January 6, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

James White. Well, good morning. It's an unusual time for The Dividing Line on a

Thursday. Actually, I think there was a time when we did it on Thursday mornings, if I recall correctly.

For a while, we like to keep everybody hopping, but I'm teaching a class right now and so we only have a certain amount of time.

The class is in the afternoons from 1 to 5, yes, four hours is a long time. So 1 -877 -753 -3341 is the toll free phone number.

That means there's no reason for you not to call and you know who you are. Those who've been following the blog know there's been a great increase in activity of late over the past couple of days due to the fact that I began reviewing

Dave Armstrong's book and providing a response demonstrating a lack of exegetical content within a book that claims to provide exegetical content.

Simply by doing that, I am a mean, terrible, horrible, nasty man.

And there has been an explosion, about 66 pages now, of comments from folks who are mighty brave behind a keyboard, but those same folks, for some odd reason, they are very, very brave in their assertions in that situation, but they won't pick up a telephone.

Or maybe they will. I've invited them to call today, 877 -753 -3341.

Where's Apollonio? There's four lines open. Apollonio says what I say about Romans 5 -1 is ridiculous, it's so easily refuted.

But if that's the case, then I would assume that these folks would call. We'll see. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

Because, see, when you get on the phone, then you have to answer questions. And, you know, when someone says that pointing out that the ground of our peace with God is the fact that we have been justified, and this is put in the past, and, you know, the grammar and the syntax of the passage,

I'm sure that Apollonio will be able to respond. Or maybe some of the other folks from Dave Armstrong's blog who seem so very, very confident of what they believe.

Yes, I know, we have one caller already. Tony in Maryland is not one of them. Don't worry, Tony. I can just see some poor guy, you know, first one up to ask a question, and it starts off like this, and the light turns to him, and it's like, well, wait, wait, wait, no, no, not me, no.

Don't worry, Tony, we'll get to you. And we know that you're not one of them.

But anyways, that's a poor guy. I did have something I wanted to do first, as all those brave folks line up to call in today, and I'm sure that they will.

I mean, certainly people would not say the things these people say, and then not be willing to say it to my face, and then answer questions about their position.

I mean, especially those who are so confident about how ridiculous and outrageous my argumentation is.

Certainly, they'd want to come on this program, where the people who actually like what I have to say are listening and demonstrate the compelling nature of their argumentation.

Yeah. Anyway, I have a couple things I wanted to play for you today, and that means we're going to have to have the sound on the computer up and ready to go.

And what I wanted to listen to, and honestly, I haven't listened to this yet. So I haven't had a chance to do so.

Of course, I'd read these comments as they have been presented.

And so this will be the first time I've had a chance to listen to the actual comments.

I think, as I recall, these are about eight minutes long. Let me see.

Well, we'll see here as soon as it's... Oh, we had a wrong number call? What a bummer. I think we should put the wrong number on sometime.

What would be really cool is if we get a telemarketer.

Wouldn't that be fun? Can you see that someone calls up and they start into their spiel, and you say, could you hold on just a moment, throw them on?

That'd be sort of enjoyable. Oh, are we having a... Yes, we are having a...

Let me see if I can find that. Let me see. We got the sound up.

Let me see if this is... We...

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! I am usually referred to as the master. There are some who call me...

Tim? Problem with blogs, isn't it?

If you put sounds on it, then it's sort of crass, and you can't force people to do that.

But I should make that sound available for download on the blog. Listen to this before reading any further reviews of Dave Armstrong's book.

Anyway, hey, you know, you got to have some type of sense of humor here, because evidently most people do not.

It's amazing. Anyways, let's listen to... Let me see here. It didn't tell me how long this is.

Well, it will eventually. Let's listen to the comments from Richard Mao at the evening of friendship in the

Salt Lake City Tabernacle. Thank you.

It's difficult for me to find adequate words to express how thrilled

I am to be here this evening. Here we are, Evangelical Protestants and members of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints gathered together in this Salt Lake Tabernacle for an event that's described as an evening of friendship.

I'm not being melodramatic when I say that this is surely an historic occasion.

To be sure, there have long been friendships between some Evangelicals and some

LDS folks, but they have not typically appeared on the public radar screen.

Our public relations between our two communities have been, to put it mildly, decidedly unfriendly.

