Continued E-mail Response

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.

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

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

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

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

James White. And good morning, welcome to the second jumbo edition of the

Dividing Line in two days, a 90 -minute program getting started 15 minutes late. I had an interview that we just finished up, and now we're going to launch into a 90 -minute program, the same format as yesterday, first 45 minutes responding to the same email letter that was the subject of our first half yesterday, and then second half, dive into the

Phil Fernandez Chris Comas debate on the subject of Reformed theology. I'm not going to reread the note, it's a lengthy note.

If you are listening for the first time, that is somewhat to your disadvantage, but it is a lengthy note focusing primarily upon the claim of impossibility for God to hold accountable man for his sin, in essence, in light of certain presuppositions, specifically the, well, interestingly enough, the very first sentence of the next paragraph in the email that I need to respond to I think lays out the primary argument, and that is, no rational being, when given a certain amount of information requisite for some future culpability in action, would ever deny a supreme, infinite being.

That is, the assumption is that if Adam and Eve had sufficient information about the existence of God, and they knew

God's existence perfectly in the sense that they knew perfectly well that God existed, they had direct communion with him and direct conversation with him, if they had sufficient knowledge of his existence and sufficient knowledge of the ramifications of their actions, such as in taking of the fruit, then there has to have been a constituent problem in their makeup—he's going to go so far as to say that they would have to be borderline retarded to sin.

The assumption is that for God to hold man accountable, God must have made man in such a way that man would not sin as long as he had complete knowledge.

And I have asserted this reduces man to a calculator. You put in the inputs, and the calculator will always spit out the right answers based upon what's put in, and that's not what man is.

Man is not simply a calculator. He's not a mechanism whereby you can put in the numbers and out comes the right end of the equation.

That's not how man is. That's not how God created man to be. There is a spiritual nature to man.

There is a will of man. Man's will acts upon his nature. And of course, one of the problems here is that we switch back and forth between our current experience of fallen creatureliness and an experience that we only know a very little bit about, and that is the unfallen nature of Adam and Eve.

And I think one of the problems here is a speculation on the nature of Adam and Eve that sometimes is unwarranted.

In response to that statement, when given a certain amount of information requisite for some future culpability in action—I'm not sure exactly what that means.

It seems that our correspondent believes that if Adam and Eve had been given a clear enough revelation of God, then they never would have sinned, therefore they weren't given a clear enough revelation of God, or there was something wrong with them in their constituent makeup, one of the two, and either one of those renders it impossible for God to hold them accountable for their actions.

Why, we're not told. Evidently, there is some kind of ability on our writer's part to determine what is right and wrong for God based upon some external standard that I don't know—I don't get any real evidence of where this external standard is derived from, how it was derived,

I don't know. But it's there, and that would be one of the things that would need to be asked is where does that come from?

Now notice what it said next. This is not to claim that we are completely rational beings. It is clear that we are not.

We engage in all sorts of nonsensical behavior, yet how in our perfect pre -fallen state could we ever engage in this most irrational of all acts?

And I would say because Adam and Eve were individuals who, while made perfect, that is, complete, they were not changed in such a way as to be made incapable of sin.

There is a lengthy discussion in Augustine from long ago regarding the subject of ability to sin, possibility to sin, impossibility to sin.

I won't try to impress you with all of the Latin phrases. But the point is that the

Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 5, when he talks about the gift and the transgression, he says that the gift is not like the transgression.

There is something greater about the relationship of the redeemed in Christ Jesus.

That relationship is different and in fact superior to the unfallen relationship of Adam and Eve with God, and it is superior to and greater than that relationship because of union to Christ and the incarnation and the accomplishment of everything that the triune

God chose to do in his self -glorification, in Christ Jesus, in taking on human flesh, in joining that human nature to himself, and then joining the elect to Christ so that his death becomes their death, his resurrection their resurrection, and their very life is his life, resurrection life, eternal life.

That is not the position that Adam and Eve were in. And so I would say to you they were made with sufficient knowledge and sufficient intellectual capacity to function the way that God chose them to function, and that was specifically

Adam as the covenant head of the race that is in him, just as Christ was perfectly fit for the role of the covenant head of the race that is in him.

Romans chapter 5, again, same discussion that is found there. Now, it seems that the argument is being made, well, if they weren't made in such a way that they could not fall, then that's

God's fault. Well, I certainly believe that the fall was part of God's plan. I mean, I just don't see any—I mean, unless you don't believe

God has knowledge of future events, then clearly it is, and the entire purpose of God in redeeming a people in Christ Jesus makes no sense outside of the fall.

So if that is the case, then they're being created in such a way as to be able to fall without God having to force a change upon them or force them to sin is the issue.

And it seems like what is being said is, no, he could not have given that kind of freedom.

He could not have made that kind of nature. They would have to have been made the same way that we are as redeemed people, united with Christ, with a changed nature, a nature that specifically longs for Christ, so on and so forth.

And I, again, go, how do you get that out of two and a half chapters of Scripture that almost never mentions anything like that?

Where is this external source from which this kind of thinking is coming from, is the question.

Here's the phrase, Adam and Eve must have been borderline retarded to believe a talking snake's wily suggestions.

I almost find a little bit of sarcasm there. It says they could have never properly understand their position in relation to God.

We have a tremendous amount of revelation from God concerning our relationship to God, what he has done in Christ Jesus.

May I submit that any Christian who ever sins, and I do that every day, is sinning against far more light than Adam and Eve did?

Does that make me irrational? Well, I suppose if you define rationality in such a way as implying sinless perfection, maybe, but it goes far beyond that.

It goes to our lusts and our desires and our nature and our emotions and exalting ourselves over God and all sorts of things like that.

We don't just simply live on the stick and carrot model, which seemingly this author thinks we do.

I mean, if we're perfectly rational, then we know that if we go against God, he's going to whack us over the head, and therefore we're always going to do... No, it doesn't work that way.

There's great complexity as to our behavior and the reasons for our behavior, and I just don't think that we can boil it down like this.

And as I said, there seems to be some sarcasm here in talking about a snake's wily suggestions.

The nature of the serpent prior to the temptation is not known to us. There's one thing that is clear, and this author had mentioned this earlier, is the curse of the serpent results in its current form that we have today.

We don't know what it was like beforehand, and atheists and others just love mocking the talking snake.

There must not have been anything overly unusual about its ability to communicate in light of Adam and Eve's response to it.

So what its nature was before fault, we don't know. Again, it's pure speculation, and it's pure speculation on the part of atheists and others to engage in sarcasm as if there is a direct relationship to the modern form of a snake today and that of the means by which communication took place.

And the statements that were made, it goes on to say, Adam supposedly named all creatures so they knew all the animals and were aware that God created them.

What is this ridiculous subordinate snake saying? Well, why would you think that it would seem ridiculous to them, is what

I would ask. What does he know? Perhaps we should check with that incredibly enormous being who made all of this appear from nowhere, including this tree and us.

