February 7, 2006

The Upcoming Trip to the United Kingdom and Prayer Requests

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 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.

Hey, good morning. Welcome to The Dividing Line, the last all-American Dividing Line for a couple of weeks. Hopefully, we will be able to blog the schedule. In fact, my good brother Roger is an organizer.

Yes, Roger knows how to organize things. And so Roger sent me a possible Dividing Line schedule from London and Scotland as to when we could do it. And you've got to realize there's a seven-hour difference, so this one isn't too difficult to do.

But the nighttime one, nah, that doesn't work too well. So we may have to change some times up and do all of them in the morning at like this time, so that it's only like six o 'clock over there, something like that.

Because probably not going to be staying up until midnight or something like that or whatever it is to do the afternoon version of it. But anyhow, heading out to the United Kingdom tomorrow morning. I would appreciate, of course, prayers for the ministry there.

And for Pastor Brazier and his family who get to have to run around with me all that time, especially Roger, of course. And most of you may recall, some of you may recall, I got very, very ill going over there last time.

I am going to take every possible human precaution. I even, yes, I even have surgical masks in my bag. So if the person next to me sits down and is shaking with a fever or something, you know, we can do something about that.

But also for, of course, for my family back here. And, of course, for Rich Pierce who continues working slaving away on the move. Really right now, just all of the carpentry stuff that must be done. The texturing of walls and drop ceiling and all that kind of stuff that needs to be done that he is doing aside from all his other duties.

So many things to be praying about, to be praying for. Looking forward to the opportunity of ministry there in the United Kingdom. Looking forward to actually rehydrating a little bit. How many days now?

Are we at 110? I think we're around 110 now. Maybe beyond that. I've started to lose count. We have set a new record here in Phoenix for days without measurable precipitation. And believe me, it hasn't even tried to precipitate at all.

It has not come close to precipitating since, well, for at least 110, maybe it's 112. I've forgotten how many days it is now. Someone needs to put up a website someplace and start counting this down. Because the seven-day forecast is in the upper 70s and completely, totally 100 sunshine.

Clear skies as far as the eye can see. So I'm looking forward to getting over to England because as I look at the forecast, I'm going to experience precipitation a number of times while I'm there. Precipitation in the 30s and 40s even, which should be really, really neat.

And I'll get to rehydrate and come back to the desert in a couple weeks. So anyhow, almost all completely, totally packed up, ready to go and ready to visit the saints over in jolly England. Work on my accent again.

Get it going. I know I haven't been using it as much as I should. I apologize for that. But we will try to be working on our accent when we're over there. And especially the Scottish accent because the Scottish one is so much more fun than just the English one.

So anyway, I can hear the moans and groans even through my headset. The one thing about going to England, of course, is that if you really, really, really like Mexican food like I do and love chips and salsa and things like that, you're not really going to get a whole lot of that.

In England, spicy food is just not a major element of the British cuisine, shall we say, which is fine with me. I did just fine last time I was there. But I decided to give the wifey a call yesterday as she was coming home and said, hey, let's go get some Mexicans so I can have some chips and salsa before I head over to jolly old England.

Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Bible Answer Man Call

And so I went over and I got to the restaurant first. And as I was driving over, I had the radio on. And I just happened, it happened to be during the period of time when the Bible Answer Man broadcast was on.

So I was just listening. And I don't know, a minute out from my house, a fellow calls up and he says, I have a question about Calvinism and Arminianism. So I started listening and I got to the restaurant before my wife did.

So I sat out in the car and listened to the entirety of the presentation. And at first, you know, I didn't I didn't hear any any Sonny and Cher things. And so at first it sort of sounded like, well, you know, maybe there's there's been some improvement here and stuff.

So I thought we'd we'd take a listen to this call and and discuss it. And then I just happened to be listening to the Berean Call webcast from from the Berean Call, Dave Hunt and T .A. McMahon. And I saw a a a the topic of the question asked of Dave Hunt and T .A. McMahon recently was, were they secretly supporting Calvinism?

Well, I had to I had to listen to that. And it it ended up being a question about whether infants who die in infancy go to heaven. In the process, as we will play in the process, Dave Hunt clearly openly without without even, I think, recognizing what he was doing, denied original sin, just no original sin.