From the very beginning, when Joseph Smith organized this, my

Evangelical forebears hurled angry accusations and vehement denunciations against the

Mormon community, a practice that continues from some Evangelical quarters, even in this present day.

And I think it's fair to say that on some communities, but in recent times, things have begun to change.

Evangelicals have worked together on some important matters. Here in Utah, the

Standing Together ministry has been willing to take some considerable risks in countering the aggressive and often disruptive protests against the

LDS church. And Pastor Johnson has done much to encourage but friendly exchanges about important matters of faith.

On a personal level, over the past half dozen years, a small group of Evangelical scholars who have been engaged in lengthy closed -door discussions with a small group of our

LDS counterparts. We've not been afraid to argue, but our arguments have been conducted in a sincere desire, genuinely to understand each other.

And in the process, we have formed some deep bonds of friendship. I know

I've learned much from this continuing dialogue, and I'm now convinced that we Evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the

Mormon community. Indeed, let me state the case bluntly on this important occasion, especially to you

LDS folks who are here this evening. We Evangelicals have sinned against you.

The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a to bear false witness against our neighbors.

And we have been guilty of that sort of transgression and things that we've said about.

We've told you what you believe without making a sincere effort, first of all, to ask you what you believe.

We made much of the need to provide you a reasoned account of the hope that lies within us to follow the same

Apostle's counsel that immediately follows that mandate. When he tells us that we must always make our case with gentleness and reverence toward those with whom we are speaking.

Indeed, we have even on occasion demonized you, weaving conspiracy theories that about the what the

LDS is really trying to accomplish in the world. And even at our best, we have been, this is true of both of our communities.

We have talked past each other, setting forth oversimplified and distorted accounts of what the other group believes.

I formed some wonderful friends. These friends have helped me to see the ways in which

I have often misunderstood, misinterpreted Mormon thought. To be sure, as a result of these conversations,

I also remain convinced disagreement between us and that some of these issues are matters.

And tonight, many more of our friends have gathered in this place for a very large and public, large scale evening of friendship.

In just a month and a half during this year, they will take part in those events.

But this evening, we're not here to talk about Joseph Smith, but about the one whose birth we will, the bicentennial year of Joseph's birth makes its appearance.

This is the one about whose birth we sing in words that I should add that many of us love to hear sung and sings these words in this tabernacle, the hopes and fears of all the tonight.

What a wonderful thing it is that we can meet together tonight to talk about the

Lord Jesus and about who he is and what he has done on our behalf. There's much here to talk about.

I personally take great encouragement from the words that Joseph Smith uttered on the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day

Saints. We know, Joseph said, I'm quoting him. We know that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ and worship the father in his name and endure in his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

And then he added, and we know that justification through the grace is just and true.

And we know also that sanctification through the great to all those who minds and strength.

Well, I greet you this evening in that spirit to love and serve

God with all my might, mind and strength in the power made available by the amazing grace that sent the

Lord Jesus to Bethlehem and to the garden of Gethsemane and to the where he shed his blood to pay the debt of our standard debt.

This is the spirit in which my brother, whose name is above every name, the one who alone is mighty to say the one before whom someday every knee will bow that he is

Lord to the glory. May this wonderful evening of all right.

Well, there are the comments. And I am considerably more concerned than I was when

I read them. I guess hearing them only makes it makes it all the worse. It makes it the worst because of what was said by Dr.

Mao again. I know I could go back over all this. I've already written about this and have documented his errors and his misunderstandings of Mormon belief.

The fact that he allows a few scholars at BYU to define the theology of the church and on that basis accuses us of having lied about born false testimony about what

Mormons believe when, in point of fact, we were the ones who were citing the

Mormon leaders and citing them accurately. There is much it is.

It is fascinating that he did use the phrase people like you. We are commanded as Christians to respond to people like you from First Peter 315.

I'm not sure if anyone really caught that. What it what it meant in reality.

But it was sad, especially to hear at the end, knowing what Joseph Smith believed, knowing what

Joseph Smith's theology was to hear him say, I speak to you in the same spirit that to me.

That's the worst part, because when you know what Joseph Smith meant when he talked about justification and sanctification and perseverance, when you know that the

Book of Mormon in Moroni 1032 says, come unto Christ and be perfected in him and deny yourselves of all ungodliness.

And if you shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you?

When you realize what that means, when you realize that this man changed the text of the

Book of Romans to say that God does not justify the ungodly.

