Craig/Ally Debate Cross Ex Then back to Bryson

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 And good morning, welcome to the dividing line on a

Tuesday morning Just back in town glad to be here.

Do not forget, please This Thursday We will begin looking

Begin looking at textual criticism do a little textual criticism series.

I need to spend some time today if I can putting together some files you can download maybe

I don't know PDF format if I can figure out how to do that in such a Manner that it'll work for folks.

I don't know We'll see what what comes of it but You know if worse comes to worse some high quality jpegs or something like that of a couple of the text

We want to look at and look at some of the Sigla in the in the text in case you do not own

The UBS fourth or the Nessie Allen 27th If you do then that will be all the better for you because we'll be looking through the description of the of the

Sigla and It would be a whole lot easier. I just don't know how many images I can I can put up Size -wise that would allow me to you know, illustrate things the way

I want to try to illustrate things But we will do the best that we can and starting on Thursday Yeah, I could hold them up to the can that the webcam.

Yeah, that would Yeah, what one of my 320 by 240 resolution? I Remember my first digital camera 640 by 480 is like, ooh

Hmm not gonna I'm not gonna really get a lot of resolution there like that. So anyway

But we'll start more with what will probably end up being a rambling discussion of various aspects of textual criticism and I don't get to talk about that as much as I would like to and it is interesting.

Obviously, I want to I want to address especially

You know, I don't want to just do the King James only stuff. I really don't I've put out a whole book on that and if you haven't read it,

I would recommend it to you But I mean that stuff is relevant. It comes in and to a lot of things, but I also want to discuss, you know

Paul Owen for example on the RC blog recently

Basically said that he's changed his his viewpoints on textual criticism Toward what we are familiar with from Theodore elitist as the ecclesiastical text view and I have used as an illustration recently in talking about how you allegedly translate or interpret the

Bible on the basis of the mind of the church and I have I have addressed the the problems that are inherent in Such an assertion in regards to it's it's it's wonderful to have big fluffy theological words and it's wonderful to talk about you know, the mind of the church or the

Ecclesiastical text and how the church has spoken. We don't want We don't want

Rupert Murdoch determining our Our text we want the church to determine our text.

Okay, that sounds wonderful And no one no one would ever disagree with a statement We would rather have the church rather than Rupert Murdoch Determine the text of Scripture.

No one would argue with that. But what does it mean? What church in what context at what time working with what materials?

I? mean if you're gonna This was and you know, there's nothing new under the Sun This was the argument that Rome used against Erasmus the time of the

Reformation. We don't need no stinking Greek text We've got the Latin Vulgate And and it has been established by The the usage of the church for a thousand years

That was a big argument. That's that's weighty so Why isn't that a good argument and why isn't it a good argument to say?

Well the majority of the text come from the Byzantine area and the Byzantine textual platform and and So that should be what we use and that's the that's what's been used by the church

And what about so you don't utilizing text that the church had not seen for many hundreds or even over thousand years

And forcing that upon the church. These are all notice the the wiggle words. I was using there the loaded terms

Meant to create emotional response, etc, etc. That's the kind of stuff that we will be talking about and I I'm actually sort of getting an early start

But those are some of the things we'll be talking about so there'll be you know, I don't know how how

Long will go I don't know if I'll just you know ramble around or if I'm gonna have time between now and Thursday to Actually come up with a meaningful outline of stuff

But we will we will see what happens and hopefully enjoy the whole thing and benefit you that's my reason we do all this anyways

Now last time we were on I was playing a debate between Shabir Ali and William Lane Craig and there have been some questions as to the accuracy of Some of the comments that I made toward the end regarding William Lane Craig statement that You know, we can set aside the doctrine of original sin

Now was he just saying for this purposes this debate or whatever? I personally think that if you listen to what he says,

I'm gonna play it again. We listen to Shabir Ali's response At least at that point you're getting

Shabir Ali's interpretation of what William Lane Craig said, right and then

Obviously at that point Craig's response to Ali if Ali has misunderstood him and if we have misunderstood

Craig as well Then in his response time that's gonna come out right and that's what we need to look at then we'll go back

Since this is only just want to take I don't know 20 minutes, maybe then we will go back to The Bryson because we only got two minutes into the second part.