We know he purposely put it here and told us not to touch it. Why would he create a tree that somehow made us become like him?

Something is amiss. Well, if what is being asked fundamentally in this is for Genesis chapters 1 through middle of chapter 3 to be expanded into a systematic theology written in modern

Western language replete with references to scientific literature, psychoanalysis, and everything else, if that's what you want, that's not what

God's given us. And of course, that would also mean that if God had given us that, it wouldn't have made any sense to anybody for the vast majority of redemption history.

And I would suggest that that also would cause you to think, hmm, what kind of revelation did

God give us that would actually be satisfying to any humble person who will stand humbly before God in light of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the clear ordered nature of the universe, and yet not make me and my current standards the standard by which everything must be judged?

I would have to ask you what kind of revelation would allow that to happen, and that might help to answer some of the questions.

Something is amiss. It sounds like what's being said is, well, I would have done better than Adam and Eve.

And I suppose if you wish to think that you would, that's your prerogative from a biblical perspective.

Adam was placed in a position, and God has accepted his role, his federal role as head of those who are in him, and that's the way that is.

You can speculate all you want that you would have done better, you would have been smarter, you wouldn't have been borderline retarded, but I think that involves a tremendous amount of speculation and a tremendous amount of presupposition being read into something that's really not there.

The snake said, you will not surely die as a means of enticing them after God told them they would.

Enticing them. Well, maybe. I think it was just a direct contradiction of what

God had said, and that, in fact, remains the lie that we continue to believe every day.

I mean, there are people who, if their eyes were but to be opened, would see all the evidence of God around them.

They're suppressing that evidence, it's been made clear to them, and they sin every day.

They mock God every day. In fact, some of the smartest people in our world, what are they known for?

Mocking God. Are you telling me that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens aren't smart?

That they're borderline retarded? No, they tend to be very intelligent people, but that obviously demonstrates that it's not one's

IQ that determines the quote -unquote rationality of sin. What in the world is death to them?

It is an absurd notion. They had never witnessed it, and a full explanation must have been required. Why? Again, two and a half chapters, and you can come up with this kind of certainty?

Really? Where'd you get this? I just have to ask the question, where does this level of certainty about the nature of pre -fallen man, and what had and had not been said, and the level of understanding, where does this come from?

I don't have that kind of certainty. I can't. God's word doesn't give it to me. You can only guess at such things, and that's a rather weak basis upon which to make such grand conclusions.

What in the world is death to them? Well, maybe they were smart enough to understand. It is an absurd notion.

Why? They had never witnessed it, and a full explanation must have been required. How do you know

God didn't give it to them? Do you really think this is an... I mean, look at the Gospels. You can read the

Gospel of Mark in a very short period of time, and yet it's a record of three, about three years worth of ministry.

Do you really think any of this is meant to be an exhaustive... All we are told is that they are told they will die, and that they know what that means.

Now, as Adam and Eve walked in the garden in the cool of the day, did they not say anything? But because the entirety of the conversations aren't recorded for us, that means they didn't happen?

Or they only talked about baseball? Maybe they talked about the lockout and how excited they were. The lockout was over. You know,

I don't... Again, it seems like there's a tremendous amount of speculation here that then becomes the basis upon which to, in essence, ridicule

God and his revelation. But where is the speculation coming from is what I would like to know.

Wait, says Eve, you mean we will no longer exist like we did not exist a few days ago? Okay. What would that matter?

Well, I know I didn't exist prior to 1962, but I don't want to die. What would it matter?

I don't want to die. That's why. At this point, it sort of went off track a little bit, and I'm like, what would that matter?

Everything that I know that is alive wants to stay alive. You know? The ant running across my kitchen sink, when

I miss with the first shot, turns and runs and tries to live. I normally don't miss the second time around, but that's...

What would that matter? Well, is that really a question? But if threatened with more than death, it would again be ludicrous to go against the knowledge they must have possessed.

Yes, we agree. Sin is stupid, but people do stupid things.

Pre -fall and post -fall, because the reasons, motivations of sin are manifold, many, and complex.

We are not a calculator. Okay? It just doesn't work that way.

They were given one command to not eat from that tree. So they already had within themselves an understanding of what to do and what not to do, a direct knowledge of good and evil.

When you say a direct knowledge of good and evil, they have a direct knowledge of God's law.

But does not knowledge have different components? I mean,

I can know certain things, but I haven't experienced certain things.

I can know how a parachute functions, but I have never voluntarily exited my body from a perfectly functioning aircraft.

That's, you know... And so I would be careful at this point, because unfortunately,

I think there's a lot of ambiguity and mixing of categories when it says a direct knowledge of good and evil, not experientially, but of the consequences.

They were allowed to do whatever they wanted, except this one thing. If a snake talked to you, aside from immediately seeking psychiatric attention...

Okay, I'm just going to skip over that, because that's just silly sarcasm. Because, again, it assumes you know something about the form of the serpent prior to the fall, which you don't know.

And so that's one of the indications that makes me go, okay, you need to dial up, dial back the whatever it is you're reading these days.

If a snake talked to you, aside from immediately seeking psychiatric attention, it might be a good idea to check his facts if it went against that one command.

Again, I have clear revelation from God that I am to love my wife as Christ loved the

Church. And so when I snap at her, does that not mean I'm stupid?

Well, in a sense, yeah. But there's a whole lot more behind husband and wife relationships and the sin in them than just one command, do it, or you're stupid.

I mean, that's just such a simplistic approach that I don't understand the origins of it.

And it just doesn't fit with our experience. It doesn't fit with the Scripture either. Someone in someone's channel just said,

I would shoot a talking snake on sight. But the question is, would the game warden allow you to shoot a talking snake on sight?

That's that's the question. I don't know. Anyway, this act of disobedience, if rationality is to be saved, eliminates the possibility that they possess the necessary knowledge to make decisions which they could be condemned.

Wrong. Just that that foundation has not been laid. That is the fundamental error of the objections that have been raised here.

The fundamental error is that there can be no culpability because it would be absolutely irrational to go against this level of knowledge.

That's ludicrous. And therefore, there must be something wrong with them. And therefore, God's to be blamed for all of that. That is a simplistic, mechanistic understanding of how man functions, makes decisions and interacts with God that there is no basis for in Scripture or really no basis for even in our post -fall state.

And so that is one of the fundamental errors of this thinking right there. And so I'll just have to keep repeating that as it ends up being the foundation of everything else that comes afterwards.

It will be objected that ignorance does not preclude us from obedience. Well, no, I do not object.

I do not make that objection. It's not a matter of ignorance. It wasn't that they were ignorant of what God's purposes were.

And there is only a certain level of knowledge that is necessary for culpability.

So I'll just skip over the rest of that because that's not where I would go anyways. The Roman Church must have seen all this ridiculousness and tried to save it early on by claiming we have free will along with some proper knowledge necessary for culpability.