When you realize that when you've actually taken the time to study this religion rather than just simply meet with some of its more liberal representatives, then you realize that what was being said there again, the the apologists for Mormonism were laughing their themselves into a tizzy listening to this man who has bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Just, oh, let's hand these people the greatest defensive mechanism they could ever come up with.

And that's what's taking place. It's an amazing thing to listen to. It truly, truly is.

And it was a sad thing to observe there. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number to call.

I think we still have four lines open for, oh, we lost Tony. I'm sorry,

Tony. Feel free to call back. I normally try to establish some direction.

The question that Tony was going to ask was about oneness, I guess. And whether oneness

Pentecostalism, if someone in oneness can be considered Christian, I'm assuming that the question at that point was, can you, and it's a very, very common question because let's face it, with what we face within, and this we've addressed this many, many times, especially in the context of the

Phillips, Craig, and Dean situation, the Bishop T .D. Jake situation, the fact that evangelicalism in essence has decided, and I, you know, again, evangelicalism, what in the world does that mean anymore?

That there is a term that no longer communicates anything. It really doesn't. I mean, what does it mean?

Are we talking about generally conservative groups that generally have a generally higher view of the

Bible? I mean, is that all we can do with that anymore? It seems to be. But the fact of the matter is that at this point in time anyway, you can still find a fairly clear majority of quote -unquote evangelicals who will say, you know what?

If you violate two of the three major, the two of the three foundational doctrines of the

Trinity, we will not fellowship with you. So in other words, if you're a polytheist, we will still put you off to one side.

We will not fellowship with you, except in Salt Lake City. And if you deny the deity of Christ, if you deny the equality of the persons, we're still not ready to invite you to our

CBA meetings unless you have some really good products. But the third, that is the existence of three divine persons.

We have monotheism, the equality of the persons, the existence of the three divine persons. That one, most evangelicals, to be honest with you, just they don't understand themselves.

Therefore, they're not comfortable accusing someone of heresy about something that they probably themselves might be a heretic on anyways.

But they just haven't taken the time to find out. And so T .D. Jakes and Phillips, Craig Dean, and I'm being told that Dean's gone.

Is that, is this new? It's now no longer Phillips, Craig and Dean. It's Phillips, Craig and Howard.

Is that what we're hearing here? That's news to me. Gonna have to look into that. Gonna have to send the plaid man out to do some research.

Plaid man, you have an assignment. Someone tell plaid man that plaid man needs to find out about this because plaid man knows who he is and that's plaid man's job.

So plaid man needs to do that. And I just had a general truth posted to me in another window.

Sorry, that's inside joke. Very, very inside. But anyway, anyway, the point being, we'll buy the

CDs and we'll let these people come into our churches because they're wrong on a particular element of the Trinity that we can't be overly passionate about this anyways because we don't really know what it means and don't really understand the relationship of the

Father and the Son. And so it's a big question. And in answer to Tony's question, my answer to Tony would be found in the book of 1

John. And it is found in 1 John chapter 2.

In fact, if you want to look that direction and you can find a discussion there.

1 John 2 .22 says, Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the

Christ? This is the Antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the

Father. The one who confesses the Son has the Father also. If you understand oneness theology and its denial of the eternal nature of the

Son, and I'm talking about classic oneness Pentecostal theology here, and those who embrace the

Jesus -only baptism, etc, etc. We've discussed this. I'm doing this very briefly because we've discussed this almost ad nauseum in the past.

We've gone over this very, very carefully in the past in the archives. And it seems to me that passage says you cannot confess one without confessing both.

Oneness Pentecostalism does not. So, Tony, I would answer your question in that particular fashion.

877 -753 -3341. I don't know where Patrick is. I wonder where Jim Scott is.

Apollonio hasn't called in. We did have a Muslim fellow, Josh Wilcox. He seems to want to rip and shred too.

But none of these folks will give examples. So, you know, since I've been... I'm just asking for some help here, folks.

Since you're so absolutely positively convinced that I have been so blatantly refuted, help me out here.

I just don't see it. Maybe you could call in. Anyway, I don't think that's going to happen.

So I do have other things prepared. But, you know, if those phones start ringing, Mr. Phone Man, buddy, you let me know and we will break into anything.

You know, we'll get to it. And we will... You're on it as a door lock too.

If you see any trucks prowling by on the street out there with, you know, stuff in it, guns.