We didn't get very far We'll go back to Bryson and and work from there. So let's let's pick up with with the

Comments right at the end of William Lane Craig's statements here I'm willing to set aside the doctrine of original sin the

Quran agrees that all persons are simple It says that if God punished men for their sins, not one creature would be left alive

So we all find ourselves under God's justice and the question is if God is all -loving and his omnipotence trumps his justice

Why doesn't he just forgive everybody? The only answer the Muslim can give is the one Shabir's given

He doesn't love unbelievers and that is what the Quran says over and over and over again

He says love is a later emphasis in the

New Testament Not at all I showed that it comes from Jesus himself in the Sermon on the Mount just as God the

Father is perfect and loves his enemies So the real issue is this question of omnipotence No, mama defects where he says well the

Christian God is just because that doesn't show the

Islamic Okay, that was the statement. Let's go ahead and skip forward to Shabir's But I do not see it as a problem.

He's a problem. I'm saying look here

You know, here is a here is a trait that is common to Christianity in Islam. I don't see it as a problem

I think dr. Craig you see it as a problem. He taught this scheme from the other end

You're looking at the scheme from the end of thinking that people are born depraved Dr.

Craig says no, he is willing to set aside the doctrine of original sin I find this to be very interesting and I would like to understand that the doctrine of original sin is a doctrine that is

Being defended here tonight by dr. Craig because if there's no original sin, then what is it that Jesus has really come to die for?

Now obviously there's you know there he's laying it out saying I'd like to know More about what you mean by that.

What can you expand upon that? And so Craig is going to do so and we'll get to that in just a few minutes

From Jesus it shows that the the idea of God being love is not a later development

But notice that specifically I pointed out that this statement God is love is a statement that is found in one of the latest documents to be accepted within the

New Testament After much dispute concerning you common argument that is meant to portray some kind of doubt as if it would be better if the church in the whole process of Canonization had just said hey as long as it mentions

Jesus will canonize it So so if you don't have discussions now, by the way, first John was was not did not

Experience anything in comparison to for example revelation Or something along those lines and part of that is due to first John being very late as far as writing goes

But that's a statement that really doesn't carry a whole lot of weight because it's it's not like well, you know

There's there's a lot of reasons to reject first John as being relevant or things along those lines

And again, if Shabir Ali used the same Standards that he uses for his own

Islamic beliefs then he would have to recognize that the testimony to first John is earlier and stronger than that basically any of his evidence for any of the hadith any any of his evidence even a really for Substantiation of major portions of the

Quran so he'd have to accept that as having validity but again, it's the

Utilize utilization of one set of standards from the New Testament a completely different set of standards for the Quran That is the mark of so much of Islamic argumentation

Other than saying it's not the Word of God is actually the construction of men We need to need to keep that in mind, you know

Shabir I'll say I don't want to say anything bad about you know The Bible except that it's not actually the

Word of God and it cannot be trusted and you should abandon it in favor of the of the Quran But you should be aware that the

Sermon on the Mount is represented both in Matthew and in Luke and Luke is called the Sermon on the Flame And this sermon is not represented in the same way

Christian scholars have tried to reconstruct what was the original sermon and they reconstruct the document that they referred to as the

Q Gospel Now, you know, I mean, I just want to make a quick statement, you know, you hear about Q all the time and You know, sometimes

Conservatives are a little bit leery of Talking about sources.

The problem is Luke talks about sources Luke says I interviewed people. I I basically did research

I've checked my facts and aren't you glad that he did and aren't you glad that Luke didn't say?

Yeah, I can't use any sources or what I write won't be in divine That's ridiculous. But at the same time it's really odd to me

That people take such such shallow views Didn't didn't the disciples the

Apostles go out and preach? Were they not preaching in fact suffering persecution for preaching they weren't persecuted for writing

They were persecuted for preaching which means that there was a body of teaching

There was a body of preaching that was not a private possession of any one individual

It was widely disseminated, for example, let me let me give an example this this is a good example

What if today? Benny Hinn, this will wake wake everybody up. It won't woke rich up Rich is looking a little tired out there.

And as soon as I said Benny Hinn, he focused in What if Benny Hinn today came out?

that this is the way care about and decided to identify himself as An Orthodox Presbyterian Calvinist The laughter you hear is rich in the other room and Benny Hinn decides to say he has always been an

Orthodox Presbyterian Calvinist that he has never been anything other than that now

Could he get away with that Why couldn't he get away with that? He couldn't get away with that because we've all watched him preaching for years, right?