Infants infants don't die because of sin. I'm not sure why they die, but they've committed no sin. So they'd have no basis for being punished, say, because they've done they've done no wrong. They're completely innocent.

And you're just like, wow, Pelagius rides again. Well, will any of any of Dave's big fans, you know, call him on that one? Well, we'll we'll play that and find out. But let's let's first listen to this.

This question on the subject of Calvinism and Arminianism.

Question about Calvinism and Arminianism. Hank, is one side absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong? Because I'm kind of going back and forth and just just want some good, solid answers.

Well, I grew up in a Calvinist home and I was under the influence of that home for many years of my life, even when I did not want to receive Jesus Christ as savior and lord of my life, whereby I walked according to the dictates of his will rather than my own.

But the influence of that home is with me to this day and has put me in good stead. There wasn't a single time that I ever remember sitting down with my parents at a dinner table, at a lunch table or a breakfast table that they didn't pray or read the Bible.

And so I learned a tremendous amount even when I was in the state of rebellion. So I have a great fondness for the Calvinist tradition and the discipline that's often found within that tradition.

Now, up to that point, you're sort of like, good. Yeah, that's that's good. And of course, on the program back in December of 2003, when I was on, there was also discussion about how in that Calvinist tradition, Dutch Calvinist tradition, you know, you sat in the exact same pew, visitors weren't allowed to sit there and and sort of a slam on the the old Dutch non evangelical perspective and stuff like that.

So, you know, but, you know, at first you're like, OK, well, all right, let's continue on.

The Sovereignty of God, Human Responsibility, and Compatibilism

Having said that, I think that what you really want to keep in proper, proper perspective at all times when you deal with the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism is first and foremost, to stay within the bounds of orthodoxy, because there are problems whereby you can transcend the line or blur the line between Christianity and concepts that are distinctly non-Christian.

For example, Arminianism can be anthropocentric. And in its worst forms, a man might well gain his salvation or maintain his salvation through what he does. So there's a plagiarism form of Arminianism that gets you right into non-Christian theology.

Again, you know, very, very true, consistent Arminianism. Well, I don't know how you can have an inconsistent Arminianism that's not anthropocentric, very much focused upon man and what man does and man's control of God's grace and so on and so forth.

But again, the slide from consistent Arminianism into a Pelagian perspective. Yeah, sure. Very easily seen in church history, so on and so forth. Makes perfect sense.

With respect to what you want to keep in proper tension, however, is you want to make sure that you do not raise significant problems with regards to the nature of God or the nature of humanity in perspective to God.

For example, how do you preserve God from being the author of evil if you assert that God decrees that Adam would sin or he ordains that Adam would sin? How does that make Adam genuinely culpable for a sin?

And how does that preserve God from being the author of evil?

Now, of course, those of you, again, who listened to the December 2003 broadcast know what's coming here. And that is the discussion of compatibilism, which for some reason Hank refers to as circumstantial freedom.

And libertarianism and the idea of the potentiality of evil. Of course, my argument has always been, and I don't see how it can be avoided, if God created the potentiality for evil and God is not an open theist.

God, an open theist, odd way of looking at things. But if God knew in the creation of the potentiality of evil what was going to happen, you're not accomplishing anything by this shift and saying, well, we don't want to make him the author of evil because he decrees the existence of these things when he creates.

We want to keep this just all the libertarian activity of man. Okay, then we need to do what we tried to do on the program, and that is look at Genesis 50, look at Isaiah 10, look at Acts chapter 4 and these places where you clearly have God engaged in activities, in decreeing activities, in the situation with Joseph, what you meant for evil, God meant for good, same action, God had intention, man had intention, God's intention is good, man's intention is evil.

And all those things which, again, if you listen to the program, I couldn't get any answers on. I tried repeatedly to get responses from both Hank Hanegraaff and George Bryson, and I was unable to do so as people listening to that program well know.

So you know what's coming, and you know that what is coming really doesn't have an answer that is going to be offered in regards to, well, if God just creates a potentiality for evil but he knows what's going to happen, how is that different than having a purpose in his creation and the utilization of means and basing and grounding responsibility on the means rather than on some external factor to God, so on and so forth.