Yes, five lines, five lines open. We could have all these folks who have just been so brave behind their keyboards.

They could call in. But maybe we'll have to do it another time. That's what we'll have to...

Maybe we could do another... At another time, we could, you know, then they'd be able to call in then.

What's that? What is it you hear on the phone lines right now? Yeah, we're scaring everybody else off though too.

Phillips, Craig and Dean are now Howard and Fine. That's good.

That's very good. Anyway, I was listening to the...

As we wait for these brave folks who are so, so very brave.

I wonder if I have Sir Robin somewhere. Brave Sir Robin, we could play that as opposed to...

Anyway, now everybody's going, you're just being mean. You're just being mean now.

They can sit over there and insult you without grounds all the time. But if you dare respond, even with humor, that's mean.

It's just very mean. You're not supposed to do that. We could talk about postmodernism too.

That's always fun. And we can redefine terms. In fact, I found out that I'm a Gnostic. And from someone who absolutely positively refuses whatsoever to in any way, shape or form, identify what a

Gnostic is and why I'm a Gnostic. But then again, since he's become so postmodern, why not?

I think John Kerry's a Gnostic. I guess

I need to turn my sounds off. I was going to play it anyway. Thank you, Shamgar. We appreciate that. Shamgar just added to the...

That was a good one too. Run away, run away. Anyway, I was listening to the radio yesterday.

And so we'll move on with other things. Waiting patiently for the substantiation of all of the wild stuff that's thrown around out there.

They will show up. We just know they will because they say they've refuted me.

So I'm just waiting to hear. Anyway, I was listening to the radio yesterday. And there were a couple of callers on a certain nationwide talk program on the subject of the will and the subject of Calvinism and the subject of 1

Timothy chapter 2. And it was interesting. It seems now that there are folks who are viewing the

Bible Answering and Broadcast as a resource for how to battle Calvinism. And that's sad.

You know, it's just shouldn't be that way. Just should not be that way.

And unfortunately, those folks don't get to hear the other side, especially on exegetical issues.

And so we had a fellow who called in. And here's a fellow who is in dialogue with a

Calvinist. It's starting to sound at times. And I really wish this would be challenged.

But it's starting to sound at times like when someone calls in and says,

I'm dialoguing with a Mormon or a Catholic or some other cultist or something.

And it's just sad to listen to these calls. And they're not they used to get both sides.

They used to get, you know, here's some resources from R .C. Sproul. And here's some resources from the other side. And that's that doesn't seem to be the case.

And and it's really sad. But what was interesting was. There were three calls before the half hour that I was working out.

And so I heard this call. And it was about a certain passage of Scripture.

And then there was a call that was irrelevant as far as this goes. And then the next call right before the half hour,

I found fascinating because it was a fellow who was being consistent with the idea of libertarian free will.

And it was interesting to hear what the response was. So since we still got five, five lines open.

Is that what you're is that what you're telling me? Five full lines. And not not a single one of those folks who are who can sit there and say you're checking.

Good. Okay, check. Check on them again. No lights blinking. No lights. Five. Five. Count up again.

One, two, open. Okay, just checking. So those folks who sit there and and slap each other on the back and talk about.

I can't believe anybody could believe that. That boy's so stupid. They're not calling in.

They're not. They're checking dial tone because it has rained recently. So we don't we don't want these poor folks, you know, the guy dial tone.

Because sometimes when it rains, we have problems. It's what I used to rain here in Arizona.

Hold up. It checked everything. Every line checked out good. So they're not out there just dialing away and trying.

Oh, well, that's a shame. Anyway, let's go ahead. And I, folks, when

I say someone is wrong, when I say James Aiken, for example, let's use somebody else that's not involved with this, who has a really good blog, by the way.

And it's very interesting. All sorts of stuff about science fiction thing. It's very, very interesting. I like reading

Jimmy Aiken's blog. I think his theology is horrible, but I like reading his blog. And when

I say he's wrong about something, which I've done a number of times, the one major difference between myself and all these folks is

I prove it and I document it and I lay it out and I'm consistent. I don't understand folks who, you know,

I've just been reviewing a book demonstrating its exegetical errors, and they don't seem to recognize that that means that they would need to have to prove their case.

As long as you serve Rome, you don't have to serve your you don't have to prove your case. You can just throw it out there.

And even when a I mean, this was sort of funny when when

Dave Armstrong has meltdown, I'm not talking to these people anymore because I was just plotting through his text, citing him inaccurately.