What he teaches what he says What he believes is well known.

It is a matter of public fact and you could destroy Every book he's ever written and the world would not be any worse off.

That's for certain, but you could destroy Every book he's ever written And and Destroy every videotape of of him throwing the

Holy Spirit around and slaying people in the spirit and and Doing his dancing and and and and how his hair never moves because it's cemented in place and things like that You could go through all of that and the fact remains

We would still know that Benny Hinn wasn't telling the truth. Why? Because his preaching is so widely known

That we know what he believes we know where he's coming from and we would be able to go wait a minute you never

That's not what you've always believed So you've got not just one

Apostle you've got a whole group of Apostles Going out and in a wide area not just one area the persecution drives drives them into all sorts of areas

You have an apostolic proclamation That exists before the very first Gospels written and it exists

Not just from one person, but in the minds and memories of not just hundreds, but thousands and tens of thousands and so That is the the quote -unquote

Apostolic tradition if you want to call about talking about an apostolic tradition and forget the Roman Catholic arguments of later

Centuries about that if you want to talk about what it was. There's the app. There's a body of apostolic preaching and That to me is much more clearly what quote -unquote

Q is you don't need to come up with some written source You don't need to think that Matthew and Luke are slavishly following some written source

There is an entire body of preaching it everybody would have known and if you vary from that if you alter that if you change

That in a substantive way Everyone's gonna know it the same way that everyone would know that Benny Hinn has not always been an

Orthodox Presbyterian Calvinist and don't worry. I'm not picking on on my OPC brothers. I'm just saying trying to make it as as Different from what he is today as as possible as that's actually a compliment

So that just gives you an idea about this Q stuff and and what people say about it the sources the the preaching of the

Apostles things like Especially Matthew has done this and your own particular changes to the sermon to bring it to what it is now in this gospel

So I don't think that we can build that much on this statement in Jesus Jesus's sermons to say that this was the original teaching now

I do not want to deny that Jesus taught a message of love I think that that is a myth and I think that different levels of emphasis have been given to this

Understanding in the three different predictions over time perhaps for reasons which we might have but the idea that Jesus says

Love your enemies. I Think to be a later development and that this came as a result of the way the

New Testament books were written You have to be written by Christians when they were facing heavy persecution

And it was necessary for Christians to represent their faith as being totally As being something that nobody should

See as a threat, especially the Roman government should not see this as a threat and it should welcome Christians Now if that were true if what we're actually saying here now again, we could turn this around We could look at the political situation of early

Islam even from Islamic traditional sources, which are far removed from the original time period

But even if we were to turn this around we could say oh Well, that means because the political situation was going on that this that and the other thing happened

And if we did that Shabir Ali would challenge us to demonstrate the foundation of our of our assertion

But he feels free to just throw these things out and as long as you find some female

Jesuit liberal at a Catholic University someplace that has come up with that idea once then that means it's scholarly

You know, that means I can I can come up with the with the the wildest left -leaning theories from the from the the most left -leaning orientalist on the planet and If he's consistent

Shabir Ali's gonna have to accept what he says without any I'm providing documentation again.

The double standard is massively Glaring in this particular context. So anyway

Here here you have the very same type of thing being being presented here in regards to the

New Testament We are speaking about the same concept that God basically loves everybody but those who turn away from him, he will punish and Muslims are saying that for God to punish these people

This is a a clear sign that God does not love them in the same way that he loves those whom that he will bring

Close to himself. Now, what about the idea of God as an attribute the point I made is that here

We have a new way of speaking about God Dr. Craig says, you know, there are many different ways about speaking of speaking about a

Word or it can be a person or a human attribute and get thing it can be an attribute I'm not denying that words can be used in different ways

But I did say that the speak of God now as an attribute is a new development in particular to defend the

Trinity doctrine Which is itself is a later invention So you cannot fix

God now to make him an attribute in order to defend the Trinity Itself is something that people have devised and of course you beginning assumptions here, you know

Obviously in time that will be one of the debates and one of the debates we're working on In the near future with she barely will be on the deity of Christ As I've said,

I really hope that that Shabir has developed a significantly more coherent

Form of argumentation against the deity of Christ. I imagine now he would just use the Jesus seminar liberalism

But the booklet that he put out on the subject Honestly Jehovah's Witnesses have done far better in their argumentation than than that booklet did and but I think that booklet is rather dated as far as that goes

According to God's own law, we cannot assume that God would want to raise him from the dead

Now again, I get strange looks from people like rich when he says this and it

It is a very circular thing that it's it's very difficult to break through the Islamic mindset at this point

They don't see and I mentioned this last time. They don't see that Jesus can die as a blasphemer in the minds of The Jews Without Jesus actually being a blasphemer.