You know, because ultimately I think in true Christian or biblical orthodoxy, we say God is not the author of sin. We say that God created the potential for evil and that potential was actualized by humanity.

I would also say since Adam, all human beings have been created in such a way that they can respond to the gospel and to say that they are created in such a way that they cannot respond to the gospel, again, runs into a biblical problem because it flies in the face of passages like Ezekiel chapter 18.

Now, he's going to utilize a term here in a moment, rewiring, and he's using the term create, almost as if, again, here's where we come into somewhat of a connection with what we're going to listen to from Dave Hunt, and that is instead of viewing man as the offspring of Adam and seeing the very clearly biblical teaching of the corruption of Adam's offspring so that the nature that Adam has as a fallen, spiritually dead individual is what is passed on to his children, that's where death comes from, so on and so forth, original sin and all the things related to that, by talking about God creating men in this way, it shifts the emphasis from the biblical terminology and allows this language he's going to use here in a moment of rewiring man as if somehow, again, totally unbiblical terminology there, rather than dealing with the nature of man changing, a fallen nature, using biblical terms like man has a stony heart, has a heart of stone, he has to have that heart of stone taken out and he must be given a heart of flesh, that's biblical terminology, I don't know why it wouldn't be used, we certainly use it, but those who promote libertarianism generally use philosophical terms or modern terms, they don't generally use biblical terms in their description of these things.

Now, the old Ezekiel 18 canard again goes back to that passage where the people were refusing to listen to the call for repentance and to doing justice and so on and so forth, because of the fact that they were saying, well look, we're already being punished for our progenitor's sins, there's no reason for us to rebel because we can't get away from the effects of the sins of the previous generations.

And so you have that one text being used to overthrow Romans 5 and original sin and the entire discussion of Adam and his relationship to his offspring and all these things that you have in clear didactic passages, which again, when you read the Bible for all it's worth, and to utilize sound exegetical principles, the very same sound exegetical principles that I would say Hank accurately uses, for example, on certain popular eschatological systems to demonstrate that they're not as sound as certain people say, if that was to be applied in this area would result in a different reading, and that's why again the issue of tradition comes up.

Also, I think that you want to then maintain the sovereignty of God, so here's the main issue here.

I'd like some expansion on the sovereignty of God. What does that mean? What does saying God has libertarian free will in regards to grace mean? What does that mean when we combine the true libertarianism for God with the biblical teaching that man is dead in sin and that I am born in sin and since I am conceived in sin that I am reprehensible in God's sight and that God is just to bring judgment upon me.

Why don't we put all that together and what you'll see then is, well, is reformed theology.

Maintain the sovereignty of God, the justice of God, and genuine human responsibility. Now, if you can do that within Calvinism, then you're communicating your Calvinism, I think, in a way that's biblically palatable.

Now, of course, I would immediately say it's my understanding, and I would like to be wrong about this, but it's my understanding that that last phrase about meaningful responsibility, if I'm fair in what I have listened to over the past couple of years, that requires libertarianism.

You can't be a libertarian Calvinist. You can try to make up categories like that, but let's be honest, that doesn't work. That requires a complete rearranging of the language itself, but that's what we're facing.

It's definitely heady stuff, and I'm reading all kinds of stuff about it. I'm reading Piccarelli's Grace, Faith, and Free Will right now, and it's pretty deep, and I'm kind of about halfway through it.

My question also was, what do you think about Norman Geisler's, I think it's called Free to Believe?

I'm not familiar with that particular book. That must be a new one.

Now, I don't know about you, but that's Chosen but Free, isn't it? I mean, he got the title wrong, but I think it's fairly clear. It's a short title with yeah, I think that's Has he put out a new book?

I'm not aware of that, but Chosen but Free, I think I've read that one. Yeah, I think I read that one.

Is there something that you could recommend to me? I mean, that might kind of

Yeah, we have a number of different books available on the World Wide Web at equip .org, which deal with this issue.

Which also would include The Dark Side of Calvinism by George Bryson. We tried to get George to debate up in Salt Lake City, but George didn't want cross-examination this time around, which is understandable given what happened the first time, but we gave it our best shot, and it didn't happen.