No one can show where I cut anything out. I was just citing him accurately and demonstrating that he claims to provide exegesis, but he doesn't provide exegesis.

And what he does say is wrong. And I'm just going through all this stuff. And when he first put up his article about I'm not talking to these people anymore, there were only two entries on his blog, and it stayed that way for quite some time is most of the day, as far as I can recall.

And so when I commented on it, I mentioned in passing that everything else had disappeared.

It was all stuff. It was gone. Well, later, he found out that he had accidentally like half deleted the entirety of his blog.

Maybe it had something to do with 2005, 2004. I don't know. All I know is his fault. I had nothing to do with it.

He actually comes back and asks how dumb or stupid, I forget which one of the two terms he used of me,

I could be, to think he would have deleted his blog. Well, it wasn't there. And so it's an evidence of my dishonesty that I said he had taken everything off of his blog when it was just a programming error.

And that's all my fault. I'm dumb and stupid because he deleted his blog. I don't know.

Sometimes I listen to stuff and I just go, wow, what are these folks doing all day?

Well, anyways, let's get to this phone call so we can cover most of it, because the second call I don't really have any comments on.

But let's listen to the caller here. My question was concerning what the Bible says about the doctrine of the five -part

Calvinism, more specifically Romans 9, and what it's asserting concerning free will, and more specifically those last few verses.

I caught part of your broadcast when you addressed this, but I wanted to see if you could elaborate on that a little bit more.

Sure. What I've said is that the theme of Romans 9 is very, very important, because the

Calvinist thinks the question being answered is, why do some believe? In other words, why do the Gentiles believe, and why do some, like the

Jews, not believe? There's a reason for that that's explained very, very clearly by Dr.

John Piper. In a book called The Justification of God, it was a doctoral dissertation, and he points out for us that after the introduction of Romans 9, he discusses his deep love for his people.

He has great sorrow and ceasing grief in his heart. He says in verse 3, For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from God for the sake of my brother and my kinsman according to the flesh, who are the

Israelites, to whom belong the adoption of sons, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the temple service, and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the

Christ according to the flesh, who is over all God, blessed forever. Amen. And so, it's interesting, just in passing,

Dave Hunt likes to say that Calvinists are inconsistent in looking at this passage, because we shouldn't,

Paul, if he was a Calvinist, and we're speaking anachronistically, of course, but if Paul believed what

Calvinists believed, then he would not have cared about his brother. That's the essence of Dave Hunt's argument at that point, as if we somehow know who the elect are, and as if we somehow ignore

Paul's own statement, he endures all things for the sake of the elect. And so, anyway, right after saying this, as we enter into the primary argument of Romans 9,

Paul gives us an introduction. It says, But it is not as though the word of God has failed, for they are not all

Israel who are descended from Israel. And so, right as he begins his argument, he says, look at all this stuff that's been given to the

Jews, the covenants and the promises and the word of God and all these things, but you need to realize it's not as though the word of God has failed, because obviously that was one of the greatest arguments that was being used against him.

Paul, look, all that stuff in Romans 8 sounds wonderful, it really does, but there's one little problem.

And the little problem is that the Jews don't believe.

The Jews as a people, yeah, okay, you're Jewish, and you know, the apostles are generally

Jewish, and there's some, but you can't say that the Jews as a whole believe.

And so, what about that, Paul? And Paul says,

Well, it's not as though the word of God has failed. Because, you see, they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.

There has always been particularity in God's dealing. There has always been the external and the internal.

There's nothing new here, and he's going to be proving that through numerous citations that his own opponents could not possibly argue against.

That's what's going on right at the beginning of Romans chapter 9, and that's what Dr. Piper has demonstrated, and I would refer you for further details to his rather extensive study of this particular passage.

But if you read Romans 9 that way, you come up with determinism. And we can't have that.

If we start with, there is no eternal decree of God that determines actions in time. We can't have that.

Well, are we saying that if we follow the context of Romans 9, 6 and following, that the result is determinism?

Well, that means the context is teaching that. That would seem to be what follows, but obviously that's not what's being intended.

There's a different question that this is actually asking. The real question, and that's what we should focus on, is why are some experiencing judgment and damnation while others are experiencing salvation and blessing?

