More on George Bryson's Anti-Calvinism

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 602 973 4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line.

I was just sort of sitting here In my brightly colored Coogee sweater today reading a few sections from the dark side of Calvinism the

Calvinist caste system by George Bryson and And unfortunately, there's no there's like I said, it's sort of a

We have a webcam in case any of you are wondering and those in channel know about it

It's not really a webcam. It takes a picture every 10 seconds to some anyways for those who see that it's sort of a velo bound type thing kinkos type binding type thing and How many pages is this?

It doesn't have 200 and that's about one inch thick. Yeah, it's about you know about 279 pages 621 footnotes

But unfortunately, they're not divided up. So you can actually find anything very easily in here, but I was looking at the

More on irresistible grace back to chapter 6 of John's Gospel and I was just looking at some of the stuff that he has to say here

He quoted me GS teaches that Dot -dot -dot man is incapable of saving faith outside the enablement of the father

He then limits his drawing to the same individuals given by the father to the son The first statement is indeed true man is unable without divine help even to believe that is why the father draws all

And I was looking at John 6 there. And of course there isn't anything about all there at all and you can't

Even get there. I Will get around to looking at that as well at some time the future 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1

I was on the iron sharpens iron program today with Chris Arnzen and That was yeah, that was tough.

It was we talked about grieving today. Yeah, that's uh, that's just a An exhausting subject to address for me.

It really really is I don't know why other than it's just a hard subject good subject to address this time of year

But and I'm not going there right now, but it's still a difficult difficult thing to to address

Important at around the holidays to be prepared those things. But anyway, we did that a little while ago

But now we are looking back Having handled some good phone calls on our last program to the

Bryson discussion before we completely lose the context of it This is a discussion that George Bryson Presented to Calvary Chapel pastors, and I know a number of former

Calvary Chapel folks And it's a shame to have to say that they are former Calvary Chapel folks

Calvary Chapel folks Say they believe that the Bible is the Word of God. They believe that you should study the the

Bible's Word of God, but they've Sadly has become quite clear that if you come to conclusion that that Bible Teaches the doctrines of grace.

You cannot be a part of that particular movement and so we're looking at the mindset represented by George Bryson who is one of the leaders of the

Calvary Chapel movement and his warning of people regarding this terrible subject of Calvinism and so we're about 30 minutes into This particular presentation.

So we pick up with it. Oh, you know what? Are you ready for a loud sound here it comes and we do that and hopefully it sounds good.

Oh good. We That's not the loud sound we were talking about You and your you've got we you're dangerous with with toys and switches and buttons and things

That's not that's a that's a bad thing The loud sound was supposed to be the plugging in the thing because it makes terrible noises

But now we'll we'll start with George Bryson. We have no idea why he wants to save them and not the others

We just know that he wants to save some and he doesn't others according to Reformed Theology now And we immediately have to stop because This is

George at high speed. This is chipmunk George and when chipmunk George comes along chipmunk

George is normally missing the point and So when we hear the high -speed stuff you got to stop it and go oh wait a minute

I know you've been claiming to know everything there is know about Calvinism everything else but it's normally in this section that we end up with the the bad misrepresentations of Reformed Theology, we know that God wants to save to demonstrate his loving kindness and his mercy and his grace and We know that he does not choose to save all

So as to demonstrate his justice If he were to save everyone then his justice would not be seen were he to save no one that his mercy would be not

Would not be seen and so in essence once again, I would say to Mr.

Bryson and to those who follow his line of thinking Where in your system? Do you give to God the freedom to demonstrate all of his attributes in his eternal decree or do you think that one of the attributes of God is failure and That he tries to save all and that the attribute that is most seen in God's attempt to save is his desire to save but that then results in the requirement that there be a a failure elements within it

God in making that decision since God is Omnipotent and sovereign when he makes a decision to do something it is as good as done therefore nothing else could happen to Thwart or contradict or in any way diminish what he's decided to do

So if he's decided that the Sun is going to turn into blue cheese

That decree of God will make that Sun turn into blue cheese and nothing could stop it

Nothing could undermine or change or alter that fact It's a fact yet to happen, but it's still a fact to be it's the truth that can't be altered

So God decides to save some Not to save others those who decides to save must therefore be saved some

Calvinists actually argue that no one is ever Really lost that is ever going to be saved

You're just going through the formality because once God decided to save some from eternity past Those people are going to be saved no matter what they can never really be risking anything that notice

Again, once you get into the chipmunk stage once he gets into this stuff This is what he really really really believes and he really really really thinks you need to grasp and so he's gonna say it as fast

As possible and that's normally where he has has in essence Come up with what what

I would call a monochrome presentation And he's emphasizing only one aspect and maybe he knows he's only emphasizing one aspect

Maybe that's why he tries to talk so quickly. I don't know Maybe that's just his personality.

