things very much focused upon mankind but if you think

That the primary focus of the Bible is on man rather than upon what

God Himself is doing in reference to himself in reference to his own glorification

Then you are going to completely misunderstand the overarching purposes of God his revelation and the meaning of Scripture this

Comes out in this debate. I'm gonna play a couple clips There is a particular verse.

I recently preached upon it. I Raised these issues in the context of preaching on this

Hebrews chapter 7 this glorious glorious glorious text

Focused upon presenting the perfection of the work of Christ it's focused on Christ and Yet you're going to hear a man a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary But a man who is a self -avowed

Roman Catholic and if there is anything that can be said about Rome's Theology it is centered upon man

Not upon the glory of God but upon man man's Ability through the sacramental system to in essence control the very grace of God and you're gonna hear a man read a text of Scripture and I would like to suggest that just as there are texts of Scripture You can use to sort of determine where a

Bible translation is where the translation committee came from This is a text of Scripture. You might want to use to determine whether a person you're dialoguing with has a mindset focused upon God and his glory or upon man and his activities

Whether this person is a monarchist or a synergist whether this person is God centered or man centered

And I'm referring to Hebrews 7 25 That has become one of my favorite texts in all of Scripture Therefore he is able also to save Pantelis forever to the uttermost

Those who draw near to God through him since he always lives to make intercession for them now the focus of the text is

Jesus's ability to save The whole point is that because he abides forever because he is not like the old priest

He he isn't subject to death. He has been raised from the dead. He has an indestructible life

He is he is the priest after the order of Melchizedek because all these things are true of Jesus He is

Able to save so design the infinitival form of sozo. He is able to save doonatai

He has the power of the ability to save Because he always lives to make intercession in behalf of a particular people

I Was thinking this morning because I've been thinking about this since listening to this

Monday morning, I was thinking this morning about how it's not just Roman Catholics It's it's not just Roman Catholics who have this problem the dividing line between man centeredness and God centeredness, unfortunately is not the dividing line between Rome and Protestantism any longer

I Was thinking about Norman Geisler And I was thinking about Chosen but free and the amazement that I experienced when

I first read that book a decade ago now and I encountered his comments on John chapter 6 and especially

John 6 44 and in John 6 44 You have once again the focus completely upon God's abilities and man's inabilities

Specifically you have the statement that no man is able To come unto me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day

Everything's God God has the ability to draw

God has the ability to raise up on the last day And the only thing that's described man is that he is not able to do something and yet Norman Geisler Was able to look at that text say here.

We see the free will of man and I remember just staring at the page

Going how can this be? How do you and again it is that massive differentiation

Between reading the text in a God -centered fashion or reading it in a man -centered fashion. So let's listen to a couple clips here

I Had I had had these clips all set up in a different program and then that program just lost the entire wave

It's just like were you doing something? I don't know. So I had to put in another another program had to rush here.

But um So I may not have it exactly where I want it to be. But here are three clips from my debate with Robertson genus on the mass where we discuss

Hebrews 725 and We start with his comment then I respond and then a comment from him here's here's

Robertson genus responding to my citation of The book of Hebrews. He says in Hebrews 725 that he was able to save those who draw near and I agree with that, but it says he's able to save those who draw near What if they don't draw near or what if they were drawing near and they stopped drawing near?

Are they still going to be saved the answer would have to be no Even dr. White would have to agree to that in his predestinarian theology

If they stop drawing near that means they can't be saved So it's not that like it's an automatic salvation

That because Christ did all this work automatically these people are going to be saved No, it says he will save those who draw near again

It's the volitional part of man. That is also required here as all the rest of the book of Hebrews talks about So there you have

Robertson genus Looking at Hebrews 725 and here, you know, we call this the dividing line.

Here's the dividing line. Here's the dividing line if you can look at Hebrews 725 and You are so focused upon man and man's activities and man's abilities and you have so diminished

God's capacity to actually accomplish anything in and of himself You have become an absolute foundational synergist

Everything God does He can only do with man's cooperation

Then you look at this and you see therefore

He is able Also to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God Through him since he always is making a session of them.

All you see is those Drawing near through him to God and you see oh wait wait

There's I can put man's action in there Here's here's this whole thing of drawing near and so I can take the entire sacramental system of Rome I can take penances and confessions and baptisms and masses and Cram them into the description of a specific people.

