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.

Textual Criticism and the Planned Thursday Series

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 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 the problems that are inherent in Such an assertion in regards to 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 texts 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 say you don't utilizing text that the church had not seen for many hundreds or even over a 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'm actually sort of getting a Suppose 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 the only 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 going to 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.

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. Love your enemies just as God the Father is perfect and loves his enemies. So the real issue is this question of omnipotence, I believe now.

What about Shabir Ali's yo mama defense where he says? Well, the Christian God is just as bad. I don't think that the yo mama defense is gonna work. Why?

Because that doesn't show the Islam against. Okay, that's that was the statement. Let's go ahead and skip forward to Shabir's.

Judaism we have the one God of Islam and Christianity. We still have one God, but the one God is in three persons. I'm trying to understand that. Now the French says well, it's the Islamic doctrine that is defective because you muslims say that God does not love everyone.

The Quran itself and Shabir Ali in his website says that God does not love evildoers. I'm just simply pointing out that this if it is a problem is a problem that both Christians and Muslims have to explain for themselves and for people who would ask this.

But I do not see it as a problem either a problem in Islam or in Christianity. So it's not that you know, your mama has done this. I'm saying look. You know, there is a there 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 because you're looking at the scheme from the other end. You're looking at the scheme from the end of thinking that people are born depraved.

But 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 Dr. Craig to actually elaborate on that because it is my understanding that the doctrine of original sin.

Is a doctrine that is being defended here tonight by Dr. Craig. Because if there is no original sin, then what is it that Jesus has really come to die for? This I would like to understand a little bit more.

And this is why dialogue is so interesting to me because it helps me because it stimulates my interest to a great degree.

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.

Documents to be accepted within the New Testament canon only 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 that 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 Utilized 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. 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's 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 him 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 him he focused him. What if Benny him today came out? That this will wake her up and decided to identify himself as An Orthodox Presbyterian Calvinist. The laughter you hear is rich in the other room and Benny him 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 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.

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 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 that 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 source is the the preaching of the Apostles things like. So.

A message of love. I think that that is the message that is both in Judaism in Christianity and also in Islam. And I think that different levels of emphasis have been given to this Understanding in the three different religions over time perhaps for reasons which we might have a chance to explore.

But the idea that Jesus says love your enemies. I Think to be a later development and this came as a result of the way the New Testament books were written. You have to realize that the New Testament Gospels and other books were 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. They should welcome Christians now if that were true.

If 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 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.

But People.

In the same way We have a new way of speaking about God. Dr. Craig says yeah, there are many different ways about speaking of speaking about a Word or it can be a person or it can be an attribute and you're saying 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 which 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 Shabir Ali 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.

Now the point about Jesus's claims is that if Jesus really made the claims that Dr. Craig is saying If he really became a blasphemer according to God's own law We cannot assume that God would want to raise him from the dead and Dr. Craig himself maintains.

Now again, I get strange looks from people like Rich when 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 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.

We cannot assume that Jesus spontaneously came back to life. That would be so improbable that anything else would have been possible. It's better maybe to assume that each he came and stole Jesus's body than to think that Jesus spontaneously rose to life.

The plausible Hypothesis, dr. Craig would put forward 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 would 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 Christian view no matter how you look at it It is still God loving himself whether he's a singularity or a plurality. We're just maintaining here that God is loved 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.

William Lane Craig on the Trinity, Love, and Original Sin

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.

Statements from each individual at five minutes time with dr. Craig. Well, I've enjoyed 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 conclusions.

First is the Christian concept of God as a Trinity rationally objectionable or not? I think it's become pretty clear in the debate that there isn't any rational objection to this doctrine once it's properly formulated.

I argue that there's nothing inconsistent about saying there are three persons in one being and in this last speech all should be Acceptable. Why would God want to raise Jesus if 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. The Jews were wrong in crucifying him. But no inconsistency has been shown in the doctrine that there are three persons that comprise one being.

What about my plausibility. Argument for the Trinity based upon God's nature is self-giving. Love here again. Sugar 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 biblical revelation.

On either view, but I think you can see if you've been listening that that's not true because with a plurality of persons There are 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.

Shabir says we'll speak of God as an attribute is a new development. Not at all. This is simply a linguistic way of using words. 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. Yeah, 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.

I Need to stop right there because there you you have it That that's about as clear as I can 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 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 Shabir Ali 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.

Justification by Faith and the Books on the Ministry

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. 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.

George Bryson on Calvinism, Election, and Reprobation

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. He's George Bryson. Who likes to talk about us too? So we have been very slowly over time listening to George Bryson's presentation.

They 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. Now it's 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 then 2004 was Wilson 2005 crossing 2006 pong. Amazing how the time goes by huh? Mm-hmm. Yep. Yep. Yep. See how great this is here.

And and you're yeah, you know, 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 actually a little whiter than I am.

I'm a little jealous. Actually as I've 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 the stuff. George Bryson, yes George Bryson were a minute and 50 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's.

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 admit the doctrine of election. They said well, I believe in election But denied that anyone is reprobated. Have you guys ever heard of Calvin to 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 you 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 Cavill's that men have attempted to erect against the doctrine collection you take just that ignore the rest of the 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 just 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 Substantive activity.