It's amazing. They want to make the Jews an infallible interpreter of the meaning of the crucifixion

Why do they do this because of surah 4 1 57 1 58 it's it's their tradition. It forces it upon them

They can't therefore see the the concept in Paul of God's weakness and God's strength the

Fact that the cross the stumbling block that all of that stuff is just dismissed as a later

Creation by the Apostle Paul that has nothing to do with Jesus is actually in own intentions

Continuously came back to life that would be so improbable that anything else would have been possible

It is better maybe to assume that he came and told you this body than to think that Jesus spontaneously rose to life

Is that God raised Jesus to life But if Jesus died as a blasphemer without first assuming the truth of the resurrection

We would have no rational grounds for believing that God would want to raise Jesus back to life

And we will be left with a Messiah who died as a blasphemer I don't believe that is the Messiah believe that Jesus was true and righteous from the beginning to end

He did not make blasphemous claims Now I still maintain that in the Christians you no matter how you look at it

It is still God loving himself, whether he's a singularity or a plurality You're just maintaining here that God is love and he has to have somebody else to love

That's why we have the Trinity, but that's not why we have the Trinity The Trinity evolved for various other reasons and now this argument is advanced in defense of that Trinity I think it is a weak argument and it does not take away from the

Jewish and Christian God. Thank you Okay now finally getting to the point here where you know if If somehow we have misunderstood and Of course she barely is misunderstood now's the time when that correction is going to come so let's see what happens

Tremendously the interaction tonight, and I hope that you found it profitable and stimulating as well Let me try to draw together some of the threads of this debate

To see if we can come to some conclusion. Is the Christian concept of God as a

Trinity rationally Objectionable or not. I think it's become pretty clear in the debate that if he raised

Jesus that he were a blasphemer Well, because he wasn't a blasphemer because he was telling the truth

He was in fact God's son and therefore he did not die as a blasphemer Other Jews were wrong in crucifying him

Since he has been shown in the doctor. What about my plausibility argument here again?

Now let me just stop for a moment That's one of the main places where my presentation would have differed from dr.

Craig's in a long way And you will see a very major difference between Various apologetic methodologies,

I mentioned on the blog this weekend There are those who argue for Christianity the basis of plausibility that it is more plausible than other possibilities

I really struggle with that being consistent with apostolic teaching I do not see the

Apostles ever arguing that if you just put yourself in a neutral position and examine the facts that the

The majority of the facts will point to the greater probability that Christianity is true. Jesus might have risen from the dead there's a really good case we made for that is basically what people are saying

I I Have been poisoned by Greg Bonson Who pointed out long long ago that that's not only not how the

Apostles taught But that's not a sufficient foundation for the radical claims the

Christian faith It's not the Christian teaching that there's a really good possibility that we're right

The the assertion is there's our God exists and you are to repent and believe and it's not you probably should it's you must and So I would never have used a plausibility argument in regards to the

Trinity to begin with. I know many people have You know, it goes back to Augustine but I don't see that as consistent with the biblical revelation

Other persons to whom each person gives his love whereas on the Islamic view There's a single person who just loves himself and his self -absorbed

Should be able to speak of God as an attribute is a new development. Not at all this is simply a linguistic way of using words and to say that Jesus is

God is not an identity statement. It's just to say Jesus is divine that he is

Has the attributes of divinity? I think that's unproblematic So I think we've got a good argument for thinking

God is a Trinity we've seen no rational objections to it Now is the Muslim concept of God rationally objectionable or not?

Argued that it is because on the Muslim conception of God God's love is conditional partial and selective

Now Shabir thinks that my argument presupposes that people are born in original

And if you deny that then you have to say what did Christ come to die for well, it's not presupposed in original sin

I'm not endorsing that at all tonight what Christ died for were our actual sins the sins that we actually

Commit that's what he came to die for and the point is that God loves the world so much that he gave his son

To win us back to himself Shabir says will be sermon on the mouth is a late.