Now, if it had just stopped here, I would have disagreed, but it would have been a whole lot better than a lot of calls that I've heard over the past few years on this subject, but it and it sounded like it was about to stop here.

This is normally where the call would have ended, moved on to the next caller, but

Okay, and can I just hang on, and then they can maybe hook me up with something?

Yes, absolutely. Just hang on. Hey, thanks so much for calling, and there's much more we could say about this, but Absolutely. Again, the one thing you do not want to say, I think, is that God arranges all things by His sovereign counsel in such a way that individuals are born who are doomed from the womb to certain death.

In other words, they could not respond because there's no way that, for example, cows can fly. They're created in such a way that they cannot respond, and therefore God has to rewire them in such a way that they can respond.

Well, there you go. That is, of course, a very inaccurate and unfair description of regeneration. There's not a lot of folks, I think, who would hear that, that would even begin to understand what it was that was just said, but there you have what we cannot say is what Calvinism actually says, and that is this doomed from the womb.

In other words, we can't actually exegete Romans 9 and allow Romans 9 to say what Romans 9 says in its Old Testament background. Go back to Exodus 33. Do the John Piper thing. You've never heard anyone on BAM refute Piper's work on Romans 9 or Calvin's work on Romans 9 or anything else.

You've heard a lot of assertions. You've heard some Lenski thrown out there, but that stuff is so easy to refute and has been refuted so many times. And so the idea is what we don't want to say then is that God, from eternity past, has chosen to elect a certain people into salvation, and we don't want to believe the idea that there are those that he has chosen, like in Esau, to harden and to use to his own glory.

We don't want to believe that, even though that's clearly what we see throughout the Old Testament, that's clearly what we see understood by the Apostle Paul, that's what we don't want to see. And this rewiring idea, again, there's the unbiblical terminology.

Let's not talk about rewiring. Let's take it into biblical terminology. Let's look at Romans chapter 8 and recognize that Paul there says that the natural man is not able to do what is pleasing to God.

Now, call that rewiring, call that reprogramming, call it what you want. Come up with whatever translation you want, what's it saying? What are all those passages in the Bible about human incapacity, what are they saying?

Why is it that divine initiative must come first in changing the hearts and minds of men? That's the question, and it's a question that never really gets addressed.

And God only rewires certain people, which are the elect.

I .e., God only raises to spiritual life his elect people, which is, again, how many passages do we need to go over? Shall we go through John 6 again? Was there a meaningful response after John 6 when I was on the program?

No. Romans 8, Romans 9, Ephesians 1? No, no, no, no, no. You just keep going back to all these, well, if that's true, you know, the Bryson thing. If that's true, then your mother might be going to hell and there's nothing you can do about it.

I mean, that's the only type of argumentation, which, you know, works fine for postmodernists, I would imagine, but not for those who actually want to, you know, honestly deal with the text of the Word of God.

That, I think, is a substantive problem.

Right, that's a problem I had because I just could not wrap my brain around that some people were created to be saved and then some people created to be damned. I just could not wrap my brain around that concept.

It was just really kind of just blowing my mind a little bit.

And they're all just innocent people and they don't, you know, God, big mean God, staying behind with a big gun. You'd be a bad man, you know. Well, the fellows from Louisville, I hope you'll run into some good reform folks there who can actually hook them up with some good material.

Well, it's ultimately the difference between circumstantial freedom and libertarian freedom. In circumstantial freedom, you're made in such a way that you must of necessity act in accordance with your nature.

In compatibilism, man as a creature has creaturely freedom and God as creator has the creator's freedom. And man acts in accordance with his nature as the fallen child of Adam unless God, in his grace, then intervenes and raises that person to spiritual life, takes out the heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh.

See how easy it is to describe biblically. You can use biblical language straight out of proper context and everything, but when you disagree with that, that's why you won't use that kind of language.

In other words, God is sovereign, but you are free to do what you've been wired to do. Now, in libertarian freedom, you have the power to choose and the ability to choose otherwise. So therein lies the tension in terms of the views.

Right. Okay? Thank you so much.

You got it. Nice talking to you. Well, you know, libertarianism is the absolute... Libertarianism is the necessary theological attribute of all systems of works righteousness. Think about it. You cannot have works righteousness without libertarianism.