Okay, but is that what Romans 9, 6 is about? Is that why

Paul introduces the idea of particularity even within the

Jewish nation and community? There's no question that there are some who are experiencing or will experience final judgment and are experiencing judgment now, and there are some who are experiencing salvation.

And he does answer that question. It's because of the free grace of God. And listen very, very, very carefully when we get to, and this is the primary passage that I think was prompting the person's question.

That is, does not the potter have a right, verse 21, does not the potter have a right over the clay to make in the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

What if God, although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

And he did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory. The problem is, is that if language means anything, vessels that are prepared by a potter, it's the potter that determines the vessel and its form, function, and use, not the vessel itself.

And all of man's religions say, no, the vessels determine whether they are going to be vessels of honor or dishonor by what they do.

Now, that's turning the text on its head. And to do that, you really need to put out a lot of effort to do so.

Listen and see if maybe that's what ends up happening. It's the question that's being asked. In other words, why are some Jews experiencing judgment and damnation?

They're God's chosen people. Why are some Gentiles experiencing salvation and blessing? And the answer given by Paul is that the saved produced salvation because they pursued the salvation of God by faith and not by works.

Okay, now listen carefully to that. The reason that some are getting saved is because they pursued salvation by faith and not by works.

Well, of course, salvation is obtained by faith and not by works.

There's no question about that. But are we really saying that the reason that one person is saved is because they pursued salvation and another person did not pursue salvation?

The final, well, that is what's being said. The final determiner in salvation is always man in a non -reformed system.

And so it's whether man will pursue, whether man will respond to the light, whether man will do what needs to be done to either make himself a vessel of honor or a vessel of wrath.

The exact backwards opposite of what the text is saying. Forced upon you by what?

By the philosophical embracing of the absolute necessity of the concept of libertarian free will, which is exactly what is going on with Norman Geiser's book.

It's exactly what's going on with all of these sources that we've reviewed in the past as well.

That's not what the text says, but that's what happens when you start with libertarian free will.

So the point at the end of this chapter that you're asking about is Paul is saying the same stone that causes

Zion or Israel to stumble is the source of security or sanctuary for those who believe.

Okay, that's quite true. But once again, the issue immediately comes up and that is the stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.

Isn't that what God intended it to be? This is where we get into the passages about Isaiah six, and this is where we need to look at the

Old Testament. We're going to be told here that Calvinists don't look at the Old Testament, that we don't see what the

Old Testament is actually saying. And as a result, then we're missing the

Old Testament backgrounds. But you look at Isaiah chapter six and the message of judgment was that not part and parcel of the entire statements being made there.

And what he does is he takes two texts from the Old Testament, Isaiah chapter eight and Isaiah chapter 28 and makes a point.

The point is that the Lord is either the cornerstone of our life or he's the capstone over which we fall.

So I'm saying that when you read this chapter, rather than reading this chapter with a particular set of glasses on, i .e.

a particular theological construct. Which only seems to be applied to Calvinists, rather than seeing that libertarian free will is a theological construct.

And in fact, it's a philosophical construct masquerading as a theological construct, and it functions in the exact same way.

And hence, we have to be open about that, do we not? What you need to do is read this chapter in light of the very passages that Paul is quoting and the very question that he's seeking to answer.

So you're not asking the text to answer a question it isn't really designed to answer or isn't really pursuing as an answer.

I just wish that the proponents of libertarianism would be consistent with that sound hermeneutical principle.

For example, asking Matthew 23, 37 to be a proof text on free will is asking it to answer a question it was never designed to answer.

Going to 2 Peter 3, 9 and ignoring its context is doing the same thing.

You know, we could start going over a lot of the proof texts that Arminians or non -reformed people use, and if we consistently applied that principle of hermeneutics, there wouldn't be much left for them to be writing in their books.

And the same thing is, you know, certainly that's a sound principle of hermeneutics. I disagree concerning the intention of the

Apostle Paul in addressing this particular issue. Yeah, that definitely addresses that because the reason

I'm asking is because I have a friend who's a full -fledged Calvinist and he constantly refers to that as, you know, the borderline of his argument, the border of his argument.

And, you know, it's something that's brought into question constantly in the household. But I think

Paul really makes himself clear. If there's any question that's being raised there, he makes himself clear in 1

Timothy chapter 2. And immediately we've got this fellow and he mentioned the household.