Well, I made to stop right there because there you you have it That that's about as clear as I can and I can

I can get it Let me let me roll it back here a little bit Well, there you go,

I don't know how much more clearly you can put it Jesus doesn't die for original sin because that's not actual sin

He only dies for actual sins, which of course leaves you scratching your head and going what happened to Romans 5 and Why do babies die and You know, it's a trip cetera and you're left and I'm I imagine

Shabir Ali was left going. Yeah This isn't what we're you know so There it is.

I don't know how much How much clearer it can be but that does seem to indicate that What should be early heard and what we heard we heard correctly that we were not in some mean fashion misinterpreting

What was what was going on there? I will continue with George Bryson. But first we're gonna take a break and be right back

The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith Once the core of the

Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine in his book the

God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute

James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith

Dr. J. Adams says I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically

Oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words

The God who justifies by dr. James White get your copy today at a omen org

Oh Public crimes the criminal mishandling of God's Word may be

James White's most provocative book yet White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned

Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word what has happened to this sacred duty in our day

The charges are as follows prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious eisegesis entertainment without a license and Cross -dressing ignoring

God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women is a public crime occurring in your town Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming

Lord's Day The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45

Evening services are at 6 30 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix You can call for further information at 602 -26 grace

If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org

Where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day

And Welcome back to the dividing line

We just for those of you who have tuned in a little bit late Those of you who can never quite figure out time zones and things like that.

Don't forget on Thursday we will begin looking at the subject of textual criticism.

Not that we don't do that fairly regularly anyway but moving toward being able to Discuss the the subject of the textual critical signs and symbols within the

United Bible Society's text and the Nestle Alland text and We'll probably then go down to a couple textual variants and look through the listings

So you have an idea of what what is hiding down there and all that gibberish at the bottom of the page basically and That's what we'll be doing starting on Thursday though We probably won't be doing the textual critical part as far as the sigla until the next week

But we'll start looking at some of the background information So you have some basis upon which to understand what we are talking about And other things we talked about fairly frequently around here is

George Bryson Who likes to talk about us too? So we have been very slowly over time listening to George Bryson's Presentation that he made to a bunch of Calvary Chapel pastors back.

I estimate October November of 2003. It was prior to the

Bible Answer Man broadcast where we That was 2003. It's already been to as December of 2003.

I was the same time. I debated Greg Stafford in Tampa and that was December 2003 and then 2004 was

Wilson 2005 crossing 2006 bong Amazing how the time goes by huh?

Mm -hmm. Yep. Yep. Yep. See how gray this is here. Yeah, and and you're yeah Yeah, well, we don't know what mine would look like Because I don't let it get far enough to find out but definitely down here in the beard.

It's it's You're you're actually a little whiter than I am. I'm a little jealous Actually as I've grown it out, it's almost darkened a little bit which

I didn't want to do I wanted to actually get lighter, but oh well, that's life No one really cares what we're talking about Hey rush, does it you know, so, you know rush rush defines

Excellence of broadcasting right, but he doesn't talk about George Bryson, yes

George Bryson were a minute and 50. I'm at a minute 54 here into Into the second portion of his mp3 you've been doing it very very slowly, but we will try to get a little bit done today

It's not on the surface to read the Bible you don't see any portrait of God like that In fact,

John Feinberg says the portrait of God in Calvinism is a pretty hard Harsh reality to swallow.

It doesn't even seem to it doesn't jive with any sensitivity at all.

But again And you know again, that's that's taking Feinberg out of context it doesn't jive with what the sinful man wants

God to look like and There is no question that Divine it, you know, you know, why do you want a

God who's really comfortable, you know? Why do you want a God who just is is just nice to touch?

You know, I don't I don't understand that I'm reminded of a plaque

I have up on the wall here that I can actually see from the studios here I'm reminded of a statement by John Flavel when he said

I know there is nothing in the word or in the works of God that is repugnant to sound reason but there are some things in both which are opposite to carnal reason as well as above right reason and therefore a reason never shows itself more unreasonable than in summoning those things to its bar which transcend its sphere and capacity and that That attitude is very much a part of what

George Bryson has In a what even broader spectrum where you know

What mankind feels God should be like is somehow relevant notice one more time here

Many Calvin said professing a desire to defend God From an invidious charge amid the doctrine of election.