I don't have to worry that that's not how the original hearers of this ever would have taken that I mean, this is simply a description of a specific people

Jesus has all power to save but we're not universalists and the Bible does not give us a universalistic message

But there is a specific people That are saved

Those that are called Receive the promises and It's interesting this came up in the discussion and Dr.

St. Janice at one point said well, it doesn't say You know who is perfected and I said you better believe it does

Hebrews 9 15 for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant So that since a death has taken place the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant those who have been called

May receive the promise of the eternal inheritance God's electing grace is always right there in the text of the

New Testament It's right there. And so you have here a description

It's a description of a certain people but the person

Who has yet to really understand the emptiness of self -righteousness?

The incapacity of human work To really understand their own sin and their own depravity and the holiness of God Who wants to have a

God who's dependent upon them and their actions? Doesn't see this as a description of a particular people.

No, they see this as a doorway through which to insert well, either the huge sacramental system of Rome or Well, if you're a

Norman Geisler type synergist Just Enough to make sure you don't have to believe in the absolute freedom of the

Potter To do with the clay as he wills, but my friend do you hear?

What that reading does? He isn't able to save who he chooses to save He's only able to save those who by their

Continued actions enable him to do so and I submit to you.

That is the exact opposite Not an alternative the exact opposite of the argument of Hebrews at this point and it robs

That great Melchizedek priest who always lives to make intercession for a particular people it robs him of his glory and Robs the proclamation of its power.

It's important. It's vitally important to see this

Now I did respond to some Genesis comments

Right about here, let's see how well I guess on picking spots in a wave form

For example in the last minute that I have here consider Hebrews 7 24 to 25 again Where it is said that Jesus is able to save the uttermost those who draw an eye into God through him

Seeing he always lives to make intercession of them see what happens when you read that text from an anthropocentric perspective

The description of the people who are saved by Jesus those who draw an eye into God by him Becomes the very

Limitation of the power of Christ it is there continuing to become it is there continuing to draw an eye that becomes the basis of the entirety of the work of Christ and would that not destroy the very

Argument of the writer of Hebrews of the supremacy of Christ because I would argue that was the same thing in the

Old Covenant You see once you identify the context these passages

You can see that what we're talking about here is a perfect work And if you add in the works of man, you destroy the argument of the writer to the

Hebrews. Thank you very much So I just said there faster what

I said more slowly here and Responded and tried to once again emphasize

That this is a matter of how you read the text of Scripture and it ends up massively influencing

The entire argument of Scripture itself You are destroying

The argument of the writer to the Hebrews if you do not allow that To stand as it needs to stand well

Roberts and Genesis, of course wanted to respond to those things And So once again,

I want you to listen to a man who? Absolutely illustrated throughout this debate and will illustrate in the debate on the doctrines of grace in Santa Fe next month the very essence of Anthropocentrism the very essence of man centered religion man

Uncentered accomplishment God makes it available, but it is up to us

We make the system work Listen to this offer this perfect sacrifice and he says if it's perfect, why doesn't

Christ perfect anybody? Well, if you read on page 66 of my book not by a bread alone.

I deal with this very argument of dr White and this is what I say The apologist overlooks several things in his reasoning one

The cross itself is limited in its power to atone simply because according to Scripture not everyone will go to heaven

Even though the same scriptures say Christ died for the whole world We read that in 1st

John 2 verses 1 and 2 he says he is a propitiation for the whole world Well, if he is the propitiation for the whole world and it's a perfect sacrifice then why isn't everybody saved?

If now, let me just pause it right there and as I will say in my response great objection to an

Arminian It's not an objection to me I've already demonstrated that whole world in the context of the text that he was citing had to do with Jew and Gentile Bond and free male and female

But if you're an Arminian, you got to come up with a completely different answer and I submit to you Arminians Historically do not argue for the perfection of the

Atonement of Christ because they have no substitutionary Atonement at all Now if you're an

Arminian and you believe in substitutionary Atonement well, then you're just confused as to where your theology came from and you're inconsistent and That's why you folks.

I'm sorry. Just simply don't handle Roman Catholicism very well at all and When you do debates with them, you generally get beat up because you've compromised on the central issue and You already agree with Rome and they know that but you're inconsistent your conclusions and so they push you to the wall on it

It's a good reason not to be an Arminian But what was just said?