Sounds like his brother or something is the Calvinist in this situation. But he makes reference here to leaping out of Romans chapter 9 and now to 1

Timothy chapter 2. Now everybody knows what's coming in 1 Timothy chapter 2. Let's go ahead and listen to it.

You knew it was coming. He says, For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time.

Now, I believe that just that wipes out any concept of limited atonement right there because it's saying that Christ died for everyone.

Wow. Okay. Well, you know, that's, you know, when you hear that and you've responded to it over and over and over again, your tendency is to go,

Oh man, that guy just doesn't. Look, you know, there's a 99 .999 % chance that this caller has never been given a meaningful response in 1

Timothy 2. I mean, how many times? How many? Where is he going to go? Where is he going to go?

How's he going to? How's he going to handle that? Who's going to tell him? Hey, have you ever think about think about what this text is saying?

Do you? Are you really comfortable with the idea that Jesus Christ atone that he intercedes for everyone?

And this is one of the issues. And some of you have been wondering, why aren't you? Why don't you respond? They're expensing it in time and busy taking incoming fire.

And you do that conversation nice and carefully and slowly. And one of my points is the high priest intercedes for every piece of every person for whom this sacrifice is offered.

There is a perfect consistency in the work of the high priest. And therefore, if Christ dies in behalf of every single person, then he must intercede in behalf of every single person.

There is no way to disrupt, break up the work of the high priest in that way.

And the problem is, Scripture says, if Jesus Christ intercedes for you, you will be saved.

Hebrews chapter seven. So this individual is having to say that Christ shed his blood, bore the wrath of God on behalf of every single individual who has ever lived or ever will live, including all the people in Canaan that were there when

Israel was down in Egypt. And God sent them no prophets. And God said, I'm just waiting for their iniquity to be filled up.

And then I'm going to have you wipe them out, man, woman, child. And and yet God placed the wrath properly due to each one of those people who are engaged in child sacrifice and every other kind of of satanic activity.

And he made Jesus suffer that even though he had not decreed their salvation. That's what you're saying.

Or you come up with some complex idea that, well, you know, we don't want to actually talk about Christ bearing substitutionarily people's sins.

He just makes people savable. That's what Norm Geiser says. He makes people savable. He saves no one, but he makes them savable.

That's what you end up having to say. Wow, OK, you know, that's that's where it's coming from. Well, and I think it's really important that you learn a hermeneutical fundamental.

And it sounds like you've learned that. I mean, first of all, it's very important to recognize the analogy of faith.

So it's very important then to recognize that Paul is assuming that, you know, something about the

Old Testament when he's quoting the Old Testament and therefore he doesn't have to quote the entire passage every single time because you already know the context or at least you can go back to the context and recognize that God is not capricious.

He makes objects objects of wrath, not because he's arbitrary, but because they respond to disobedience.

Ah, there you go. There you go. Hopefully you caught that. Arbitrary and capricious are not terms that can be used for sovereign

God. And I've said that before. But if let's let's put it in the right let's put in the right context, what's being said is

God cannot be free in matters of grace and mercy. That's that's what's being said. This capriciousness, arbitrariness, that's that's just meant to to communicate emotional things.

That is not an accurate representation of the sovereign God. I say God is free in the matter of mercy.

It does not have to be based upon anything within the sinner himself.

OK, that's not capriciousness. That's not arbitrariness. That's freedom, sovereign freedom in the matter of mercy.

That's that's all that is. But then did you see what was being said? Whether a person is a vessel of wrath.

Or a vessel of mercy. Is depend upon what? Themselves.

Themselves. No unconditional election. Everything has to be conditional.

God has to respond to us. It's our freedom that determines God's actions. That's what you have here.

And that's not what you have in Romans nine. And objects of nobility because they respond in obedience.

So objects that are subject to wrath or such. They're ignoble because they respond to disobedience.

They're noble because they respond in obedience. So their character is what determines this.

This isn't the potter. Had nothing to do with whether the pot is for honorable uses or dishonorable uses.

The potter had nothing to do with whether they are a vessel of glory or a vessel of wrath.

The potter just makes the same kind of pot. And then the pot determines what it's going to be.

How else can you deal with it? Once you've embraced libertarianism and denied to God libertarian freedom.

Evidently he does not have the same level of freedom the creatures do. That's what I like about, you know,

I've quoted R .C. Sproul before. God is free, I am free. When my freedom runs into God's freedom,

I lose. I like that. It's nice and straightforward. But it recognizes the difference between pots and the potter.