They said well, I believe in election But denied that anyone is reprobated have you guys ever heard of Calvinist say that well

God That's what Spurgeon said by the Spurgeon said God saves those that are saved, but he doesn't

Damn those that are damn they damn themselves This is what Calvin said to Charles Spurgeon and to everybody else who holds that view

He says this they do ignorantly and childlishly since there could be no election without its operant reprobation

Those therefore God whom God passes by he reprobates and that for no other cause than that he is pleased

To exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children now notice again

He's very good at isolating this when when Calvin is addressing the reality of the fullness of God's decree

He's very good at isolating this and notice when he uses even Calvin uses the term passes by Calvin clearly

Differentiates between the nature of reprobation and the nature of election which

Bryson does not he cannot either He doesn't understand it doesn't want to understand it isn't honest about I don't know, but he doesn't make the very differentiation that Calvin does and Seemingly purposely wants to create in the minds of his listeners the exact opposite idea

It's God's pleasure That people are damned just like it's his pleasure that some people are saved

He is pleased to do this see the again to try to attempt to create the exact parallel Between the two and you can't look to the man or explain it now some

Calvinist will say well We don't know what the reason is, but we do this is what pleases him.

You know no No, you're wrong George You're just simply wrong And you you know it because you've read

Calvin enough to know that he doesn't just dismiss the concept of the demonstration of God's Justice doesn't just dismiss the sinfulness of man.

He doesn't just dismiss the righteous punishment of man. He doesn't do any of that Because just because he's honest enough to address some of the big issues to try to get around the various Cavils that men have attempted to erect against the doctrine collection you take just that ignore the rest of it this is what he's saying, and it's it's it's only a

Portion out of context and you can take anyone and And caricature their viewpoints by utilization of this methodology, but it doesn't make it honest if a saddest

You know does something horrible. I mean horrible and gets pleasure in what he does inflicting pain on somebody else the reason

He does it is really right there for all to see he gets pleasure from this addictive seductive seductive

Activity so the saddest the term is sadistic pleasure from it and before he does that somebody could say well

Why does he get pleasure who cares all you know this creep is inflicting pain on me because he gets off on hurting people which almost sounds like he's trying to paint

God this way as if that's somehow relevant to what Calvin was saying as if Those who are punished by God are innocent and see this is always whether they even

Consciously recognize this or not it's in the back of their minds It's they want it to be back of your minds, and what is it that?

God is standing behind these poor innocent creatures the big old bad gun

And he's forcing them to be bad, and then he beats him up for it. That's the picture

He wants to try to present now. It's it's an inaccurate picture it is an untrue picture, but The hope evidently is that it will create such a visceral

Repulsion on the part of anyone who hears it that at that point all critical thinking stops

He tried that during the debate he tried to you know your mother may not be elect you

She may not be able to be saved Because of this view of God and and all the rest of stuff just trying to create in the minds of people an emotional barrier

Because he can't answer the biblical presentation so you have to create the emotional barrier in people's thinking so Calvinism tells us

Why God sent people hell why they're gonna burn forever without him without hope without excuse the reason

Is because he gets pleasure from it, and that's the only thing you can appeal to That's why some people are saved.

That's why some people lost God enjoys What he does? Guess what

George would like to have is a God who? Doesn't receive pleasure

Doesn't receive grace He wants to have a very man -centered concept rather than a

God who actually accomplishes his will in this world I I guess that's isn't that the opposite of this is

I don't know what other The problem with with George Bryson these folks is since they won't present a positive theology

You can't hardly nail them down you can't say wait a minute you're being inconsistent with your own position here

What's your view of the glory of God? What's your view of God's purposes and great? They don't you know that's how this whole mp3 started remember

We're not really theologians, and we don't really have a systematic theology see and we're just biblicists

But you read the Bible you're not gonna become a theologian. You know and So they can criticize things

Which would normally give you the position of saying well that means they don't believe it and therefore

They believe the opposite of it But they don't do that they won't give you something to bite into and actually deal with now some people have tried to solve that Problem, but they have only created a bigger mess now the process by which one becomes manifest as a

Reprobate is called hardening you guys familiar with that term hardening again from Romans God hardens whom he will and he shows mercy on whom he will

Okay, now. This is important again. We're talking John Calvin he says the word harden when applied to God in Scripture not only means by permission

That's RC Sproul says the God hardens us by letting us harden ourself silly nonsense

He says and this is what he says, this is what John Calvin calls RC Sproul so the word hardened when applied to God in Scripture means not only

Permission as some washy Moderators would have it but also the operation of the wrath of God for all those external things which lead to the blinding of the reprobate are the instruments of his wrath now,

I'm gonna stop right there and You know I know that George Bryson will never listen to any of these programs

I know there are people who probably have Informed him that there is a bit

But I just I would be very very shocked if he ever bothered to listen to these programs But if by some wild chance he were to do so My statement to George Bryson would be here sir.