He gets really excited and talks fast at a certain point. I don't know But the point is that what we've just heard is well if you recognize the eternal reality that in fact from the point of creation itself

The end of God's purposes was known to him in finality then all of its irrelevant

All of it doesn't matter the fact that there is going to be all this Human experience and there is going to be everything between creation and the end of all of that just became irrelevant

It's just all flattened out Now again, this is not an objection To the

Christian to Calvinism. This is an objection to simple Christian theism

And though at least one person was very upset with me for even bothering to ask. Mr.

Bryce in this question if he his his objection would only be relevant if he were in fact an open theist and that God didn't know

God was unaware of What was going to be? happening in the future and It was all the great cosmic role of the dice, etc, etc then his objection have a foundation, but since he

Professes not to be an open theist then it would follow that from the beginning when

God created he knew who was going to be saved and who was not and So it's a done deal from his perspective as well

Now he may not want to deal with this eternal decree But if he if he opts for the free will passively taking in knowledge

Throw the cosmic dice as long as he affirms that God does know

He may have to he may want to adopt the well, but the end result is because God Observes what's gonna happen time the fact still is that from the time he created?

That's it He he knows what the end is gonna be and he knows it could be saved and who isn't so on his own grounds

The result is the same and the objection is the same in either one of these situations and so what the the substance of the of the objection therefore is in In light of his own professed theology, but then again, isn't that the issue?

Isn't that what we heard when we began listening to this? Is it? Yeah, we Calvary Chapel folks We're really not in this theology stuff so you can end up with the theology of God that is inconsistent with your theology of salvation and as long as you don't get so Theologically oriented is to drag these two things kicking and screaming next one other find out they're consistent then just live with the inconsistency

Don't worry about it. Don't don't don't think about these things evidently seems to be the perspective.

That is that is being promoted There's no danger for the elect because the elect from all eternity are going to be safe.

Therefore. They'll be safe for all eternity and From your perspective if God knows at creation who's going to be saved.

There's no quote -unquote danger for them I mean once again same objection same point just as valid for him as it is for me at least

I can say God has a purpose in the elect being an Adam and being fallen and living as children of wrath and The whole nine yards and since I don't know who the identity of the elect is

None of this is relevant to my proclamation of the gospel None of this is relevant to the fact that since I don't know and we are not given

The identity of the elect in this life in the sense that here's the census roll, you know And and we can tell exactly who the elect are then we proclaim the gospel to all people and we warn all people

Because the danger is real. We don't have that knowledge. That's what makes the context our context real

In that sense and it seems like again if he is is being consistent with himself that he would have to be raising the very same objections to his own position that he isn't raising to his own position and Maybe that's why by the way,

I did get an email From someone who listened to the program over on the narrow mind where they had the station manager and the station manager said it was because He was being rude to callers

In not answering the questions as to his own position that's what I was that's what was reported to me anyway, and So, you know,

I can't comment on that one way or the other because I haven't listened to that but that's Remember he had said

I was on that program and they would they I wouldn't go back on because they wouldn't let me quote Calvin Blah blah, you know, my feeling is he

I and and I've got a little experience here because I tried for three hours

Not including commercial breaks to try to get him to present a cogent coherent theology of his own

Perspective and then apply to his perspective the same standards. He was trying to apply to my

Perspective and that's what he's not willing to do. That's what he's not able seemingly to do

No danger and there's no hope for the reprobate because since they were not chosen to be saved from all eternity

They must be damned or doomed for all eternity Again, just as just as much of an objection to his own doctrine of God's knowledge as to anybody else's

Except one difference from his perspective. He can't assign a meaning a purpose to any of this

It's just the cosmic roll the dice at least I can say God had a purpose in each one of these things

Genesis 50 acts for Isaiah 10, you know all the stuff that we tried to get him to respond to on the program and wouldn't then either so Election is

Determinative God decides God decrees it is therefore going to happen So whatever else

God does so the four -point Calvinist says on one hand God elects to save them Then sins or elects not to save them

Talking about the reprobate he elects not to save some just as he elects to save some well again

And and we've tried to this is the same Trying to make this purely and an equal sign between the two

Not recognizing and and and really by by taking Only a part of the truth by taking only a portion of the truth.

You end up creating this this This skewed reality and Interestingly enough.