That's why Rome has defended it so strongly, and that's why the very first written debate of the Reformation was over that very issue between Luther and Erasmus. Nothing new there. And unless you want to adopt philosophical systems that came about 1 ,600 years after the time of the apostles that are designed... do not derive from the text of Scripture.

They are clearly forced on the text of Scripture. I'm referring to Molanism here, middle knowledge, where God micromanages all the events of history so that he places you in situations where you do exactly what he wants you to do, but you do it freely.

See? He knows exactly how you respond in every situation, so he only puts you in situations where you will do exactly what he wants you to do. So God is micromanaging every single aspect of your life so that you'll always do what he wants you to do, but only because you freely choose to do so.

That's the whole idea of middle knowledge and this idea. Again, where does that come from? Where did Molina get it? Well, Molina got it because the Reformation didn't want to actually deal with the biblical text.

877 -753 -3341. That's it for that phone call. We're going to go on to the Dave Hunt discussion of Original Sin. We'll go ahead and take our break today as well. That gives people an opportunity, if you'd like to comment on what was just said.

It's a very common perspective and it is promoted very frequently. 877 -753 -3341. This will also be the last time that I'll be able to hear you overly well because realize that when we do the dividing line from the UK, I will be a caller in essence, and it won't be quite as easy to hear you as it is at the moment.

So if you have been waiting to get your comments in, 877 -753 -3341. We're going to take a break and be right back right after this.

The Forgotten Trinity and Roman Catholic Controversy Ads

The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us. James White's book, The Forgotten Trinity, is a concise, understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.

It refutes cultic distortions of God, as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a Christian. And amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the Trinity.

Dr. John MacArthur, Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church, says, James White's lucid presentation will help layperson and pastor alike. Highly recommended. You can order The Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at aomin .org.

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements.

And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics.

Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatorian indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself. They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomin .org.

Dave Hunt, Original Sin, and the Salvation of Infants

And welcome back to The Dividing Line. As I said, I saw this question and answer session with Dave Hunt and T .A. McMahon titled, Are You Secretly Supporting Calvinism? And so I wanted to find out what that was all about.

In this regular feature, Dave and Tom respond to questions from listeners and readers of The Berean Call. Here's this week's question. Dear Dave and Tom, I think you guys backed into supporting Calvinism without realizing it.

I heard a program of yours in which you said you believe that aborted babies and infants and children who die before reaching the age of accountability go to heaven. It seems evident that such children could not be saved by their own volition or trusting in the Lord.

Therefore, if they are saved, then it could only be because, as the Calvinists say, God did it in His sovereignty and simply for His own good pleasure. Or am I missing something in all this? Dave, I'd like to take this, but I'm going to talk about limbo afterwards, so I'm going to let you start.

Well, it's not a matter of God deciding that these would go to heaven in contrast to others who are going to hell. It's not a matter that He predestined these beforehand to go to heaven. The fact is that they did not sin.

They died as babies. It wouldn't be just to condemn to hell. What are they going to suffer for in hell? What deeds have they done?

There you heard it, folks. I don't know how much clearer you can get. I'm going to play the rest of it, of course, because this then becomes part of it. But I don't know how much clearer you can get. They've done no evil.

They've done nothing wrong. There's no reason why they should suffer. Dave Hunt does not believe in original sin. There you go. Now, why in the world they die or anything like that, I don't know. But they didn't sin.

So Dave Hunt is unorthodox in denying the doctrine of original sin. It's a functional part of his self-made theology. And I had mentioned this years ago. I had listened to a sermon that he delivered at a very large Calvary chapel wearing a sport coat and a Hawaiian shirt, which will definitely impact your theology no matter what you do.

And he had gone after the all have sin passages and denied them. He very plainly took a Pelagian perspective. And that's just part and parcel. And it makes sense. I mean, he has responded so strongly against Calvinism that one of the areas that he's going to end up, when you're pulling the other direction, what are you going to end up doing?

Well, you're going to become unorthodox. You're going to start emphasizing the opposite concepts. And, of course, if the deadness of man and sin is part and parcel of what Calvinists believe, then you're going to go the other direction.