The Roman Catholic reads all of those texts. It's part of the Catholic Catechism They have to believe that the

Atonement is absolutely universal. Therefore it cannot accomplish the perfection of those for whom it is made

So if you're not reformed then upon what basis do you assert the perfection of those upon who

Apart for whom the Atonement is made you have to allow for some type of external addition to that work it can't just be

Union with Christ and Therefore his death becomes your death because it's for everybody There's just so many problems that crop up and the reason we generally don't see these things is because we're not pressed

To have a consistent theology all the way through. In fact, there's a bunch of folks. I remember sitting with a good man when

I was studying it in seminary and I was pressing him on one of these issues and he said

James you just want you you want things to be too logical he embraced the inconsistencies of his theology as being a good thing and I think that's the position a lot of people have but we continue with his comment

Matthew 7 13 and 14 and many other passages say that they won't be saved Apparently another factor exists which retards the atoning work of crop of the cross

According to Scripture that factor is faithless disobedience catch that What retards the work of the cross?

the very thing the cross takes away What's faithful disobedience that's called sin.

So the very thing that Christ was manifest to take away is able to diminish and retard

The work of the cross. There you go There there is

Man -centered religion the very act whereby the triune

God Glorifies himself the very center of history itself and it is retarded by what by what man

Does God wants to do more? Once again,

I think of Norman Geisler Christ death Saved no one it made all men's savable.

There's the dividing line folks God -centered man -centered

Monarchistic versus synergistic. That's what the dividing line is and you're hearing it right here

Consequently the Catholic Church teaches that faithlessness Retards the atoning work of the mass as st.

John Chrysostom said quote So also was Christ offered once but he did not take away the sins of all men because they did not will it homilies on the epistle to the

Hebrews number two The person cannot benefit from the cross and the apologist's own words

Quote outside of the cooperation of the person drawing near to it yet Even dr

White's religion says that faith in the cross is required in order to appropriate and benefit from the atonement of Christ Now once again while Robert St.

Genes claims to have I mean he went to Westminster Yet he has rarely shown any meaningful insight in as far as understanding of Reformed theology as a whole and given the various places he went, you know camping and stuff like that That that would seem to indicate there.

There's always been a fundamental Disconnection as far as understanding Reformed theology and I'm sure that there will be a plethora of straw men lit on fire in in Santa Fe that I will have to bring a

Debate form fire extinguisher to to put them out during the course of debate

But what was just said was again, I had already before this absolutely denied

That there is anything in Hebrews 725 where mankind's activity of drawing near is what enables

God to save it is a description not a prescription It's a description it is describing a particular people in the

Old Covenant when the offering was made it was made Only for a specific people.

It was not made for the Egyptians. It was not made for the Babylonians It was not made for the Amorites. It was not made for the Philistines It wasn't even made for all the people who call themselves

Israelites It was made for those who drew near to worship. So there is specificity

It's descriptive, but it was not they're coming near to worship that made them special That was not something being added to the sacrifice

Which is what Robertson Genesis doing? but we must think this through because it is it is so much a part of the fabric of evangelicalism to rob

God of his glory to To rob God of his glory in this way to to let man stick his filthy little fingers into the glorious gospel that we have to think this through and be able to recognize it and see it when it happens and challenge it

When it happens We must also add that the apologist would be the first to criticize the Catholic Church if it taught that the

Eucharistic sacrifice forgave sins Mechanically without the cooperation of the participant well that That's a little bit of a different subject, but it is in reference to The the discussion that does need to be had concerning what the effect of this allegedly propitiatory yet non bloody sacrifice actually is and It has to do with with your dispositions and and all the rest of which is why you can go to mass 20 ,000 times in your life die impure

You are not Perfected by the mass, which is why it is not the same

Sacrifice it is not a representation of the same sacrifice Can't can't be done number three the apologist

Calvinistic belief. Dr Weitz claims that once a Christian is saved he cannot lose his salvation for any reason including sin

Thus his attempted critique of the mass in conjunction with the possibility of being lost fraternity is only coincidental

No, it is not coincidental it is fundamental to my entire argument because what it does is it illustrates the foundational difference that exists

Between a God centered gospel and a man centered gospel

It's fundamental. I do not see that that Robertson Janice really understands the consistency of Reform theology and how the parts relate the whole that the

Atonement is related to the decree of salvation, which is related to the Union of the elect with Christ that his death becomes their death his resurrection becomes their resurrection

All the things that come together to form this this Diamond that is the one

God glorifying act of salvation unfortunately, a lot of people don't see that but here is the dividing line

When you can look at texts of Scripture that are screaming

The sufficiency of the Savior that are screaming the glorification of God By the the

His his own exercise of his own will and his own power when you can look at Scripture after scripture that is doing that and all you see is man

Controlling the power of God by his actions and I submit to you You've got a problem

You are reading a divine book as if it is focused solely upon the creature

And that's the dividing line That's the division When we ask

God to bless our proclamation to bless our preaching Are we asking him to bless merely our repetition of our human traditions or we asking him to bless?