He's coming from making election The only thing and it's interesting how these these enemies of the Reformed faith they all think they've come up with the one answer the one way to to slay the beast of Calvinism and For for Bryson you need to understand.

It's all about election It's it's all about this particular issue. And so you end up getting rid of the depravity of man and sin and you get you get rid of the man fact that man loves his sin and You just you just make it into a mechanistic type of a concept

I was looking at a criticism of Calvinism online earlier today by a quote -unquote former

Calvinist and This individual his Entry point his this is the big thing is you need to understand the way to understand

Calvinism to see why it's wrong is the issue of Total depravity and and man's incapacities and you attack it from there see and so You're you end up rather than just taking the system as a whole and going the only direction you can and that is to the texts upon which we stand upon which we say look you consistently apply the same hermeneutic to these texts and While we're willing to go to 2nd

Peter 3 9 and 1st Timothy 2 4 and Matthew 23 37 and all your texts You won't go to John 6 and you won't go to Ephesians 1 you won't won't go to Romans 9 and apply the same hermeneutic that so we all would share hopefully

In defending the resurrection of the deity of Christ you go to do those. They won't do that. They they well

I'm just gonna go at this one point and Attack in this way. That's that's an interesting observation that I have had but Since he elects not to that's his decree and that's going to happen.

Then he sends Christ to die for them How could he send Christ to die for them? There can be no what chapter of my book is this

Nothing, but the blood for the elect nothing in the blood For the not elect how can he possibly do anything of a saving nature for those people?

He has no saving interest in and made no saving decision for It's impossible logically so Calvinists call us to consistency.

You can be consistent wrong, but you can't be inconsistent Right That's impossible They're consistent on this point true

Calvinists are but they are dead wrong because their premise is all off In fact, I'm going to say something a little shocked some of you

And this will save you a lot of time trying to reconcile election with these other issues

Election is a concoction. There's no such thing as the Calvinist version of election doesn't exist never did

I've read everything that's ever been written that I know of an English language on an explanation of and affirmations of the doctrine of election

I always stop and and so I've read

Everything exists that I know of in the English language as soon as I hear somebody say that ice go

Okay. All right. We're just about to get an argument from authority here rather than an argument from any kind of meaningful citation

You know what, why does anybody do that? I mean, yeah,

I've I Guess it's just to pump yourself up or something. I hear people doing this on all sides the fence

I've read everything in the English language on this subject. Well Okay, that's that's that's wonderful but Normally what

I what that is is a means to avoid actually you're you're gonna say something that you know is is actually very

Challengable and so you want to try to head off the challenges by just pumping yourself up to the you know

And sort of like the puffer fish, you know, don't attack me because I'm so big type of a situation you know and There's some cartoon thing where the that thing is, you know, you know

Wasn't that in Finding Nemo or something the puffer fish? But that's that's we're getting here is the puffer fish

There is no such thing in the Bible the Bible never makes any references to anything like the

Calvinist version of election The Bible talks about election a great deal and I believe there are people we can legitimately call the elect

But we also can call them believers or Christians So you notice basically saying is is

Believers is the equivalent of the elect. So you just again flatten out the order that you find in Scripture Flatten out the priority of God's action you find

Scripture in that way You can insert man into it in the way that his man -centered theology would do so there are no elect unbelievers there are like believers

No, you believe because you're chosen from eternity and that's yeah, but anyway that requires to once again go back through tax exegetically and We've already discovered that's not the best way of that that's not really something that that mr.

Bryson is Just you know, I really had to bring up we got really had to find in fact

Now this is where you could prove yourself to be a tremendous Net guy here rich is is you you find the

Wave file or the mp3 of my debate with Bryson and You somehow while I'm still talking and working

Find a way to let me know how to how to bring it up during the break So that I can play the cross -examination portion see

And and that would just be tremendous. It'd just be it'd just be awesome. Why are you looking at him?

He's not gonna do it You want him rummaging around through the innards of our of our network here

No, no, no, that'd be great because I I would just like to play the portion where I'm asking him questions

Because my questions were biblically oriented all his questions were philosophically oriented the contrast was great

But but his his attempted responses on a biblical level were somewhat. Let's just say they

Didn't quite substantiate The attitude he's presenting of himself at this particular point in time remember that debate was before this so Oh, well, that's the cheap and cheesy way of doing it, but that would

I don't know that I could access that I don't know that I could pull that up on my My end over here

Maybe I could if I stuck it in my in my drive. That's a possibility. We'll see In fact, I would say the word elect is a synonym a synonym for the word believer

Now it's not an elect person. I'll show you a believer So what about the elect person prior to his believing

What about the elect person prior to his birth? see, this is all of this is just a way to steal or rob from God the ability to make a choice and Why would you do that?