You have no idea what you're talking about That is not an accurate

Representation of RC Sproul because RC Sproul would and I've heard him directly state

That the hardening is a part of God's judicial action you keep confusing

God's intentions and the means by which he does so God doesn't have to again. I mean this is just so simple but And and some

I say well you don't pick on George He's just a simple guy this man claims to be an expert on these things this man's the one who's talking about how much he knows

We've already played those things if you haven't heard him go back and listen to him He's the one claiming to be an expert So I'm just gonna hold him to a standard on what it means to be an expert on these things

Exactly what would God have to do to someone to harden them? Given the reformed understanding of man's nature.

I Mean is it going to be natural for man to do good or?

Is it going to be natural for man to even be worse than he is because God's restraining is evil

So there is no contradiction between what RC Sproul has said and what

John Calvin just said and the only reason you see a Contradiction is because you don't understand the use of means by God You just you just I don't know why you don't understand it.

You refuse. It's been explained to you Personally in public in front of many people have explained it to you at least two or three times and It just doesn't it doesn't sink in so maybe there's just a lack of willingness a lack of capacity.

I don't know I don't know all I know is it's been explained and He doesn't understand

Satan himself Who works inwardly inwardly with great power in so far as it is is so far his minister that he acts not

But by his command with God command Satan to do what Satan does and then the result is you get hardened

Proving your reprobate Paul teaches us that the ruin of the wicked is not only seen by the

Lord Notice this again the ruin of the wicked is not only seen by the Lord But also ordained by his counsel and his will not only the destruction of the wicked is foreknown

But that the wicked themselves have been created for this very end that they may perish

The reason God created these people is so that they could perish now He didn't create him for one reason then they sin and rebelled and so something else happens to them

He creates them for the very end That they may perish and of course at that very same point in time we stop and go.

Mr. Bryson. Mr Bryson sir, are you an open theist and other people get really mad at us when we ask that question and And when they go, of course, it's not open theist.

Okay. Well then mr. Bryson, sir when he created these men Did he have a purpose in creating them?

Yes, he wanted them to be saved Did he know that they were not gonna be saved? Well, yes, he did know. How did he know that?

Well, I can't tell you that we don't know God just knows future things because God knows future things Okay, so but God knew these future things

He knew for a certainty that these men would would always live in their hatred of God and they would love their sin and and so on so forth so God had no purpose for creating them at all except just to be disappointed and Then it gets like really quiet because once again what you've got here is only the criticism of one side

No positive presentation of a biblically based alternative on the other

Because well, we don't need to really worry about systematic theology to begin with see And that's where you get into some real problems

Hi, yeah, yeah. Yeah. So anyway, there's there's some more of George Bryson, but we have

Have a phone caller that we want to get to maybe we'll get to back George before the end of the hour But we will see but we have one of our regular callers, but with a no.

Oh This is someone else. Okay. Well, alright fine. Not one of our regular callers, but we do have a

Canadian Hello Pierre Hello I'm doing well.

How are things up in the frigid north? Very very very cold. Very very very frigid I think frigid is better than cold frigid frigid just makes you feel like you're you're frozen in place.

But anyway, what can we do for you? Well, I I may digress a bit.

I know you've been talking about George Bryson, but I was asking about First Timothy 316.

Yes, and I was going over your book the King James only controversy a few days ago and It struck me that you said you felt that Reading God has the stronger support in that verse

Okay You're talking now. There's there's two different texts here first. We're talking about first Timothy 316.

Yes Okay, because I've been told you're wanted to ask about they are new stars Which is second to me 316.

So I just need to know which text we're looking at. Oh, sorry. No, I meant first. Okay Okay. Okay riches riches

Currently whipping himself in the other rooms. That means it must be his fault. So my apology Okay, first 73 16.