That which glorifies him and him alone. I Suggest that this is not just some little issue we can put off to the side

It's important. We have to think through it and when you put it off to the side and say well, you know

I just I know there'd be a cost if I really started believing that stuff If I if I if I started being consistent there that there'd be oh, you know, look look what happens to white

He gets attacked all the time. I don't want that It's the dividing line

I said I wanted to address two texts today and The second text is much more of a teaching text

Because we're about to get into When we get back to it whenever we get back to it listening to the slicks and Jenna's discussion

James chapter 2 and I have addressed James chapter 2 many Many times normally

I I don't have enough time to do it justice That is it's one of those texts is sort of like when you debate

Roman Catholics, you you know That things aren't going well for them when they throw out the can of scripture or James 2 as a smoke bomb

To try to cover their retreat Because they know That if you're gonna handle it well

You're gonna have to provide some background and generally you're in a situation where you only have a matter of moments a matter of minutes

Maybe maybe even less than a full minute To make comment on something and that's not overly helpful

But we're getting into it and it is once again one of those situations where it is the difference between Coming to a text and actually wanting to know what the author was communicating and coming to a text and demanding that it say what you want to say and when synergists and those promoting a works righteousness system come to this text

I Submit to you. They're absolutely abusing it and What we're gonna hear and I Didn't have time because like I said,

I had to shift all of what I just played for you over to another program What I wanted to do

Was go ahead and find Where Roberts Jenna said this but I'll just have to Take my word for it and then we'll get to it eventually at one point

Matt slick Raises the issue of James 214, which is the interpretive key to this section

James 214 the American Standard Bible says what use is it my brother and if someone says he has faith

But he has no works. Can that faith save him? the

ESV says Can that faith save him any T says

Can this kind of faith save him? There is an entire list of modern translations that specifically emphasize

That the phrase may do not I hey pistis so sigh out on That because it is

Hey pistis the faith definite article before the word That the article should be rendered anaphorically

The article should be rendered anaphorically and Hence it is referring to That which came before the faith that was that was mentioned beforehand

In fact, let me read for you the specific terminology that is used by Dan Wallace in his exegetical grammar of the

New Testament Commenting on this specific text defending the translation this kind of faith

Here's what he says the author introduces his topic faith that works He then follows with a question asking where this kind of faith is able to save the use of the article

Both both points back to a certain kind of faith as defined by the author and is used to particularize an abstract noun

Against the vast bulk of commentators Hodges that was Zane Hodges, by the way argues that the article is

Not anaphoric since otherwise the articular pistis in the following verses would have also have to refer back to such a workless faith

He translates the text simply as faith cannot save him can it although it may be true that the article with pistis and verses 17 18 20 22 and 26 is anaphoric

The antecedent needs to be examined in its own immediate context in particular the author examines two kinds of faith in to 14 through 26 defining a

Non -working faith as a non saving faith and a productive faith as one that saves

Both James and Paul would agree. I believe with the statement faith alone saves but the faith that saves is not alone now

Some Janice simply tells Matt slick that's wrong That's a mistranslation

There is no word that and of course there is no word that it's not like there's some separate

Greek word We're talking about how you translate the article hey before the word pistis and You do so by recognizing

That there is a that normally Normally when an

Anaphoric use is in view the preceding use of the noun

Will lack the article It will not be articulate and if you read

Greek, then you know that in James 2 14 When it says

That a person says they have faith eon piston leg a

Piston does not have an article. So this is a classic Example where you have a noun

Then you have the repetition of the noun later With an article that Article is pointing us back to the preceding use of the noun.

This is called the anaphoric use of the article. So What does it benefit?

What use is it my brethren? Eon piston leg a if a one says

He has faith but He does not have works

May do not I hate pistis so sigh out on May do not die that faith that kind of faith that faith which has which only exists in The spoken claim it is a said faith it has no evidence of its existence in behavior and activity and in reality a

Faith that is alone in that way Is that able to save and the use of the of the may?