Because you believe in autonomous free will the creature around the autonomous free will of God But keep that in mind folks.

This man does not believe God can have an autonomous free will So you have a man so you have creatures who have an ability that God does not have for himself

You show me an unbeliever. I'll show you a non -elect person. He's not been a lot Now the

Calvinists have I would love to challenge him could you show me some some lexical resources that would substantiate your assertion at that point and you'll get a lot of hemming and hawing and You're an elitist because you use

Greek and blah a real problem with this issue But they never let us make that affirmation now people say, ah, but George true

Calvinism holds to what's called an antinomy We believe God can elect some but not necessarily damn others.

I'm saying that's logically incoherent Wait a minute Okay, I understand

Maybe he's trying or thinks in his own mind that he's trying to address the issue of soft

Calvinism versus hard Calvinism or reprobation Etc, etc. But once again,

I would just love to run into somebody who accepts the reality that a choice to exercise grace must of Necessity differ in nature from a choice not to exercise grace, but instead to exercise justice.

I Would actually stop in my tracks and go Wow Someone who maybe

I mean necessarily, but maybe might have something meaningful to say but until someone's at least willing to recognize the rather logical and obvious difference between those two things

They don't really have anything worthwhile to say do they and they say well, you know, God's thoughts are not our thoughts

Yeah, but he's told us what his thoughts are on this see that you know, it's funny to hear someone actually trying to say that the

Calvinists who who Flee to mystery on this issue

Isn't it? Once again listening to the to the Bible Answer Man debates or the the debate in Los Angeles Who who who was did someone flee to mystery?

At that point. I don't seem to remember that Calvinist Calvinists are always saying, you know, they make all these incredible statements

Everything out on the table and then you start to pick it apart. Don't talk about that.

It's sacred That's a mystery and you don't want to pry into the things that you know, that's a mystery you

I you know I'm wondering who he's talking about That didn't happen in his debate with me.

That didn't happen the Bible Answer Man broadcast in any way shape or form So I who's who's he trying to impress it?

You can't explore into that. Listen, then why'd you bring it up? You know if it's such a mystery, how did you know about it?

You see a mystery is what you don't know revelation is what you do know if it's a mystery. We don't know so don't Actually, that's not even the

New Testament use of musterion Mystery is that which was unknown in the past, but some revealed in the present

So that's not even a proper example there. Maybe some of his eschatology is getting the way at that point.

I don't know but In in any way shape or form This this is not the argumentation that he himself has encountered and so I have no way of even beginning to respond to any of this because Where has he ever encountered this?

He doesn't bother to tell us he instead is is probably just This is what happens when you're in your your home court, okay?

When you're when you're amongst your own folks and they start laughing at what you're saying This is a little bit to be honest with you a little bit like what happened to to dr.

Kanner You know once your audience starts laughing and your audience Starts enjoying what you're doing.

The tendency is to keep going the direction that's getting you the laughs Tell me but if you're going to tell me about this doctrine of election then you're going to have to explain it in light of what scripture says, but when they see the conflict between election and And The truth of scripture on many many important issues.

They simply say it's a mystery see they're allowed to talk about it. We're not Again, this is just wrong.

It's just it's just this is just misleading these people I I would I would love to challenge him to Document this from from notice.

There's notice. There's no citations here We hear lots and lots of citations other points nothing here, and there's a reason for that.

He's He's blowing smoke at this point They're allowed to bring it up, and then we're supposed to just be reverent and quiet and polite

And I'm saying no way folks if you're gonna lay it out on the table. Let's talk about it It's not they always say well.

We just don't have enough information when we get to heaven We'll know a lot more know the problem is we got too much information The problem is

I already know it's like when I get to heaven I can find out God is a hater not a lover Oh, I'm not gonna find out if he's already told me

He loves me, I'm not gonna find out when I get to heaven that he really hated me But I just didn't have enough information problem is

Problem is I got too much information. He tells me about a thousand times in the New Testament in a thousand ways that he loves me

Right so the problem here with election isn't that we don't know enough if we knew enough if we could if we could probe the depths of the knowledge of God and Understand these great deep truths, then we could reconcile, but we aren't

God so we can't Oh, but God who is God who understands how much we can understand told us in understandable terms

Lots of things about this issue the irony is What he's saying is normally what we are objecting to because we're the ones who keep pointing out that that people are avoiding

Dealing with a particular text or with a particular group of texts

Simply due to the fact that they appeal to mystery So it's it you know without being given examples of people doing exactly what he's saying.