Yes. Uh -huh. Yeah, so you said you felt that God has the stronger support for that I'm just wondering if you feel that it has a stronger support

Because it's in the earliest manuscripts in translations or just the

Just just the way that that That verse Just because of what surrounds that verse the problem surrounding that first you think that well,

I have a stronger reading well, I Which which book are you referring to the King James only controversy?

Yeah You don't happen to have the it in front of you at the moment, do you

I Have in front of me So I'm just looking for the because my recollection was that that my statement was that you can make a strong argument for that The fact is that the external evidence is rather Divided very strongly divided

Between the two the two Readings and that just because the majority of texts the majority of printed texts today

Do not use God does not mean that you should just dismiss it. Okay.

I've found it here This is on pages 208 and 209 for folks who have the

King James only controversy and Let me see here

I Did he did he did he did he

I don't remember Hence, we can see how textual variant no reason you know I addressed this actually a number of different places in the text and it must have been somewhere else because this particular section

I'm not Making any comment one way or the other. I'm just explaining what the variant is and why things read that way

But my recollection is anyways that what I said was you can make a strong case For the

OS and especially due to and if you've got the King James only controversy you can see what

What the difference is between the OS and Haas and when I do my

PowerPoint presentations I put that up so that people can see that there is trim that the two words given that they

OS would be a nominal sacred it is a Word that because of its frequency of use in the

New Testament is abbreviated it is abbreviated as Theta Sigma and Haas of course is

Omicron Sigma and That in unsealed text the the two would look extremely similar to one another and Since we're writing either on papyri

During the period of time where the variant arises or vellum the the consistent

Thing between those two is the presence of lines A vellum being leather no matter how well it's treated you you still are going to have some imperfections in the surface and In fact a few about I think back in November or December.

I posted a graphic on the blog of first Timothy 316 in Codex Alexandrinus So you could see why it's very difficult to determine what its original reading was at that particular point and so that was

That was part of the the reason that I made the statement is that there is ambiguity in The older manuscripts simply because the two words look so much alike to one another

That there have been some scholars who have argued that even some Readings that are listed in our modern texts are not accurate that if you would examine it more closely that There was the line that indicated that it was the

Theta rather than the Omicron and then another scholar would say no I think that's just part of the paper and and without doing exceptionally close

You know utilization for example of ultraviolet or infrared photography and stuff like that It's it's sometimes difficult to to make that determination as to which one which direction to go

As to what a particular manuscript might read at that particular point because of the great similarity in the two words

That's that makes it one of the more difficult textual variants simply because in many other textual variants.

You have a completely different word It would be a different spelling It's very easy to see what one manuscript reads over another when it's a single letter difference

Which is the difference here and the two letters are identical to one another with the exception of an extension line then you can see both where the variant arose and Also, why there is some question as to even what some of the some of the manuscripts actually read at that particular point so for example if you have

The Nessie Allen text and you look down at first Timothy chapter 3 verse 16 you're only given this would be about two lines actually less than two lines of Text and the

United Bible Society is going to give you more reading here, but it lists as having the word

They us over against Haas they us as Codex Sinaiticus Corrected so this is when you see a when you see the symbol for Sinaiticus with the

C next to that That's a later corrector of the original writing which again think about the difference between the

Theta and the Omicron How do you know that? How how has that been identified?

That's something it can be challenged obviously the corrector of Alexander's But again, you look at you you look at Alexander Ness.

I posted the the image very very difficult to determine Firsthand secondhand anything like that even what the actual final reading is in that text the second hand of C deep sigh 1739 1881

Majority text reads they us and that is over against the original of all of the original of Alexander Ness so that that you know, that's a call that has been made if you if you reverse that it changes the weighting of this

FG 3335 few others and some early church fathers now

What that means is there's a there's a real division here and it's and even at that that point the division is the result of having to make a call as to what those particular texts read and so really, it's

It is very valuable for Us to you know, there's so many study

Bibles out and yet how many of those study Bibles actually provide this kind of information? Wouldn't wouldn't that be a much better study

Bible to have then, you know The left -handed green -eyed a person to study Bible which you know sells out there I think it would be

I think there should be more of that kind of textual Information provided the New English translation tries to do that in the

New Testament is very useful on that level But hope that'll give you an idea where we'll be going over the next couple of weeks

Thank you for your call Pierre and we will indeed probably looking at first to me 316 and others in the textual criticism series

We begin on the next dividing line Thursday afternoon. See you then. God bless The dividing line 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