And that's where the real problem is, is the difference between the pot and the potter.

And that, of course, is the context given in Jeremiah 18 and Isaiah 29. And I think one of the things we need to do is become more conversant with the

Old Testament. I recognize more and more as I do the Bible Answer Man show, that as people read passages they're not familiar, that many of these passages are direct correlations to Old Testament passages, oftentimes that they're unfamiliar with.

Yeah. Okay? Okay, that sounds good, thanks. Okay, now this next caller, I'm just going to let him roll.

I'm just going to let him roll because you need... I think his question exposes what happens when you embrace libertarianism.

It becomes the driving force in your theology. Thank you so much, Robert. I want to go back to the phone lines now. We'll talk to Ken in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Hi, Ken. Hello. My question concerns eternal security, but in a little bit different slant than normal.

I've been listening to a fellow on the radio for all weeks and weeks now, and I found him to be just as straight as an arrow on everything until last evening

I was listening to him. And he mentioned the fact that he believes that man's free will would allow him to will himself out of God's hands and into disbelief and would thus be an unbeliever and would lose his salvation.

He says that's the... Not lose his salvation, probably, but walk away from the salvation he has. Exactly, but would be eternally lost.

Yes. If he did... Well, you know, I got one of those guys that works for me, too. Yeah. Look, the point is this is an in -house debate.

There are those that say that while you can't lose your salvation, you can apostatize.

You can walk away from the salvation that you have. And again, that is an in -house debate.

It is a viable opinion that is acceptable within the pale of orthodoxy.

And I let the debate continue. I think it's a worthwhile debate and a worthy debate. We're coming to...

Yeah. My recollection was that there used to be an official statement in regards to eternal security.

And the fact of the matter is I don't believe a person who holds libertarian free will can consistently defend eternal security because the guy's right.

Some of you have heard somewhat humorous debate. It was humorous because the way my opponent behaved is a

King James only fundamentalist Baptist. And he let that all sort of hang out during the course of the debate.

And it got a little bit silly. But during the question and answer period in that debate, there was a question asked right at the beginning.

And the question was, in essence, if free will is definitional of what it means to be human, then in the eternal state, when we are perfectly human, then we would have a perfect free will.

And does that therefore not mean that we can still sin in the eternal state and hence lose our salvation?

And the person's response was, that's the dumbest question I've ever heard. That's so stupid. I'm not even going to answer it.

But it isn't a stupid question. It was a very insightful question that my debate opponent couldn't answer.

And when people can't answer questions, they tend to do odd things, as we've demonstrated in the program today, since we've managed to get through 55 minutes now and haven't gotten that phone call from any of those brave folks over at a certain blog.

But anyway, perfect question. That's exactly what this person was saying. And you used to get a very strong defense of eternal security.

Now you're not getting that. It's a viable issue. We can talk about it. We can debate it.

Hey, you know what? Once you have bought into the absolute philosophical necessity of libertarianism, there is absolutely positively, there's no grounds.

There are no grounds for believing that a creature who got into a relationship with Christ by the exercise of his free will cannot, through the exercise of that same free will, get out of that relationship.

That's all there is to it. And is that where this is going?

I don't know. I don't know. I sure hope not. I sure hope not. But that's what's going on.

So anyway, we opened the phones today. And now the music's going to be coming up in just a minute or two.

And we did not have at all any callers.

All those brave folks who are so quick to pronounce that people have been refuted and so on and so forth, nothing takes place.

And we don't hear back from them. And some people are asking, did you really seriously expect to?

And the answer is no, no. Because I know that the reviews that I've provided of Dave Armstrong's book have been fair.

And they have been balanced. And they have not been just looking for particularly weak arguments and then avoiding all the good strong stuff.

I have engaged, for example, the longest section in his book, as far as I can tell, on the subject of Luke 128.

And he has had no response because there is no response because he is an error.

And that's all there is to it. And the response from those who follow him has demonstrated that the issue of truth is something that they're very unfamiliar with.

They're unfamiliar with truth and unfamiliar with those who try to bring the truth to them and respond rather negatively to them.

So hopefully that has been clear to everybody. Thanks for listening today on The Dividing Line. Next week, same schedule because still teaching.

Then the week after that, we'll go back to the Tuesday morning, Thursday evening program. See you

Tuesday morning. God bless. 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 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org. That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.