It's pretty difficult to respond to to the specifics of His assertion we will continue with George Bryson on the other side of the break.

We'll be right back Alpha and Omega ministries is pleased to introduce the

Christmas morning CD by Todd Lindstrom Passion and peace are what sets Todd's music apart from others

These 12 instrumental favorites will bless and inspire you as you entertain guests and spend a

Christmas morning with your family You can find this beautiful music that celebrates the birth of our Lord in the bookstore at a omen org

You What is dr.

Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free a new cult secularism false prophecy scenarios

No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant in his book the potter's freedom

James White replies to dr. Geisler But the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply It is a defense of the very principles upon which the

Protestant Reformation was founded Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme Calvinism Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture The potter's freedom a defense of the

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore 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 isagesis 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 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

And we'll go back to the dividing line yes Technology is a wonderful thing.

Let's um, let's see if George Bryson was just sort of you know schmoozing with the bros there for a while And whether he can pick apart what

Calvinists have to say Sorry about that.

Sorry about that had to plug it back in. Hey, there's no way to queue it up as long as it's You know, what can I say? professional professional webcasting here illustrated

Whenever you see me reaching for this thing, man, you got to turn it down Let's see if let's see how well this came off in in real life

Mr. Bryson, I would like to ask you in light of what I just said concerning John chapter 6 verse 44

All the father gives me will come to me and the one who I'm sorry No one is able to come to me unless the father to send me draws him and I will raise him up the last day

Is it your position that the one who's raised up at the last day in John 6 44 is different than the one who's drawn?

It is my position that there are two things required you must come to him that's one and To come to him.

You must be drawn It's my position that scripture clearly John 6 44 and all of that context

So you're talking a lot about the need to look at things in context if you take all of that In connection, there are two things that happen one

You have to see and another you have to believe if you go on earlier in that very chapter

But the point here is that you cannot come you are not able to come unless he draws you

But being able to come and actually coming to him in faith or not exactly the same thing

He enables you to come and if you come to him and are drawn and you can't come to him unless you're drawn

Then he will raise you up, but he doesn't raise people up unless they come to him

But the ability to come he gives but making you able to come doesn't make you come.

Okay I Was sorry, but I'll just do what everybody else doing what

I again, this is what happens when you you've got your tradition and you run into a text of scripture that just simply doesn't teach what you

Want it to teach and if you could make heads or tails out of what was just thrown at you there

You're you're doing a whole lot better than I am First 44 says No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day

Are you saying those two hymns are different people? No, I'm saying those two people there that one person does two things one

He comes to him, but he comes to him only because he is able to do so We're gonna get that in the first 44 44 two things.

No one can come to me come to me That's that's the one thing the other thing he says is that that person who comes to him

Has to be enabled by the father drawing him No one can unless he's enabled so he has to come to him and he has to be drawn

But if if he is drawn and doesn't come to him Then in fact, he will not be raised up the last day just as earlier says he must see and believe

So there is so you believe that that the him the two hymns here are different because you just said you can be drawn

No, and not raised up No I'm capable as one person of doing more than one thing and God is capable of doing something while I'm doing something and what he does here is

Enable me to come what I do is come I come and think as a matter of fact Let me just say that even Calvin suggested that coming is a metaphor for believing

There's a question about that, but where does the word enable appear in verse 44 can come and in fact

I remember in your book you point this out. No one is no one is able to come that that's right But but it does not say he's enabled this

Unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise up the last day the drawing results in being real

That is not what it says It says that no one can come to me and almost all Calvinist commentaries say the can is enabling it is not

Inevitable that you will come it's an enabling Could you could you name one that it confuses?

ability with enable Ability and enablement because the same you mentioned my own book

I never said anything about okay enablement as the ability Ability and enablement unless you have a different Definition when somebody is able to do something or if somebody's been able to do something they are now able to do it

Okay, you said that between these two hymns you have to come who comes to Christ According to John 6 37.

Oh, well only those who are enabled come to him and those that the father has given to it okay, all

I Didn't understand that in according to verse 37 all the father gives me will come to who who is given by the father's son those who believe

Not unbelievers, but believers. Would you agree with that? So God gives

Those that he foresees will believe the son Well, of course, he foresees everything but I'm not saying he gives him the son because he foresees the the fact that God God enables people to do something but they still must do it

He enables us to believe but we still must believe didn't you just say that coming is a metaphor believe?