And the idea of man being dead, the inabilities of man outside of regeneration, yeah, you're going to reject all that stuff. So there you go.

They did nothing wrong. But they should be punished for it. That's one facet of this, Tom. But it sort of skirts around the volition side of wanting to be with God forever, seeking after him. They certainly can't do that, Dave.

Well, they can't learn to do that, Tom.

How do infants learn to do that? That's not the point, is it? The question is, if you're taking their perspective on this issue of infant salvation, which we've addressed before, but if you're taking their perspective, how is that an answer?

That isn't an answer. They can learn to. What do you mean?

When they grow up? What are you talking about? The fact is, what else are you going to do with babies? They haven't sinned. They haven't sinned. But you didn't let me get to the second part of it, okay?

Oh, I'm on your side, by the way, Dave. I'm sure you are. I'm sure you are, right. I'm just waiting to hear what you're going to say. Secondly, Tom, I couldn't give you a scripture except,. Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?

Right. And many other verses that talk about God being a just God. But, of course, the writer is not asking whether this is biblical or not, which, of course, it is, because David, remember, when the baby died, he said, He will not come back to me.

I will go to him. So, apparently, David believed that the baby was where he expected to go, which would be with the Lord, because David was certainly a believer in the Lord and looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ for his sins.

So that's not the issue, I guess. The issue is, well, is that a support of Calvinism? Are we backing into Calvinism when we agree with that? We're eliminating, it seems, free will and volition. Because a baby doesn't have free will or volition, and that is one of the arguments against infant baptism.

Getting back to Catholicism or the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, a baby has not made any choice, and baptism is for believers.

But I believe. I would love to hear Dave debate some of the Presbyterians that I've debated on this subject, or will be debating on this subject. It would be actually somewhat humorous. I'm sure.

I mean, this is theoretical, but there's no question that it could happen this way. What about a person that God knows, if they grew up in that environment, they would never hear the gospel? Then is it wrong if he allows them, but he knows that if they did hear the gospel, they would believe?

So that would be foreknowledge, it talks about in Romans.

That would be foreknowledge, like in Romans. Do they even read the refutation of their stuff? It doesn't seem so. I've had a lot of people ask, do you really think they read this carefully and then check out?

No, I've got no evidence of that at all. Because if they did, then they would actually, in these comments, try to make some argument for their understanding of a philosophical foreknowledge of counterfactuals.

And I'm sorry, but T .A. McMahon and Dave Hunt aren't into a discussion of counterfactuals. That just ain't happening anytime soon. And so it's just this, no, we're not going to deal with that. We're not going to think about that.

We're just going to dismiss it and move on from there because that's just the way things are. Not predestination, but foreknowledge.

And God knows if that person heard the gospel, they would believe. So then he allows that person to die as a baby, which probably would happen without some help. And God holds back his hand from helping this child to survive under these circumstances where it would die.

Otherwise, then God could allow those that he knew would accept Christ. Growing up in an environment where they wouldn't hear the gospel, he could allow them to die prematurely so that they wouldn't have sins for which he would have to punish them.

Tom, it's a difficult question.

Did you understand that? And I think what he just said was maybe God will allow these children to die and won't save them so that they can go to heaven before they sin because he knows that they would then sin and then he'd have to punish them.

See, because they wouldn't accept Jesus. So why does he allow anyone that he knows is not going to accept Jesus to live past the age of accountability? And remember his argument is if God could do it.

Remember the very first time I had him on the program. Remember when we did the KPXQ thing? If God could save everyone, I have to believe because he's a loving God that he will. So we just heard Dave Hunt say, well, God knows who's going to not accept him.

If he knows that in that circumstance they're not going to accept him, then he may let them die in infancy so that they won't sin so they can go to heaven. Didn't he just say that?

Wow. But the Bible does teach, I think quite clearly, that a baby that dies before it has committed any sins goes to heaven. Jesus had some strange things to say about it. Of course, he said, suffer or allow the little children to come unto me for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

But he also said, their angels do always behold the face of my father, which is in heaven. Now, I've never heard anyone exegete that passage. The Bible indicates that if we went through Hebrews 1, it says, he maketh his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire, and they are sent forth to minister unto those who shall be heirs of the gospel.