Assumes a negative answer can this kind of faith save him the assumed answer is

No, in fact, you could render it that kind of faith Can't save him.

Can it? That would be an appropriate translation as well. It is the contradiction that exists

Between a faith that claims to exist but has no evidence of its existence

It's that contradiction that James is talking about in James chapter 2 notice what he goes on to say

I'll go with the New American Standard at this particular point if a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food and one of you says them go in peace be warmed and filled and Yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body.

What use is that now see what's illustrated here you use words

You say things be warmed be filled But there is no corresponding reality the only way they can be warmed and filled is what is if you give them clothing and food

There is a contradiction between the content of the words and the action that flows from it

Contradiction Shouldn't be that way words should match reality

Even so faith if it has no works is dead being by itself.

It is simply Saving faith does not exist merely in words in thin air in air moving over vocal cords

But someone may well say you have faith and I have worked show me your faith without the works now

I'll show you my faith by my works and Here is an important word

You need to learn this word because a lot of people misuse this text Dykes on boy, it's actually two words, but the second word sort of attached to it

Dykes on boy Show me That's the one

Greek phrase that everyone born in Missouri already knows but um boom

Just see it if you're still awake, you know, this has been a pretty heavy show so far now I just wanna make sure everyone is still awake

You know, it's a show me state for those who haven't been there. So I just know Dykes on boy show me

Show me your faith chorus tone air go show me your faith apart from works. You can't do it

It's not possible The only way I can see That you can give demonstration is by what you do

This is the kind of faith that James is talking about in James chapter 2 he is decrying people who claim to have something they don't have and And they can not

Dykes on boy show me Then he gives an illustration verse 19 you you believe a theological truth you believe

Heist est in hot they off. There is one God very good

That's a that's that's an important thing. Don't get me wrong. I mean We have to spend a lot of time trying to convince

Mormons of that But We we that's that's what that's the dividing line between the polytheistic religions of the world and the the truth of Christianity The truth of those those great monotheism.

It's important. It's vital very very important, but While you do well to believe that the demons also believe and they tremble

Demons have faith that it says right there pistew usin they believe they have faith so If you say you believe something you have faith in something the demons believe

But you see the demons can't demonstrate real faith Because that takes a changed nature that takes

Regeneration that takes the work of God. And so that's the context then

The distinction between true saving faith and Faith that has no evidence of existence a said faith a faith that simply makes the claim to exist without Being able to provide any evidence that it does in fact exist

That then is the context of James 2 20, but are you willing to?

Know to recognize to understand You foolish fellow you you empty man

Literally Anthropocene Hathi hey pistis

Chorus tone, Aragon are gay Aston that faith apart from separate from same word used in John 1 3 apart from him was nothing made that was made that faith

Separate from distinguished from kept out of the realm of works

Is useless Useless the empty fellow has an empty faith

If he does not understand this if he does not see that true saving faith is what and here again

I Say to my Arminian friends. You don't have a consistent leg to stand on here

You may want to believe in Sola Fide Thankfully most of you recognize the abject heresy of the

Bob Wilkin Zayn Hodges people who Decry Repentance and who absolutely

Slaughter this text just manhandle it Because they don't believe what it says

Thankfully those people are recognized By most people what they should be heretics, it's amazing how widespread that teaching is it really is it's a it's a disease

Absolute disease, but if you're an

Arminian, you're still stuck because there must be something

Special about saving faith. It can't be something you work up inside yourself

It Can't be something that everybody is simply capable of doing it if you'll just exercise your autonomous free will

Then you'll be able to have saving faith that endures

That has works consistent with it Which is exactly what the Apostle Paul taught those people who try to say this is some plumb against against Paul Just are ignoring

James's context James talked Paul talked about good works flowing from faith more often than James ever did at least

Given the amount of information we have did he not say that those who are saved by God's grace

That gift that comes from God and Ephesians 2 that they were created in Christ Jesus unto

Good works, which God before ordained that they should walk in them. Is that not the message of Ephesians 2 10?

James has the exact same understanding as Paul Saving faith will have evidence of its existence

But the only way to hold that perspective Consistently The only way to hold that perspective consistently without Believe denying sola fide is to recognize that the faith

That is saving is a faith That comes from God if you don't believe faith is a gift if you think faith is the result of the autonomous activities of An autonomous man

That you can have saving faith as an unregenerate person and that results and you're being born again I I don't know how you get around this mess.