Exactly and isn't the giving of the father here what results in their coming to Christ?

No, that is not coming to Christ is Putting your faith in him. I Understand that but just on a simple grammatical level

Which action in verse 37 comes first the giving of the father to the son or the coming to Christ?

Well, I don't think there is a chronological order I think there's two things that are true only those only those that the father gives to the son come to the father

But only those who believe does the father give to the son now the other choice

The other option is to say that he gives Unbelievers to the son and if you want to say that I'm happy with that No, I'm just I'm just you don't believe that there is any

Temporal priority here between the father giving and people coming all the father gives will come to me. That's right

All that I give ten dollars to will buy books at Stand to Read What action comes first?

Well what I'm saying here and I think it speaks for itself that those Who he enables to come do come those who believe in him

He gives to the son if you want to say the opposite that he gives Unbelievers to the son you can say it but all the questioning of this isn't going to change that you would

Said earlier that the Calvinist position. Okay, I think

I I I was I was really tempted to go Can we get a final jeopardy answer, please

Something somewhere, please Yes, indeed

II Okay How much more obvious can it be that?

This is a fellow who just he's got his position. He's got his viewpoint and he's just he

Just not gonna deal with text. He's not gonna let the text determine what his beliefs are gonna be this ain't gonna happen

And if if you could follow even 20 % of that 30 % of that you're you're doing better than than most folks did it was

That's what happens when you get a chance to ask direct pointed questions and and Maybe maybe this is why

I'm so mean. Maybe this is why I'm a mean hard -nosed Calvinist but you may have noticed that when he wandered off down the pathway and He'd get done, you know 40 seconds later having addressed 14 different things

I'd repeat the question Right back, but that didn't answer my question.

Let's try it again. And you know, I guess they're just Really accustomed to once you've finished your 40 seconds of obfuscation.

You're supposed to move on That you don't come back and ask the same question again. You don't point out that there wasn't an answer given that's mean that that hurts people's feelings and so and remember folks remember we had some folks up in Salt Lake City who tried to arrange another debate with George Bryson on this subject up there and he basically would not do cross -examination and I think having just listened to that we know why

He will not allow for for cross -examination because The wheels fall off of his position if he if he's allowed to control it

But isn't that what Proverbs 18 says, you know The first one to present his case sounds right until his neighbor comes along and questions him.

That's why you have to have Cross -examination in the context of a debate or it doesn't have any meaning

So that is a clear illustration thereof I had to sort of guess sadly where I was in the

Bryson thing here to go back to it I may have to skip forward if we've already heard this, but actually we have a phone caller on hold so I'll go ahead and take that and then

We'll we'll go back to Bryson after that. Let's You and I have been chatting so much.

You gotta scroll back here a ways and talk to Richard in Chicago. Hi Richard How are you doing?

All right, what can we do for you today? Well, I think I could Maybe help you understand what?

He meant when he was dealing with John 644 Okay, I think well this position is that he's a synergist.

That's why it says there are two things in this passage one It shows that Unless God draws you cannot come to the father is it

And I was able to come to the father. Yes, I believe me I understand what he's trying to say.

My point was that that's not an answer to the question. He was being asked I mean,

I understand what he's trying to what he's trying to say but to to say what he's trying to say to to insert a synergistic understanding that text is to is to Try to sneak an entire boatload of theology

Into the text which is what I wanted to illustrate and say, okay If you're going to say that the one who is drawn is different than the one who is raised up Which is what a synergist has to say then let's prove that from the text

Let's not just allow that to be assumed and that's why I had to keep going back to it To illustrate at least for those who were looking at the text that he is bringing this whole boatload of stuff

Along with which is called I so Jesus reading into the text something that is not supported by the text itself

So yeah, I I do know where he's coming from on that. I just Don't understand how his responses were actually

Responsive to my question. I know how they were he was trying to substantiate his position.

Yeah well, I guess after the cross -examination you could have Yes, there's a proof by contradiction

Because you could have a possible person who is drawn by the father But by his free will he rejects that and the text also says and he's raised up on the last day.

So he's He rejected the offer but yet he's raised up on the last day.

Yeah, I asked I actually asked him that it went by fairly quickly, but I actually asked him the

The question in regards to so these are two different people I pointed out that that's what he was saying, but You know again,

I went on from there to other issues and when you do your closing statement you you wish you had half an hour to address everything but unfortunately at that point you have to sort of Focus on on what was clearest in the audience's mind and move on from there

But anyways, I don't know that was actually your initial question. Was it? No, I just want to you know, stay on topic

That's that's fine. Go ahead. If you hadn't if you had it actually had a question you wanted to get addressed. Go ahead

Yes I've been listening to your debates. I was trying to compare the one with Shabir Ali with the inspiration of the

New Testament with Greg meditates or Jerry meditates on Social script

Torah, and it seems to me that's both Shabir Ali and Mad Tix takes position that's somehow the prophets or apostles are inspired themselves and That is why they can write inspired text or That and that's just one consequence

But today the main thing is that they believe that the prophets or apostles are inspired themselves

What do you I don't know that that would follow with Jerry that is a fundamental aspect of Islamic Theology in regards to the nature of prophet hood.

There's no question about that but at the same time One of the objections and one of the reasons that Shabir Ali and Islamic apologists as a whole

Reject the Christian understanding of our own scriptures even its own teaching about its own nature is that from their perspective the the

Quran is not a Revelation that is mediated. It's not holy men spoke from God as they were carried along by the

Holy Spirit It is a an entity unto itself eternally existing that is merely transmitted to men

In the sense of being dictated and so it isn't even

Muhammad who is Specifically inspired outside of the ecstatic state in which he receives portions of the

Quran via angelic ministry the the Quran itself is untouched by human hands as it comes into existence and so they they reject the the

Christian understanding of Inspiration along those lines as a as an a priori, so it wouldn't be that Muhammad was inspired but there is something about being a prophet that is

Speaks to your nature to your special holiness that makes you fit to be used to bring about The the writing of what is scripture not that it comes through you in that sense in the

Christian sense The holy men spoke from God as they're carried along by the Holy Spirit, but you have to be especially holy for what?

For the the function of prophethood, so I'm not sure what you mean though by Jerry matitix

Holding that perspective in whichever debate because we've debated soul scripture a number of times

I would assume you'd mean probably the 1997 Encounter on Long Island. I'm not certain about that.

Yes, and I heard the assertion that when Paul is preaching in I guess the Academy I think he's the term that those were inspired

Yes, yes. Yeah. Okay. All right. Yes. Yes. Yes, but Yeah, you know there there is something to that in the sense that part of his argumentation is

His his task Jerry matitix and for those I Apologize you and I know what we're talking about.

But let me make sure we're bringing our listeners along Shabir Ali, of course Islam Islamic apologist

Jerry matitix is a Roman Catholic apologist He's no longer considered an Orthodox Roman Catholic apologist by Orthodox Roman Catholics because he's basically a set of agonist and sort of off on his own perspective now

But at the time of our initial encounter on solo scriptura in August 1990 then again in Omaha 1992 and then a

Long Island, I believe in May of 1997 if I'm recalling off top my head correctly

He would have been considered a quote -unquote Orthodox at that particular point in time he is what he's attempting to do by by stating that what he said there at the

Athens or whatever the context you might want to put it in is he's attempting to establish the concept of oral tradition and Saying look if if your position is true

Then inspired revelation has been lost in the sense that you had inspired oral tradition

And that that violates solo scriptura the problem being of course, he can't tell us anything

That Paul said in Athens or Thessalonica or Corinth or anyplace else Which is why

I asked Mitchell Pacwa the question I asked him during our cross -examination Two years later on solo scriptura in San Diego and that is can you name a single word?

Uttered by Jesus Christ or by any of the Apostles that has been officially defined by the Roman Catholic Church That is not found in the text of Scripture and he very honestly said no,

I can't I can't think of anything There there's nothing like that. The church is not defining like that So to raise the question is is a double -edged sword if you're if his assertion is

Everything that's ever been inspired must be available to us or that violates solo scriptura

Well, it violates his position as well because he can't produce that stuff But that's why he was trying to bring it up was to raise the whole concept of an inspired

Something that's inspired that's outside of the text of Scripture And because that's what

I had challenged him on so many times before show us this inspired revelation that exists outside of Scripture and he's he's he can't because there isn't any such thing, but I See what you're saying, you know, but I I think given the fundamental difference in view of revelation between Shabir Ali and Jerry matic's wherever he is on his road of theological development

I don't know that the the parallel actually holds because of a very fundamental difference in their view of revelation itself.

I Guess I suppose they they say that's we know that there's oral revelation that's inspired

But it is unknowable Something like that. Well as far as Jerry his assertion

Basically does lead you to the conclusion that there is a there was revelation given

His assert his his hope is that you will go. Well, that must be what oral tradition is

The problem of course is you cannot Demonstrate that this or that anything that's ever been defined on the basis of oral tradition

Is traceable back to the Apostles that's you know that's why I've always felt that there's a level of of insincerity on the part of Roman Catholic apologists when they object to my

Raising the issue of what has been defined on the basis of tradition specifically the Marian dogmas

I mean when you look at what has what has been claimed to be defined on the basis of tradition in a in an

Extraordinary way by the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. What is it? it's the bodily assumption of Mary the immaculate conception and papal infallibility and Yet they get all upset when

I when I point to the fact that these issues are Illustrative of what

Rome says is a part of tradition I go you can't you can't demonstrate to me that when

Paul taught the Thessalonians and they go to second Thessalonians 215 as as Jerry did in that debate that what

Paul taught the Thessalonians in an oral fashion included the infallibility of the Pope and the

Marian dogmas that have been defined on the basis of tradition and they go well why are you getting off the topic and raising those other issues because your religion has defined these things on the basis of tradition and You're the one saying that these things were taught in an inspired manner by the

Apostles outside of Scripture How how can I not go to these things those the very illustration of what you're saying was delivered?

So I've always found rather disingenuous on their part to to object to anything like that alright

I've got another another call and got a squeeze in here real quick. So hey, thanks for your call today. All right. God bless

Let's sneak Rick in here real quick Rick in Illinois. Hi Rick. Hey Good.

How you doing? All right. Good. I was just Calling to ask and first thank you for explaining like how

God's There's purpose with evil when God is in control of and and that helped me actually understand

The reform faith a little better. Well great when I talk with people excellent. Thank you, sir, sir

I wanted to ask um, I I talked to a friend at work who's Catholic and She had

We talked about justification and I had mentioned the Council of Trent and she said that Yeah, that was a long time ago in Vatican to change all that Yeah, and I looked at it and I looked at the documents

I was like if there's nothing in there about soteriology and she said yeah, you know, you're right and I just I tried to challenge her because I'm the papacy and different things

But what is Rome's view of like the statements they made in Council of Trent still? Don't like still that strong or well

It depends on what Roman Catholic you're talking about let's If you look at the Universal Catechism the

Catholic Church if you look at the documents of Vatican to And look at the number of times the

Council of Trent is cited You can actually buy books you can buy a compendium of all the documents cited in Vatican to you can buy one for the

Universal Catechism of Catholic Church and You will be able from their own writings to establish that everything at Trent said is simply reaffirmed now

Functionally, especially within American Catholicism. I would say the vast majority Majority vast majority a

Roman Catholic priest would be extremely uncomfortable in affirming what Trent said, okay

They they just they I mean, let's face it. Most of these people are at best Inclusivists and at worst they're universalists and so they're functioning in a very different context than Trent did and That is the challenge that the

Roman Catholic hierarchy faces today That's the challenge that Roman Catholic apologists face today. Is that their system does not allow for them to overturn

Trent if you overturn Trent Stop talking about such things as living tradition and infallible magisteriums and all the rest

I've stopped talking about historic Roman Catholicism because it no longer exists. It's just not there But at the same time they have to deal with the fact that the majority of their their leading theologians

No longer really believe what the Pope believed only 150 years ago You go back to the papal syllabus of errors and you look at the vast majority of the the

Cardinals even the conservative Cardinals in the Catholic Church today and you're gonna find a massive paradigm shift has taken place and So what

John Paul II was really good at was holding together? What is in reality an extremely?

Fragmented movement and what he'd do is one year he'd throw out a an encyclical and some talks

It would be rather liberal and would have all sorts of stuff. They would keep the liberals happy in the next year

He'd throw out Dominus Iesus or something like that That that was much more conservative and that would make the conservatives happy And and so you just sort of keep throwing a bone to each side

To keep the whole thing from blowing up and I think one of the reasons that Ratzinger was so feared Was that people who recognize this is what the papacy is doing these days trying to hold together a a

Ship with a lot of holes in it that he wouldn't be able to do it that he would be far too conservative Far too focused on that kind of stuff to be able to pull it off Well so far he has actually been able to pull it off He's proven himself to be more of a politician than people thought he would prove himself to be

But no Trent has been reaffirmed over and over again But if you just stop preaching it doesn't that functionally get rid of it

I mean that that becomes the you know, really the future of Rome. What's it going to be like? No one really knows and That's that's one of the things that's just absolutely fascinating.

But hey, we're out of time. Thank you very much your phone call today God bless you and thanks to all the rest of you who are listening today to the program.

We will continue Next time it's going to be post Christmas. Yes, indeed.

Hope you have a wonderful time With your family and remembering the Incarnation. We'll see you next week.

God bless We need

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at PO 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