Well, I don't know what's being read here as to what statement of the

Roman Church or when the Roman Church allegedly did this or the other thing. I have no way of knowing.

This was a valiant but futile effort. Free will for these purposes broadly means we have the ability to do what we want with certain physical or spiritual restraints.

Originally, we must also have had the freedom to do what we ought. Now, I'm not sure if this is the ought implies ability argument that has been gone over many, many, many times.

Ought does not imply ability, even though that is what many, many, many people think. Well, God told us that means we have the ability.

Be perfect. He was the father of heaven and earth. Well, that must mean you're a good Pelagian. This was a valiant but futile effort.

Free will for these purposes broadly means we have the ability to do what we want within certain physical or spiritual restraints. Originally, we must also have had the freedom to do what we ought, but why would the want ever be in discord with the ought when full knowledge of the incredible power of God is clearly seen, not only seen generally, but with a special certainty of its origin?

Well, we've gone over this a number of times. You can have full knowledge of God's ability to punish and still go against that.

Man does that all the time and obviously did so in Adam as well.

No one in the entire world has been more certain of the existence of God than Adam and Eve must have been. It even says God walked with them to the Garden of Eden.

Yep. If they were not fully aware of God's power, position, relation to them, this must be a function of God keeping it from them purposefully or their own mental faculties were of an extremely inferior constitution, which was obviously also designed of God.

Neither one. They must have been completely capable of irrationality or they were perfectly capable of rebellion and sin and that rebellion and sin is not merely to be defined on rational or irrational grounds.

They must have been completely capable of rationality, the most contrary trait imaginable in the classical deity.

Therefore, the deity must have constructed the existence of irrationality in humans. No, Adam and Eve were made capable of rebellion against God and rebellion against God is not merely to be defined within categories of just what is rational or irrational.

There is much more to it than that. It has more moral, ethical categories that transcend the argument that is being presented here.

And even we experienced that in our post -fall state as well. Even if some open -ended ability of freedom were granted without the clear logical necessity of having been created with this flaw, which permitted their excursion into unreason, what caused the emergence of irrationality in the serpent?

Unreason must permeate reality, a reality God created. And so, again, the argument basically is, if anybody, even if we just move the question back to the serpent, if anyone goes against the creator, this is irrational and no one would ever do that.

Well, again, this ultimately comes down to the question of the origin of evil itself and there have been great discussions of evil as the absence of good and so on and so forth.

The fact of the matter is that I don't have any problem whatsoever. In fact,

I have to. I am forced by a meaningful understanding of theodicy, the justification of God in the light of the existence of evil.

That evil exists as part of God's decree, but it exists for a purpose, a morally justifiable purpose, which is fundamentally the glorification of God in the redemption of a particular people in Christ Jesus.

And whether you place that origin in Satan or in Adam and Eve or how you work all of that out, discussion of means and things like that, it is not a failure in the creation as if God is under some type of obligation to make a creation that cannot fall.

That seems to be part of the presupposition here is that God had to create in such a way there couldn't be a fall. No, his purpose was to redeem a particular people, which included the fall.

So he creates it in such a way that you have a being that is perfect in its creation, but it is not given the gift of indefectibility.

And that indefectibility leads to the mechanism whereby you have redemption itself.

If we are to save the literal veracity of this story, and I'm not sure what literal veracity means in this person's mind by this point, especially in light of the talking snake stuff, something in Christian belief has to give.

Well, I don't see that. I certainly have not been convinced by this mechanistic argumentation about, you know, assuming certain things about Adam and Eve or talking snakes or near retardedness.

Either God is not of the omniscient omnipotent sort, which logically leads to everything being determined, or human suffering, not to mention enormous amounts of animal suffering, which many very confused people claim does not really exist at human levels of consciousness.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about animal suffering. Does not actually matter in any humanly conceivable sense of the word.

Now, I've tried to figure out what this means. Actually does not matter in any humanly conceivable sense of the word.

What does that mean? Are you saying it doesn't matter in the sense that God would never allow this to happen or that God could have no purpose for it?

It doesn't say. I don't know. I can't answer that question. The fact of the matter is, if you have a sovereign

God who is accomplishing his purpose, and in fact, his purpose is to engage with his creation, engage with his people in time so as to bring about redemption of a particular people who demerit that redemption, then how can that, how can anything not have a purpose?

How could, how could any of it not have any? See, I don't understand it. To us, love cannot exist or be defined in any remotely transcendentally factual way.

Neither can judgment. Why? Why? I mean,

God's nature, when you say love can't be defined, how about in this is love that we did not love

God, but he loved us first, and we have the incarnation, we have redemption. And we even have the fact that people who deserve instant judgment for their sinfulness experience long lives of great blessings and happiness.

And it's been often said that the mark of a changed heart, the mark of a changed heart is not asking the question, why do bad things happen to good people?

The mark of a changed heart is asking, why do good things happen to anybody at all? Because that's the mark of a heart that actually knows the depth of its own depravity.

And I cannot believe I'm looking at the clock and it's quarter till, but I've still got 15 minutes to go because we started 15 minutes.

I was sitting there going, no way. I'm normally good at remembering what time it is. Man, I was freaking out there for a second.

We'll take a break straight up at the hour. And folks, I know this is sort of heavy stuff. There are not many programs like this out there.

There just aren't. I'm not entertaining anybody right now.

I understand that. But I hope that you see this as important and that these issues need to be thought through.

And it may not be comfortable. I mean, it'd be fun. But you know what?

It has, I think, a very positive long -term benefit.

And that's why we need to press on. Okay, love cannot exist or be defined in any remotely transcendentally factual way.

I don't understand. I do not see that a basis has been given to that. I hear the assertion, but where's the basis?

Neither can judgment. Why not? Unless you have reduced

God down to our level and set up an external authority to him,

God says it is sufficient to judge man for doing what man loves to do, for acting upon the desires and intentions of his heart.

And in fact, God is actively involved in restraining man's madness.

And yet he doesn't judge us on the basis of what we would have done if he hadn't restrained us, but only upon what we did do.

Is there not grace and mercy even there? So what's the basis of saying that love cannot be defined in a transcendentally factual way?

Or that judgment cannot be defined? What's the basis? I haven't seen it. It is claimed that those without the knowledge of Christ or their need of redemption will be judged less harshly than those with greater knowledge of the law and redemptive plan.

Yeah, uh, Crazen and Bethsaida versus Sodom and Gomorrah. Amount of, amount of light.

Yes. It is uncertain what this differing judgment could mean. Well, given that I don't, nobody knows the exact nature of eternal punishment,

I would suggest that part and parcel, and I think I have solid biblical basis for saying this, part and parcel of eternal judgment, it's not

God exercising power to torment anybody. I think when the restraining hand of God is removed from man's wild God -hating and detestation of God, hence detestation of self,

I think it's primarily a self -torture. I think it's what you see in the worst of the atheists who are absolutely consumed in their hatred of God.

Remember what Doug Wilson, it's funny, we'll be talking about Doug Wilson a little bit more here in a little while, but Doug Wilson said something very wise about Christopher Hitchens.

Remember, remember the statement I've repeated a number of times? There are two things that are absolutely certain about Christopher Hitchens, that he believes that God does not exist and that he hates

God. And it's true. He's certain God doesn't exist and he's certain that he hates him. And that is, that is the self -contradictory nature of the atheist and the rebel against God when

God's restraint is removed from him, will consume himself in his loathing of God and all that God has made, there's the problem, is that he's made in the image of God and it becomes self -loathing.

So how does that translate into it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment?

I don't know. I don't understand the exact mechanism of punishment, but I'm told that there will be a difference in how

God judges in light of the amount of light that a person had. Though I tremble to venture at the difference between one infinite horror in comparison to double that horror.

Well, I think it is appropriate to consider punishment as a horror, but it is a punishment that is a horror in light of both justice, as well as the nature of the one who has been sinned against.

These people, apart from the knowledge of Christ, are said to disobey the law within them will be condemned according to this refusal of conscience, but they are incapable of performing in accord with this conscience.

That would be due to their fallen nature. And there's the one thing that's always missing in this context.

Listen to what it says. But they are incapable, and incapable is an italics, by the way, of performing in accord with this conscience.

How can somebody be condemned for something they are absolutely incapable of accomplishing by the very constitution given them by the condemner?

But notice what was just said. I don't think our writer understood that he had just contradicted himself because he's just recognized, yes, it's going to be based upon the light that we had.

And then he turns around and says, but it's based upon absolute standards. You see, the element that's always missing when

I hear these objections is that none of these people ever desired to do these things.

They never desired. They love their sin. They love their sin.

They love their idolatry, whatever it might be. I mean, we can have the religious pygmy in Africa, or we can have the secular humus scholar in Scandinavia someplace.

They're both engaged in idolatry in very different ways on very different levels, but it's still idolatry nonetheless.

And one had far more light than the other. But the argument of culpability has to take into consideration the desires of the heart of the person.

And I will say once again, God has never stood behind some morally pure person with a theological or spiritual gut and said, sin, you,

I don't want to sin. No, you must sin. It will fulfill my plan. That's not how it works.

And it would have to work that way if it's going to be relevant to the idea of the condemner, the pat answer.

And again, I pick up on these types of phrases. The pat answer is that this is all part of a pure and unknowable plan, a demonstration of infant wisdom, mercy, and judgment.

Well, that's not a pat answer. That's a transcendental answer. But certainly there's far more to the answer that has been given, even as I just noted, than, oh, well, you know, it's just infinite wisdom.

Yeah, there is infinite wisdom. There is infinite mercy. There is judgment. There's no question about that.

And I am not saying that I can sit here as a finite human being with one ten billionth of the information of the world and what

God is doing in this world and make judgments based upon that. But I do have the revelation of the word of God.

And I do see its consistency in mankind's behavior. And in light of that, would indeed tremble to be in a position of arguing that God does not have sufficient reasons for acting as he has.

What terror and feverish sorrow I feel for any creature subjected to the negative side of this determination.

In other words, what terror and feverish sorrow

I feel for the non -elect who do in this life exactly what they desire to do and who refuse to bow the knee before the creator.

But what I'm hearing, and maybe I'm reading between the lines, but I think

I have read this as carefully as I can numerous times, is I'm hearing a fundamental rejection of God's ability to judge and God's ability to demonstrate the entirety of his divine attributes in his own creation.

Either God has to limit the revelation of his attributes to justice, holiness, wrath, and give everyone punishment.

Or he has to limit himself to love, mercy, and grace and save everybody.

But if he actually desires to accomplish his purpose so that the entirety of his body of attributes are revealed in his creation, that doesn't work.

That can't be. It's just not allowed to do it because this would require us to believe that he transcends merely human categories of activity and judgment.

Could there not be any way to complete this plan by saving just one of those people in the hills of the

Himalayas by preventing their birth? He has saved many of the people in the hills of the

Himalayas who did not deserve to be saved. Or just one

Aborigine. How many believers have given their life to reach the

Aborigines? Or just one poor child off the streets of Compton? How many poor children off the streets of Compton bow in worship before Jesus Christ and will experience unmerited, demerited eternal life in his name?

How supposedly precious is an eternal human soul and how terrible these tortures which are affected against them?

Oh, that just one be prevented from being born. How this would save them from immeasurable pain?

Well, how this would save them from immeasurable pain? It would save them from existence, I suppose.

And so the idea here is, well, there just there cannot be punishment that is appropriate to a creature, not only for having lived their lives in rebellion against God, but just simply for having been related to Adam.

Fundamentally, the argument here is God cannot act federally.

God cannot act federally. So if this writer is consistent, then this writer likewise cannot accept the idea that by one act of self -giving sacrifice by the perfect God -man,

Jesus Christ, that that can have any effect for anyone else, because it is by union in Christ that we receive his benefits in the same way that by union with Adam, we received the condemnation.

And what's being said is, I just, I will not accept that. Well, it is only the spirit of God that can cause anyone to accept that.

And there's many a person who will look at that and say, I'm not going there. No, I don't want to,

I don't want to accept that. Sure, according to the scriptures, that's how God has dealt with people in the past. And you had the example of Achan, but I think that's unfair too.

I'm just, I refuse to worship that kind of God. I will either create my own or I'm just not going to believe anything.

That does not change the reality that we live in a created universe that clearly has the fingerprints of God all over it.

And that God has invaded this universe in the person of Jesus Christ. There was a resurrection. And that one who predicted his own resurrection and then brought about his own resurrection taught that these things were true.

But again, outside of the work of the Holy Spirit of God, I can explain why there is no contradiction.

I can explain how God has done these things. But fundamentally, if you want to get to the point of saying, I reject

God's economy, I reject the idea that God has the right to act in this way, or because I have some humanly derived standard,

I just reject that you can talk about love. Well, maybe your definitions of love have not been properly grounded all along.

You know, it was something that really changed a lot for me. When I recognize the greatest commandment is to love the

Lord thy God with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, that is not an emotion. That's not an emotion.

That's a choice. That is a way of living. That is a recognition of God's role and God's character.

And the fact that he is my creator and I'm his creation. And when a person truly does recognize that my very life, my breath, the beat of my heart is in his hand, there is a fundamental reorientation of reality itself that comes with that.

There's no question of that at all. And so as I look at this here, this is going to work out right, because I will be able to finish this.

What I want to do tomorrow is I want to, we're going to do another Jumbo Edition even tomorrow, another hour and a half.

But what I'm going to do is I'm going to divide it up into three 30 -minute segments tomorrow. And I have enough here to do 30 minutes and to be able to finish that and make some closing comments.

And then do 30 minutes of the Fernandez -Comas debate, and then bring in another debate in the last 30 minutes, even expand the topics that we're addressing.

Probably begin looking at one of the Roger Perkins debates, probably the first one with Matthew Slick.

And so that'll even be a wider variety of topics. But Trinitarian theology,

Reform theology, theodicy, lots of stuff, all in an hour and a half.

So I'll finish my response to this email tomorrow on the program.

We're going to take a brief break, and then dive into the Fernandez -Comas debate right after this.

Pulpit 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 pulpit crime occurring in your town?

Get Pulpit Crimes in the bookstore at almen .org. The Trinity is a basic teaching of the

Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us. James White's book,

The Forgotten Trinity, is a concise, understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters. It refutes cultic distortions of God, as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a

Christian. And amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the

Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur, Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church, says James White's lucid presentation will help layperson and pastor alike.

Highly recommended. You can order The Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at almen .org.

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils.

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements. And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the

Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book,

The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatorian indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomen .org.

Over the background again. You sort of got to tune in regularly or listen to the archives or something.

But this is a debate between Dr. Phil Fernandez and Chris Comis. Yesterday, I did lay out some of the issues.

I think one of the primary reasons I want to go over this is because of two things. First of all, on the

Armenian side, Dr. Fernandez seems to hold to a Molinist position. I did write to him last night and asked him to confirm that.

I haven't heard back from him yet. But that certainly seemed to be what he enunciated in the debate. And I've asked if he disagrees with any of the particulars as enunciated by William Lane Craig on that subject, because I do want to address some of those things in regards to the concept of Molinism.

And on the other side, Chris Comis, an RTS student, clearly enunciates a federal visionist understanding of things.

And that does impact the means by which you defend the Reformed faith.

I do not defend the five points and I do not see the five points in exactly the same way.

And even there are some fundamental departures when you start talking about the decretally elect versus the covenantally elect.

This impacts your view of the New Covenant, Hebrews chapter 8. Again, go back to the 2004 debate between myself and Doug Wilson.

And you have Doug Wilson saying that we evangelize Roman Catholics by grabbing them by their baptism. And that he identifies them as our unregenerate brothers and sisters in Christ.

Well, I don't find that language meaningful. And I don't think that most of the people in this debate found that language to be meaningful either.

And so that impacts, you know, I think it's relevant for us to consider the mechanisms by which

Reformed theology is presented in our society because it reflects on all of us. And so that's one of the reasons we're taking a look at this.

Obviously, most of the objections raised by Dr. Fernandez, who

I do consider to be my brother in Christ, and I've listened to some of the debates he's done.

And in many areas, we would be standing side by side, though I will point out that, for example, if you listen to his debate, his debates on the existence of God, I'm a staunch presuppositionalist and he's a staunch evidentialist.

And so you would see a fundamental difference when you listen to our debates with Dr. Price, for example. There is a very different approach that we take in how we respond to those types of things.

And why is there such a different approach? I believe very firmly that it goes back to the foundations that you stand upon.

Apologetics is a defense of faith. Therefore, your theology determines your apologetics.

And Dr. Fernandez is consistent in light of his theology. He can't be a presuppositionalist because presuppositionalism has certain theological foundations that give rise to it.

Specifically, God's overarching sovereignty and purposes in creation, man's being created in the image of God and suppressing that knowledge, the concept of total depravity.

You know, if you believe in some concept of prevenient grace whereby every single human being on the planet has been removed from slavery to sin by prevenient grace, then that's going to fundamentally change your apologetic methodology.

If all mankind is morally neutral due to prevenient grace, not because of their nature, but due to prevenient grace, everybody's back at a moral neutral point.

Everybody's will has been freed from slavery to sin. Well, then you just need to come along and you need to tip the scales the right direction because man's just teetering right on the edge and Satan's done his part.

Now you need to come along and just put enough information into the scales to topple him over the right side.

If you believe in no such thing as prevenient grace in the sense being used by Dr.

Fernandez, but you believe in a powerful grace whereby God actually raises men to spiritual life, causes regeneration, draws people to Christ irresistibly and perfectly, then your apologetics is going to reflect that and you're not going to try to get a rebel sinner to be fair with the information about God because guess what?

They won't be. They won't be. And it's sort of funny. I would just ask Phil to think about the fact.

Was Dr. Price fair with the information of history you gave to him?

And if not, why not? I mean, if he's got prevenient grace, why wasn't he fair with the information?

Why is he still suppressing the knowledge of God if he's been freed from slavery to sin? Oh, well, he just has to choose,

I guess. Okay, well, anyway. So one of the tricky things is going to be, as Dr.

Fernandez continues on here, he's going to make an assertion and then he's going to list verses. And I don't know how much time

I'm going to spend. A couple of times, I'm just going to stop and we're going to look at every single verse and we'll see that every single verse does not say what he says it says.

I mean, it's a surface level reading, but it's not what it says it says. And that's why, again, my first criticism of the debate was having a debate about whether the five points of Calvinism were biblical or not is so broad that it almost demands this kind of approach.

I mean, yes, I believe that limited atonement is biblical because of these verses. I can't even, you don't even have enough time in a debate like this to expand out as to why.

And of course, the richest, deepest theology is that which allows us to enter deeply into God's revelation.

And I would want to enter deeply into the role of the mediator. Who does Christ mediate for?

And this is something I'd ask Dr. Fernandez. Dr. Fernandez, for whom does Christ mediate? Because the role of the high priest, those for whom he mediates are the same group for whom he offered sacrifice.

For whom did Christ offer that sacrifice? That's gonna come up in 1 Timothy chapter two, because 1 Timothy chapter two, so it's cited at least once, maybe more than once by Dr.

Fernandez as indicating a denial of limited atonement. Dr. Fernandez, that same section describes

Jesus Christ as a mediator between God and man. Are you telling me that Jesus is mediating for those who are in hell?

I don't believe anybody's in hell right now, but in Hades, those who are under the wrath of God, Jesus is mediating for them.

What's he mediating for them? And see, at this point, that to me is a very strong argument, but in light of what Chris Comas said, he might say he's mediating wrath, which

I don't believe fits the concept of mediation whatsoever, but that's where you get the federal vision stuff coming in and sort of warping the whole thing.

And that's why I really wonder if anyone walked out of this with a real clear idea of what in the world is going on.

So with that, let us dive back into right where we left off.

We are listening to Dr. Fernandez's opening statement. I believe the Bible teaches the opposite.

God regenerates us because we believe, hence faith logically precedes regeneration.

So this is a fairly major portion. Unfortunately, the texts that clearly indicate the preeminence of regeneration, which we have discussed many times in this program, remember it was

February and March of last year, that we had the going back and forth of the folks in the

Calvary Chapel radio program on 1 John 5, 1. And they brought in their expert and we went through the syntax of 1

John 5, 1. And we talked about all the issues with that. All of the texts that describe faith as the gift of God, all of the texts that, like 1

John 5, 1, raise these issues are not mentioned by either side in this debate.

And so certainly somebody walking out of this debate would have no idea that there is anything in Scripture that presented this concept at all.

But just briefly, since I've cited it, everyone believing,

Pascha pistuon hati Iesus est in Hachristos, ectu theu gegeneitai, cai pascha agapon ton genesanta agapa cai ton gegenei menon ex altu.

1 John 5, 1. Everyone believing, present tense participle. Everyone believing.

And if you know Johannine usage, you know that that substantival use of the participle in the present tense, believing.

John chapter 6, everyone looking, everyone believing, everyone coming, er commonos. All of these are used of the ongoing, this is saving faith.

Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ, ectu theu gegeneitai, has been born from God.

Now the best of the Calvary Chapel people were able to come up to it with on this member was, well, this is just telling us that there's a difference between believers and unbelievers.

Yeah, of course there's a difference between believers and unbelievers. But the question is, is there a grammatical relationship expressed between hapistuon and gegeneitai?

And the answer is, yes, there is. And we've pointed out that in two other texts in 1

John, you have this relationship expressed for us. And no one would argue the other two places where you have a present tense participle and then you are given a specific use of born again in the perfect tense here.

There's all sorts of arguments can be made, but I think personally that it is right here that we have the perfect verb and the present tense participle roll back if you're using a computer or turn back if you're using, you know, plain old paper

Bible to 1 John 4, verse 7. 1

John 4, 7. Somebody in channel says I'm speaking in tongues again, but I am giving the interpretation.

And it's not an unknown tongue. I didn't say you should about a Hyundai or see the

Yugo or anything like that. Rich is smiling. Beloved, let us love one another for love is from God.

And whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Now, listen to that last section.

Kai pas ha agapon ek tutheyu gegenetai.

So there you have it. What is the present participle? Ha agapon, pas ha agapon.

Everyone loving has been born of God. Now I ask a simple question. What comes first?

Being born of God or loving? I really don't think that Dr.

Fernandez is going to say, oh yeah, we're, we're perfectly capable of, of love. And in fact, at one point he, he uses the, and I think it's been a fairly exegetically disproven, but it's a very common argument, agape love.

As if there's something agape love is superior to phileo love. And I would never want to debate that one.

But this is agape, even from his own perspective. So everyone engaging in agape love has been born of God.

Which came first, being born of God or the ability to love in that way? Does loving cause our being born of God, Dr.

Fernandez? Because you're saying in 1 John 5, it is our believing that results in our being born of God.

So from your perspective, the present tense participle is the grounds of gegenetai.

That's what brings it about. We believe, therefore we are born again. Unless you want to say, well,

I need to make a distinction between the ongoing faith, because it's past hapistio, the one believing.

There's a difference between my ongoing faith and my initial faith. My initial faith caused me to be born again. And now that's the ground of my ongoing faith.

You really think that's what John is saying? If that's not what John is saying, then here in 1 John 4, 7, you'd have to say that if believing brings about being born again.

And one of the problems I'm going to have with Dr. Fernandez's perspectives, he kept confusing regeneration with adoption, all of salvation.

He kept using verses that were not specifically talking about regeneration as if they could be made synonyms.

But here, if you're going to take that perspective, then we must love so as to be born again, right?

Syntactically, they are parallel to one another. There's no way around that. You can try if you want, but it's right there.

And there's another one. Scroll on back to 1 John 2, 29. 1

John 2, 29 says, If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.

Pas hapoion teinticaiasunene ex autu gegenetai.

So there you have, again, pas with a singular present tense participle being used substantively.

Pas hapoion, everyone doing righteousness, teinticaiasunene, ex autu gegenetai, exact same form.

Would anyone want to argue other than our Roman Catholic friends? That it is by doing righteousness that we bring about our regeneration?

Even they wouldn't say that, except maybe if they identified it as baptism. So here you have two syntactically parallel passages to 1

John 5, 1. In the same epistle. You don't have to even leave Johannine usage here.

And in each instance, it's clearly the being born of God, which results in our doing righteous acts.

It results in our loving God. And it results in our faith. Our present tense saving faith over against that surface level, aorist faith that doesn't save.

And so I think it's vitally important. These texts were never brought up. The Tacomas didn't bring them up.

Didn't argue them. Didn't present them. Didn't have time to probably because of the format of the debate. But still, they weren't presented.

And the people who listened to this debate didn't hear this kind of evidence. In regards to that.

So all we have is the presentation of the Reformed position, denial of it, and then texts that are used to deny it without ever exegeting the texts that present it.

And hence, no harmony being presented as to the biblical teaching itself.

Romans 5, 1 and 2 tell us that we have been justified by faith and that it is through faith that we have access into God's grace.

That's true. But this is a category error on Dr. Fernandez's part because no one on the

Reformed side is saying that justification and regeneration are the same thing.

And I think Dr. Fernandez does know this because he recognizes the difference between a temporal priority and logical priority.

That is, when we talk about the Ordo Salutis, when we talk about the order of salvation, we're not talking about an order in a temporal sense so much as we are talking about an order in the logical sense, that which comes before the other.

And so citing Romans 5, 1 to a Reformed theologian as if that's relevant, well, it isn't relevant because no one on our side is saying anything other than justification is by faith.

But regeneration is what brings about the faith that justifies.

The dead rebel sinner is not capable of doing what is pleasing before God, Romans chapter 8, is exercising repentance and faith toward God, pleasing in God's sight.

If it is, then those who are caught in the flesh can't do it. How do they leave the realm of the flesh and enter the realm of the spirit?

Is that a divine act or a human act? Is that some prevenient grace thing? Has prevenient grace caused everyone to leave the realm of the flesh?

If so, why talk about the realm of the flesh? Because there's nobody left there. They've all gotten prevenient grace that have been removed from the realm of flesh and the realm of spirit.

But the problem is, Paul doesn't understand about any group that is no longer in the flesh, but is in the spirit, that isn't born again by some prevenient grace, a phrase he never uses.

We need to see where these people exist from the biblical perspective.

Romans 6, 17, and 18 tell us that we accepted the gospel while still slaves to sin, and that we then became slaves of righteousness.

Ephesians 1, 13, and 14... Again, nothing about regeneration, not addressing the issues that are actually relevant here.

...that having believed, we were sealed with the Holy Spirit. Yes, having believed, we were sealed with the

Holy Spirit. The presence of the Holy Spirit as the mark of regeneration, as the Arabon, the mark of our regeneration, is a mark of what in Ephesians 1?

Election, an eternal election before beginning of time. And that discussion in Ephesians 1 does not fit

Molinistic categories. You would never derive Molinism from reading scripture alone. That's why nobody for 1 ,500 years ever came up with it, until Louis de

Molina came up with it to fulfill the Jesuit command to find a way to undercut the preaching of the

Reformation. Ephesians 1 says it was us, personal, who were chosen in Christ.

But the direct object of choosing is us, and not, really, in the

Molinistic perspective, I would argue, the only choice. The only choice that God gets in everything is which world

He actuates. He gets to choose whether He's going to actuate this world.

He runs all the numbers. He finds the world that has the greatest number of people saved for the least number of people lost.

He runs the numbers. There it is. This is how you got to create it. If He wants to save one more person, well,

He can't. If there's one person in that possible world that He wants to save that, by His middle knowledge, knows that, no, you'd have to change everything, and then there would be, you'd lose two people that you did save for the one that you did save.

See? So it's up to you. Either buy it or don't. Actualize it or don't.

That's the only choice He makes. That's it. Because once He actualizes it, then that middle knowledge has determined, and that middle knowledge does not come from within God, and I don't even know where it does come from, and I've never had a moment that could explain where it comes from.

How you can know what a free creature will do before God decrees to create the creature makes no sense.

I know that God knows what my propensities are, but He knows that because He made me.

He created me the way that I am. But middle knowledge says, no, no, no, it's not based upon God's knowledge of what

He decrees to make. It's between His natural knowledge and His free knowledge. It's a different kind of knowledge, and it doesn't flow from that.

And so what you have is you have creation itself providing the basis of this knowledge rather than the

Creator. I think there are some horrific problems, horrific problems with Mullenism.

And I think there are horrific problems when Rich and Jamie bring food in while I'm doing an hour and a half long dividing line and sit in front of me eating warm food with french fries.

I think that everyone should write in about how mean and terrible Rich and Jamie are to be eating food in front of me right now.

I think that is just, but this is live, and I will press on and do what is right despite what you guys are doing to me right now.

You know what? I'm just going to ignore you. When does this get over with? 20 minutes, right?

Okay, all right, all right, 20 minutes. All right, I'm going to go back and try to recover my train of thought now.

Thanks to the interruption of the studio audience. The Bible clearly teaches that belief in Jesus brings salvation,

Acts 2 .38. Of course, believe in Jesus brings salvation. No Reformed person would say otherwise.

Notice the confusion of salvation. All of it, adoption, forgiveness, redemption with regeneration, which is the first necessary step to bring a person out of the state of spiritual death and the spiritual life so they can do what's pleasing before God.

So again, the category errors, you know, clearly you just need to listen to those who criticize

Reformed faith, and you'll generally find that 99 % of them engage in this kind of category error so that their criticisms really are just not on the mark.

Now, you know, when I hear that, I go, hmm, that sounds like it might be relevant as if the subject being discussed is the

New Testament doctrine of regeneration. And I think you need to be a little bit careful of trying to go to the

Old Testament prior to the cross and determine categories that are only specifically addressed in regards to the revelation of the

New Testament. But, therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, everyone according to his ways declares the

Lord God, repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Now, the vast majority of these people to whom these words were addressed, by the way, did not do that.

Cast away from you all the transgressions you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.

Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God, so turn and live.

So cast away from you all the transgressions you have committed and make yourselves a new heart. Where's belief in there?

Because I think that's what he said, wasn't it? I've got two programs up in the same space here. Let me just back it up just a little bit and see if I can...

Oh, I didn't go quite far enough here. Let's try it now. Ephesians 1, 13 and 14 declares that having believed, we were sealed with the

Holy Spirit. The Bible clearly teaches that belief in Jesus brings salvation.

Acts 2, 38 and 16, 31. The Lord says through Ezekiel the prophet that we are to repent and turn from our sins to receive a new heart and new spirit.

Okay, that's a fair citation. But what does that mean?

I mean, there is... It's interesting. Later on, Dr. Fernandez is going to quote from Acts 17 as if Reformed folks don't quote from it and don't use this.

God commands men everywhere to repent, and he does.

And he uses us as the means for that command. Okay, we believe that.

God commands men everywhere to repent. God commands men everywhere to believe. There's no question about either one of those statements.

The question is who can do it? The vast majority of the people that Ezekiel talked to didn't. That's why there's this discussion of the supremacy of the new covenant in Jeremiah.

And then we get down to Ezekiel 36. And when the people...

You know, the people can't make themselves a new heart and a new spirit, can they? That's beyond their capacity.

So what does God do? Um... He takes out a heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh.

Is that the... Is that the result of their having believed and repented? Does the heart of stone want to be replaced?

And in fact, isn't Ezekiel 36 what's behind John 3? Washing of regeneration, that change, it's all divine.

And what's the picture that he gives? The wind blowing over the valley, the dry bones. Did those dry bones cause the wind to blow?

And when that wind began to blow and the sinews began to form on them, could those dry bones...

Nope, don't want to! I like your prevenient grace and that prevenient grace has now made me able to not want to be raised up to life.

Really? Is that what that's talking about? I don't think so.

But again, what we're searching for is a harmony of the material that clearly presents the sovereignty of God in these matters, which was not addressed in these other texts.

Return and repent to be regenerated. That's Ezekiel 18, 30 to 32.

The Apostle John states that a person does not receive the right to become the children of God and be regenerated until they receive

Jesus and believe in him. Let's see if that's actually what John chapter 1 says, because there's a little part that got missed in the citation there.

John chapter 1, verse 12. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born by man's free will due to prevenient grace.

Well, we all know that's not what it says. Who were born, who were born not of blood.

It wasn't a genetic thing. Neither of the will of man, human will, human decision, neither of the will of a husband, sexually, but were born of God.

So you have a verse that specifically denies in three lines, in three lines, not this way, not by blood, not by the will of flesh, not by the will of man, but were born of God.

And yet the reality is, no, it was our decision that caused our being born of God.

It was the will, the thalmatos, of the sarx, the flesh, that by believing brought about our being born of God.

So there you go. And of course, you also have this idea that Elaban is meant to be solely a, wasn't mean to receive him.

You know, they do believe in his name. Let anyone get you confused. Reformed people believe that we believe in Jesus.

The question is, where do we get that faith? Who enabled us to have that faith? What had to happen first?

And why is it that in John, that faith is an ongoing faith? Why is it a faith that lasts?

Why is it a faith that endures? If it is not because it is the gift of God, if it is not because it is the work of God, then folks, we would have to believe in some kind of work salvation because we'd have to be always creating this faith out of ourselves.

And that's a horrible way to go. But unfortunately, that is really the only logical conclusion that is left to you when you go down this road.

John chapter one, verse 12. So in all these passages, it seems that faith precedes the things that we would call regeneration.

Faith precedes regeneration. Calvinism is wrong. Regeneration is the start of new life in Christ.

Yet the Bible clearly teaches that a person must first believe to receive this eternal life.

John 3, 16, 635, chapter six, verse 47. He who believes in Jesus has passed out of death into life.

And of course, none of us disagree with any of that in any way, shape or form. Faith is absolutely central.

It is the origin of all things. But where does it come from? And how is it that Jesus said that no one is able to come to me unless the father who sent me draws him?

Because we're quoting from John. Let's let John speak. He says, no one is able to come to me.

I'm hearing everyone is able to come to me. Well, those who are drawn by the father. Well, everybody's drawn by the father.

Well, and everyone's raised up in the last day. You're now a universalist. You just got to go there.

John chapter eight. Why do you not hear what I'm saying? Because you don't belong to God. Not because you haven't chosen to.

Not because prevenient grace didn't get you far enough. The reason is you don't belong to God. It's right there.

You just have to let all the texts speak. It's real easy, you know, by proof texting. I'm just going to take these.

We, the strength of Reformed theology is its ability to look at all the scripture, not just parts of scripture.

That's where the strength comes from. John 5, 24, by believing we have life in his name.

Again, no one would question otherwise. Why do you turn these into something about the ordo salutis when you have so many texts that likewise say that we are not capable in of ourselves of believing?

You see, we have harmony. All these texts make perfect sense. But that's why you don't hear about 1

John 5, 1. You don't hear about Romans 8. You don't hear about these texts in the Arminian presentations.

Because, well, they just don't fit. John 20, verse 31, the Calvinist reverses that. God gives us life so that we can believe.

The Bible teaches. If you are assuming that the life we have now is regeneration, it's the result of regeneration.

But again, category error in mixing these. And if you want to see a place where the truth is that you have a reversal of the order that Jesus would actually give,

John 8, 34. Jesus answered them, truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.

Well, if prevening grace has been given to everybody, who's this about? Why is Jesus even talking about this? You were a slave to sin, but God's prevening grace has freed you from that, right?

Where does Jesus ever teach that? It's nowhere. It was the very heart of Dr.

Fernandez's presentation, and it's nowhere. The slave does not remain in the house forever. The son remains forever.

So if the son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know if the son sets you free, is that prevenient grace?

Because he says you're set free from slavery to sin. So that must be the son setting you free. But you see, the only people who are set free by the son are those who he raises up to eternal life.

So that would mean prevenient grace results in universalism, right? I know that you're offspring of Abraham, yet you seek to kill me because my words find no place in you.

I speak of what I have seen with my father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, Abraham was our father.

Jesus said to them, if you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works that Abraham did. But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.

This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did. They said to him, we were not born of sexual immorality.

We have one father, even God. Jesus said to them, if God were your father, you would love me. For I came from God, and I am here.

I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what

I say? According to the Arminian perspective, it would be because even though freed by prevenient grace from slavery to sin, you choose not to.

But Jesus' actual response is, it is because you could not bear to hear my word.

Literally, that's a little bit, actually, the ESV is being a little bit, it simply says, because you are not able, u dunastha, you lack the capacity or ability, akuain, to hear my word.

You cannot hear it. Well, I thought, wait a minute, I thought prevenient grace got rid of all that.

It didn't for the people Jesus was talking to. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.

He was a murderer from the beginning, has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, and he is a liar, and the father lies.

Because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Why? Because it is man's nature to walk in darkness rather than light.

All man's nature, not just the Jews, that's the nature of the unregenerate man.

Which one of you convicts me of sin? I'm sorry, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.

Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe me? Here's where everything gets turned upside down.

Listen to this. Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is what?

From the Arminian perspective, finish that sentence. The reason why you do not hear them is because you choose not to hear them.

Your will is free, whether by prevenient grace or however else you want to put it, a denial of total depravity.

Even though Jesus said, the one who commits sin is a slave of sin. Even though he says, you're of the father of the devil.

Even though he says, no one is able to come to me. All those, for some reason, have some other meaning other than what the contextual meaning would obviously be.

The reason why you do not hear them is because you choose not to hear them.

But that's not what Jesus said. This is why you were not hearing.

Because you are not of God. Whether you are

God's or not, of him or not of him. Determines whether you will even hear what

Jesus is saying. So you want to hear something that's turned upside down?

Listen to the Arminian explaining these texts. There you'll hear something that's really upside down.

But you see, I almost never hear the Arminians addressing these texts. They just don't go there.

We believe to receive life in his name. Now, I find it hard to see how regeneration, the new birth, logically leads to faith when the

Bible clearly says that faith leads to justification, access into God's grace, becoming a slave of righteousness, being sealed with the

Holy Spirit. All of which are things distinct from regeneration and hence not an objection to Reform Theology.

Salvation itself and receiving of a new heart. Is not justification a part of salvation?

Yeah, it is. And spirit. God's word teaches that regeneration, salvation, a new heart, becoming a slave to righteousness, receiving

God's grace, becoming a child of God and being sealed with the Holy Spirit are blessings given to those who believe.

Yes. Only those who believe receive all these things. None of that addresses whether we have the ability in and of ourselves to exercise saving faith in Jesus Christ or whether, in fact, we are slaves to sin and need to be freed from sin and that that freedom of the will is the act of regeneration.

It is not merely some mythical thing never found in scripture called prevenient grace that creates this mythical middle group that is no longer enslaved to sin, but is no longer in union with Christ.

Where is this group? This would have been front and center in my first response.

Where is this group? I want to see them in scripture. I've read the whole thing.

Never seen them. You've read the whole thing. You've never seen them either. Hence, the

Bible unambiguously teaches that God regenerates and saves those who believe regeneration does not precede faith.

Instead, faith precedes regeneration. Faith is the instrument through which we receive

God's saving grace and are born again. Faith does not merit or earn salvation, but it does accept the free gift of salvation.

Now, biblical reputation of unconditional election. Calvinism teaches that God did not choose to save those who would freely believe in Jesus.

Instead, he chose to elect some to believe while choosing to leave the rest of humanity in its lost state.

In short, Calvinists teach that God elected people to be saved based on no condition, not even foreseen faith.

Almost out of time here. There is nothing in the elect that draws

God's mercy and grace toward them. Otherwise, we would have grounds of boasting. No question about it.

The only thing that will separate those who stand around the throne of God in eternity and those who stand upon the parapets of hell screaming their hatred of God is, not sure where that came from, is a five -letter word called grace.

That is the only difference. There is no question about that. But unfortunately, what is missing from Dr.

Fernandez's presentation is that the ground of God's choice is his own self -glorification.

All of this is to the glory of God. That is why he's doing it, is the good purpose of his will.

And so, if you want to deny unconditional election, then you're going to have to deny the freedom of God to glorify himself as he sees fit.

And that Dr. Fernandez is not going to be able to do. All right.

Believe it or not, back tomorrow at the regular Thursday time for another jumbo edition, divided into three parts.

That time, we'll continue with this review, the letter, and something else. See you tomorrow here on The Dividing Line. 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 -973 -4602, or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

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