I Don't think you can do so consistently but if you recognize the centrality of God's free act of salvation that he is the one who takes dead rebel sinners and brings them to spiritual life and And he gives to them he grants to them to believe

Philippians 129 It is the gift of God if you're not one of those people. It's just so You you just you have to put man in control

You've got to stick him in there. You don't want to give him a big role Because you want to be able to sing amazing grace

But you have to give him a role That controls

Whether God is successful in bringing about man's salvation Then what you've got to do is you've got to come up with some way for Unregenerate men to be able to exercise saving faith.

Don't let that be something the Holy Spirit Enables a man to do

Don't let that be one of the gifts of regeneration Repentance faith

Those the works of the Holy Spirit of God in the hearts of his elect people

That's part of what it means to have a new nature, but you see the consistent biblical teaching is oh, it's right there

Isn't that what Paul says in Romans chapter 8 those according the flesh are certain things They can't do then he will want to do them and they cannot subject themselves to law of God They cannot submit to God's law

Why do you think we see such hatred of God's law in our society today

Why do you think that as as God is withdrawing his hand of restraint and bring judgment upon Western society?

What are the first things that men do? You hear the story this week

I Talked about this back last year Eastern I think it was

Eastern Michigan student Brought filed suit Same things going on in Georgia right now at Augusta State and I think they're gonna lose

Brought suit because these are Christians and they have a Christian worldview and the

Academy the world's way of education Which is absolutely scandalized at the

Christian worldview Hates the proclamation of the

Lordship of Christ hates God's law Says of you can't graduate from here as long as you believe those things

We are not going to put our imprimatur on you by giving you a degree as long as you believe those things

You have to deny your faith and embrace our religion our

Worldview and I think they're gonna win the the judge

Ruled in favor of the University in Michigan Will there be an appeal probably? Might there be an overturning down the road maybe but my gut feeling is that unless God brings regeneration

I'm sorry repentance and renewal That our society

Will eventually adopt the idea you can't believe those things you can't stand on that ground and you see man

Hates God's law God's law says these things are sinful and when

God removes his hand restraint what they do they rebel and They want to encourage everybody else to rebel

This is the nature of sin And if we don't take that seriously, not only we're not gonna understand what's going on in our society

But it will warp our understanding of the gospel and its proclamation Why?

Does anyone Persevere to the end in faith Jesus said He who endures to the end shall be saved folks that verse is either as Calvinistic as they come or it's

Roman Catholic and see you're either gonna read that as a prescription and Think that man has the ability to bring about his own perseverance and Then you're gonna live in that constant fear and that constant dread

That you ain't gonna make it or you're gonna see it's a description

It is a description of the work of the Spirit of God in a person's life and the

Spirit of God doesn't make junk and When the

Spirit of God brings about regeneration and grants the gift of faith The only reason any one of us persevere to the end is not because of our goodness

It's not because we're better than somebody else It's because that faith

That saving faith that is ours is the gift and work of the

Holy Spirit And that is why it endures It is not something added to the finished work of Christ.

It flows from the finished work of Christ in My behalf and the reason

I persevere is because the father's will For the son is that he lose none of those that have been given to him

Did you hear the reason there? The reason had nothing to do with me

It has to do with the glorification of the triune

God my Salvation glorifies God that's why

I persevere It is the glory of God that must be at the center of our thinking or we will fall for all sorts of shallow

Substitutes so it doesn't matter which of these texts we look at He who endures the end shall be saved faith that works is useless

He's able to save to the uttermost those who draw nigh unto God by him seeing ever lives to make intercession for them in each one of these we see the

Disastrous results of looking at the Bible as if well, you know, the main story of the Bible is about man

Never noticed how the Bible starts the Bible does not start by addressing man

By putting man in the center of creation It doesn't start with arguments for the existence of God Which if its focus was supposed to be upon man, you'd think it would the

Bible starts By talking about what God did What God did freely what

God did for his own purposes and I submit to you it never stopped speaking that way and When we see what the

Bible really is talking about that it's God's story

Then we will not be amongst those who pervert it and Twist it and change it and Start reading it in a man -centered way.

We will read it in a God -centered I hope this has been useful to you burden on my heart.

I wanted to share it with you I'm looking forward to seeing my friends in the New York area this weekend gonna be speaking on Presenting the

Bible in the age of Ermin and then I'm gonna be preaching on the holiness of God So hopefully see you all this weekend in New York till next week

I Think one has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 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 where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks