George Bryson and John 6:37-45

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 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line Tuesday morning the hot part of the year here in Phoenix, Arizona Really toasty outside when the lows don't make it into the 80s in the morning, you know it's gonna be a warm one and That's when

I went to bed last night. It was 100 .4 degrees and so that's just that's why we don't have daylight savings time here

It's because it would only be worse we'd go to bed and it would still be light in 110 So we decided a long time ago forget that forget it ain't doing that exciting stuff now that Australia is getting closer and closer about a month out from that and And starting to see the outlines of what we're going to be doing possibility right now of three different debates in Australia over the course of again about eight days in country

You lose a day going out gain one coming back. But you know, you've got those two travel days in there, but basically between the 16th and the 24th the first half of that being in Sydney the second half being in Brisbane and so Looks like the possibility of two debates in Sydney the first on Islam the second on Roman Catholicism and then an

Islamic debate in Brisbane and if that doesn't pan out the possibility of a

Armenian debate In in Brisbane, so that's sort of the backup plan

To the Muslim debate, I'd rather have the Muslim debate, but we will see what the Lord has in store there

I'm hoping those can get verified very quickly because obviously time is passing by and the more time

I can have to be listening to my opponents if I can find anything to listen to The better so I tried to order a

Cassette tape. Yes. I think I could find a cassette player someplace but the

Catholic apologetics ministry in Sydney only offers cassette tapes and You just go well

They're probably rather tridentine in their theology because they're still back around the time of the Council of Trent technologically speaking

But they won't ship outside the United States. So I'm gonna have to get somebody in in country to get that for me and do something amazing called mp3 it and Load it up for me.

So I So anyway, it's it could be it could be interesting and But I'm really excited about it.

It's got some great opportunities there to be down under and of course looking at the lows this morning

I was I put both Sydney and Brisbane and in a weather thing on my BlackBerry and This morning the lows were like, you know 50 or something like that.

So it's winter down there. So To take 10 days out of August in Phoenix and switch it over to winter that's

That's wise very very very wise. That would be very good. So anyways before we get back to some of our

Reformed issues, I guess we'll try to get through some phone calls real quick here and talk with kit in El Paso.

Hi kit Hi, I understand what you're talking about with the heat Yes, yes you do no no toys about it

You know I've been listening for a long time and I do want to hear about the reform stuff because when I listen to you and Dave Hunt I seem to agree with both of you.

So that probably means I messed up. I would tend to agree with that analysis But what

I called about today and I hope you don't see this as as a jab at you because it's not

But I'm concerned about how you pronounce the divine name because it seems like you're

Replacing the hay the first hay in the divine name with a hat and I'm wondering why you do that If you're doing that on purpose to mispronounce it like the

Orthodox rabbis would do if I asked them how to pronounce it. I Have no idea what you're talking about Yahweh.

What's how would you pronounce it? Well, you you usually go Yahweh when

No, I don't way that's actually how the Samaritans pronounced it but Well, I don't think we have any recordings of exactly how anybody back then pronounced it, but I always say

Yahweh That's a that's a sound. It's not a sound. Oh, I didn't say You're you're not familiar with with if you go to an

Orthodox rabbi and Sir how an Orthodox rabbi today pronounces it is utterly irrelevant as to how it was pronounced 2 ,000 years ago

That's the same kind of error that people make when they assume that the modern Passover ceremony is Seder ceremony has something to do with what was actually going on 2 ,000 years ago

It doesn't it's sort of like when Dave Hunt Says that the first 14 chapters of Acts are written in Hebrew and things like that There's a lot of silliness and evangelicalism out there that doesn't pass any kind of scholarly muster and one of the things that we have to be careful of Is thinking that we can somehow figure out with absolute certainty pronunciations of languages that were spoken 2 ,000 years ago sometimes if there's a discussion in contemporary literature of pronunciation issues great, but most of the time there isn't and so You know,

I'm not gonna Get all been out of shape if someone pronounces Yahweh a little bit differently than I do.

I'm just pronouncing yode. Hey, wow Hey, that's how I would read it in the Hebrew text That's the way

I was taught to pronounce it There are Hebrew teachers that pronounce it, you know, if you learned

Hebrew down in Texas You'd have a whole lot of different pronunciations down there just as I have heard in Greek, you know,

I mean, it's like There are only a few things in Greek pronunciation that drive me insane because you have or asked me in pronunciation you have modern pronunciation

We have some ideas of specifics of pronunciation in the Koine period But we don't know exactly on certain issues and their word dialects the only thing that drives me crazy is when

I hear someone say logos or Logos or something like that where they're pronouncing the same vowel in two different ways in one word

Then I then I go crazy But as long as you say logos, which is how I would pronounce it Some people say logos well as long as you're consistent and somebody else can understand what you're saying that's what matters, but I don't think that the pronunciation is something that is is overly relevant at that point because we're talking 2 ,000 years ago and the languages change and and Pronunciations change and until we can get mp3s of what was being said back then.

I don't think it really really matters a whole lot Okay. Well, I just want to say I'm not been out of shape about it.

I just thought you were purposely mispronouncing it Because that is the way modern rabbis if you push them teach you to do it

They will purposely teach you a wrong pronunciation Well, the modern rabbis won't even say the word punishable by death to pronounce it at all

They don't even say they don't even say Yahweh They say they say either Adonai or Hashem the name they won't even pronounce

Yahweh So I have no idea why I would purposefully mispronounce something, but I was wondering if that's what you were doing

I'm not getting Not in any way shape or form. Anyway, thanks. Thanks for calling.

Yeah. All right. Have a good one Okay, but I know god bless you too. All right. Let's talk with Bob in Chicago. Hi, Bob Well, good morning.

Dr. White. How are you? Oh pretty good yourself. Oh warm Okay. Well, I'm in Chicago.

So we're a little bit cooler. Yeah Got a question. I bought the Novium Testamentum Greece, and I know

I did not pronounce that, right? Novum Testamentum Greki, I would imagine are you talking about the Greek Testament? Yes, that's right.

And um, and I've been listening to some of your debates and speeches and you mentioned a

Hebrew Diglot, I guess I'm wondering if that's the same kind of format where it has it in the

English along with the textual note Okay, so you bought the the na -27

Any New English translation Diglot the wheat that we offer Yeah, I'm not familiar with a similar

Hebrew version I've not seen that there are there's a brand new

Hebrews Readers edition of the Old Testament that I think Zondervan I think was under been put out

That's real nice reading, but there's no ink It gives you English meanings, but you have to be able to read Hebrew actually to truly use it.

So I I Well, there's a

Hebrew version of the Old Testament obviously the Bibli Hebraic astute cartensia but whether beach whether BHS has been put together with An English translation in a

Diglot. I don't own one there There might be but I'm not familiar. There might be an NIV version or something.

I really don't know I don't know. I don't possess one. I don't own one I want to make sure in case, you know,

I didn't buy this and it was all in Hebrew and I could read it Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I've I've not seen one. I'm sure there might be some out there what

I found Really useful about the Diglot the na -27 NET is the textual notes and things like that if there was something similar to that for the

Old Testament Then yeah, that would be useful. What would be more useful from my perspective would be a

Greek septuagint and New Testament Or either

Greek septuagint English Diglot or in septuagint Greek New Testament bound together because The vast majority of citations in a

New Testament are from the septuagint not from the Hebrew text And so that's where the textual variants are the most important so that would be really useful, but you can you can do that on your screen using

Bible works or logos or Accordance or whatever so but it is nice to have them in in one volume too.

All right All right, I see if the phone lines are keeping hopping today, but let's jump into something else

I want to deal with for a while here and See if there's a nice place to Oh Good old good old

Jim's on the line, huh? What does Jim want to talk about? I just I yeah, put him on hold there.

Let's just this just I don't see it on hold, but on hold did Come on, put it on hold now.

There you go. Do it. All right, Jim Kieferdorf. Hi, Jim. Dr. White. How are you? I'm doing pretty well

Good to hear from you. I just had to get rich going in there, you know It can be a little slow sometimes in the morning programs, you know, it's sure it's hard.

So Hey, I have no idea what you're calling about But I figure we'll just throw you on and let you say your thing because you're always out there doing

Lord's work, so Okay And just give rich a little update of what is going on at a

Southern Baptist Church in Maryland, okay. Let me get a little background Let me correct me if I'm wrong but in essence you have personally become a major thorn in the side of certain individuals who are

Non -trinitarian and heretical in their views of God and yet they run around and and want to sort of hide that from the various Orthodox churches in which they sing or otherwise do things and also make their living and so you've been you've been informing churches of the beliefs of these folks and End up really seeing some rather intriguing responses from both sides.

Sadly, I would imagine Is that sort of the background of what we're talking about here that that is correct

Many of the programs let's take for instance Armstrong programs They've had 40 programs taken off national

Christian radio and television one of them even airs in Arizona In the

Phoenix station Christian station. His name is Ronald Dart. Oh, yeah He has a program called born to win and he has been

Oh What happened? Click him again Trinitarian, okay, and his basic theology is of Armstrong.

You're not born again in this life There is no physical resurrection for the Christians. His teachings on hell is identical to Jehovah's Witnesses He doesn't believe

Jesus died on a cross and on and on it goes. Dr. White. Yeah, but but you're talking you're talking

Christian radio networks They don't care about theology Well, there's many radio stations, dr.

White that does have a Doctrinal statement and when you have people on yeah, when you have people on that opposes your doctrinal statement

It's an oxymoron to have them on your radio program. Yeah, I hate to be the realist and the skeptic here, but I know the situation in a lot not all not all been a lot of Christian radio and You know how you define orthodoxy in Christian radio today?

My an invoice marked paid That is the mark of orthodoxy in Christian radio today for most stations

Yes, we can't take that for everybody though. And I know you know that because I don't I shouldn't there was one group

I'll even tell you who they are. I don't have a problem American Family Radio. What do you allow? Mr. Dark to air?

An orthodoxy There's a group that takes a stand on the Word of God, right?

Well, there you go, but they're they're not the big boys they're not the ones with the The huge stations in the major markets that you know, that's that's where a lot of that's coming from I you know, it's it's just a sad reality that we deal with so you had a specific situation you want to mention

Yes, I was calling rich just to let him know but then he put me on the air. Let's talk about it

I'm concerned about a gentleman and I'll just give you just a little background I don't want to go into real deeply yet.

Is that I was researching sprinting groups of the way International. Mm -hmm.

And one of their largest website is Courtright dot org and they'll tell you about their believers

They like to use our terms all over the world. You can find people in Africa China, South Asia, you name it

Well long story short. I had an email back from a gentleman Who says that he's the pastor of a

Baptist Church in Maryland? And I found his name on two

Sprinter groups of the way international and when I emailed him I asked him Quote do you teach and believe in a deity of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the

Trinity? He wrote back and asked me why I'm asking these questions

He basically rebuked me if you will which is common to attack the messenger So I emailed him back and said the reason

I'm concerned is that I found your name on two websites that deny the deity of Jesus Christ and The doctrine of the

Blessed Trinity and that's the last time I heard from him Hmm. Now, let me give an update.

Please. I just sent a fax to dr. Albert Muller Dr. Muller is on the board to Salem communications and Salem owns

Zulon publishing One of these cult groups on this web page has a gentleman who wrote a book denying the deity of Christ Denying the doctrine of Trinity and his book was published by Zulon Now this pastor in Maryland is also on his website.

I think it's pretty clear. Dr That this guy who's pastoring a Southern Baptist Church is not holding to the historic

Christian faith or the Baptist faith and mission That would be almost like me meeting you at the grocery store and saying hey, dr.

White you believe in a deity president Trinity. Well, um Well, what why are you attacking me?

So I did not know that Salem owned Zulon press that they are they are part of Zulon.

That is correct And matter of fact, they are Salem owns christianity .com

and when I was on that website two years ago looking and Discussing some things with people and looking for information on Jesus.

I noticed a Way splinter group on that web page right in front of campus crusade.

Mm -hmm And I thought well, this is quite bizarre Yeah, I called to Salem and the girl was very nice and she dropped this

Website the next day. Hmm, and it boils down to dr. White is discernment.

Oh There's no question about that and unfortunately since so much of everything you're talking about the quote -unquote

Christian media and radio stations are utterly disconnected from Sound local churches and then let's face it

Here's where theology matters again Who do you contact in regards to a quote -unquote

Southern Baptist pastor Who is an Orthodox in his theology and yet because of The the fact that there are not there's not a plurality of elders in the vast majority of those churches.

There's no Authority structure to go to to say hey, you've got a problem here

And you're left you're left with a real difficulty so well, we appreciate appreciate that Jim Sorry that I threw you on the air there.

I guess you weren't expecting that but Rich started typing the name and I said well, let's hey before I I don't want to break up what my topic is here

So let's go ahead of if you know and throw them on there. So congratulations you got thrown

I appreciate it. Thank you so much for your ministry all these years Yes, indeed. I appreciate it.

Thank you, sir. Okay. All right. God bless you. Bye now. Yeah, it has been many years I don't remember when we first heard from from Jim Kieferdorf, but it's been way way way way way way way back there

Probably longer than either here. I would like What's that? I can't hear you you 15 years about 15 years.

I've been hearing from Jim. Okay 15 years. Well, there you go That's great. All right, let's let's get to to this

I was I saw an apologetics website www .alwaysbeready .com

Nice name that includes in its links a section on Calvinism and so as I look to the site it seemed to be very heavily oriented toward the largest non -denominational domination

That is Calvary Chapel So I was hardly shocked to see that there are basically two sources of its information on Calvinism guess what they are yes,

Norman Geisler and George Bryson So given how thoroughly both of those sources have been reviewed here on the dividing line

You would think an apologetic site would have some kind of material interacting with such criticism, but alas as normal Nothing was listed

So once again, we see the vast difference between the proponents of reform theology and those who promote a synergistic man -centered system

One side is open to dialogue debate comparison interaction the other side Well just plain isn't and by the way, by the way,

I did forget announcement really quickly on Thursday I'll mention as the end of the program to Lord willing haven't gotten verification of this but on Thursday, hopefully

I will have a special guest Sam Shamoon from Chicago And we are going to be discussing Zaynab bint jash

I'm watching my studio audience and so far I have completely blank stares coming back at me

Zaynab bint jash Zaynab was one of the wives of Muhammad the divorced wife of his adopted son

Zayd and The whole story of how that took place resulted in the destruction of adoption in Islamic society

There are certain ayah in in surah 33 that were quote -unquote revealed in Regards to Muhammad's marriage to Zaynab and I think it's extremely important.

It's it's one of the few places We've got some historical knowledge of the backgrounds of the Quran and it certainly makes a person think twice before they believe that the

Quran was written in Arabic from eternity past and Was simply quoted out to Muhammad in light of what happens with Zaynab bint jash

So hopefully Lord willing on Thursday haven't confirmed this yet The Lord willing a Sam will be joining me on Thursday and we will be discussing

Zaynab bint jash so I can tell you But I wish you would be because it's it's an important an important subject indeed so anyway

Back to the subject of George Bryson when I saw George's materials being referenced there in The always be ready calm website

I Was reminded of the fact that just last week I saw a series on A certain website.

Let's see. What was that website biblical thought calm calm In the blog there was some comments on George Bryson cross -examined by James White on John 644 in the comment thread and George ended up there and and this has happened a few times over the past few years

George seems to feel That he has come up with the answer to the questions that I asked him during the cross -examination

Period that has become rather famous on YouTube One of my most often viewed videos on YouTube is the cross -examination of George Bryson now interestingly enough

Somewhere in here. He says I wonder why he doesn't show his own cross -examination. We make the whole thing available It's amazing when you when you provide one section if you don't provide all sections somehow you're hiding something even though You make it available the neighbor.

I can watch the whole thing it makes you know really no sense whatsoever but Let's let's listen to Let's just get the context here for those who haven't seen it.

It is available to watch on on My youtube page which by the way as of yesterday and now has over 1 .5

million video views Whoo -hoo 1 .5 million heading for two.

There you go There are of course single videos on YouTube that have a lot more than that But hey, it is a reformed apologetics website.

Okay, so there is a sort of niche group there, but let's let's listen to The cross -examination with George, so we've got some background upon which to read his his comments here

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 sent 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 are 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 verse 44 says No one could 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 verse 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 it earlier says he must see and believe

So there is so you believe that that the hymn 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 in faith 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's right But but it does not say he is enabled says

Unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up in the last day the drawing Results in being that is not what it says

It says that no one can come to me and almost all Calvinist commentary say the can is enabling

It is not inevitable that you will come it's an enabling Could you name one that confuses ability with enabling

Ability and enablement because the same you mentioned my own book. I never said anything about Enablement has 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 is given to him.

Okay, all I Didn't understand that and according to verse 37 all the father gives me will come to me

Who who is given by the father to the son those who believe? Not unbelievers, but believers.

Would you agree with that? So God gives both those that he foresees will believe to 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 for believer?

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 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 a lot of temporal priority here between the father giving and people coming

All the father gives you will come to me. That's right All that I give ten dollars to will buy books at stand to reason

Yeah, which 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 on this isn't going to change that you had

Said earlier that the Calvinist position is is that Christ's blood is worthless to all but the elect.

Okay, that was At that point my decision was I had made that as clear as as he was going to allow it to be clear and that in essence anybody who could even begin to figure out what in the world he was saying and Given that he would not see with the obvious fact that the giving of the father results in coming to the son

And that at one point he'd say coming and believing in the same thing and then later he clearly distinguishes between them and uses them different ways

It was it was obvious. What was what was going on there? So There was the conversation evidently this has been posted so many times so many places that George has decided that he's he's come up with an answer for that and we will look at that in a moment

We're gonna skip our break today And one of the calls that we have on the line is is about the

Website that I mentioned earlier, so we'll go ahead and sneak it in here before we go back to George and let's talk with Robert up in Detroit.

Hi Robert. How are you? Doing pretty good. So you're familiar with the always be ready calm website.

Yes, sir. He's the Charlie Campbell's ministry is the champion apologist for the

Calvary Chapel movement Well, anyways, I used to go to church with him before his ministry took off he was a pastor at Same church as George Bryson goes to also, by the way

And which is which is what which is where Calvary Chapel in Vista, California Vista, okay.

Yes, sir, and well when I Came across your ministry when

I was a good Calvary Chapel light and anytime I heard a reformed argument I just quoted

John 316 Adam before that I I was just beginning to Really start thinking critically about some of the things you were saying with reformed theology

And I mentioned him to you because his ministry was really starting to take off I said are you familiar with this apologist

James White? He said yeah, I like his work and I said well He's a Calvinist and he his responses basically.

Well, you know, he's got other stuff. That's really great You just got to look past that and it doesn't really affect his other work.

Well now that I know your work better. I realized that Thanks, everything everything everywhere you come for us.

Mm -hmm. And so I thought you might find that kind of yeah. Yeah. Yeah Oh, I realize there's a lot of folks

And I've seen this at debates. I I remember when I debated Hams Abdul Malik we had these three little

Catholic ladies sitting right down front and I found it odd that they would come to my debate when

Just a few days either earlier or after I forget which one it was I'd be debating a Roman Catholic apologist and they'd be sitting down front but rooting for the guy but they recognize that well our guys aren't doing this with Muslims, so and Generally what you'd be saying we would agree with and I think a lot of times even when

I say things They wouldn't agree with they just sort of reinterpret it in there through their own grid at that point as you just said look past Those things and generally don't see how

Holistic my theology at least I try to have my theology to be and and hence miss a lot of the emphasis that I'm actually that I'm actually making but yeah,

I had seen that name on the website and You know, I I looked it has an announcement for this this big huge Apologetics conference in Southern, California in November with Geisler and Ron Rhoades and I think

Ergon Kanner is going to be there and I think William Lane Craig and and all the big boys, but you notice

I don't get invitations Yeah No, I would love to have debates with a number of them, but Yeah, no, it doesn't

I don't get invitations even to come do debates. It's a shame. I don't know Yeah, if you look at his book list, he's got your favorites on there

He's got a the five points wait and found one. Oh, yeah for free and All that good stuff on there, but I actually emailed him about his poor

Resources for reformed theology and Only change I've seen is that he added

Ergon Kanner's why I'm predestined not to be a hyper covenant and that really improves

All right, you sir, I appreciate the information Yeah, throwing

Ergon Kanner on there really really helps a lot anyway, let's let's look at what George is saying in response to that that video now, let's see if we can figure out because Figuring out where George's come from on that figure out where anybody's coming from when they try to deal with John sex

When they don't believe it They just don't believe it that they believe their traditions more strongly they believe the text

I mentioned last week when I did the debate with Roger Forster when you hear it on unbelievable probably next weekend,

I would assume You're gonna hear again John six could come up and they're just gonna jump all over the place

They're gonna leap out of John six. They're gonna read it backwards. They're gonna do all the kinds of circus antique

X is a Jesus that you have to do to get around John six You just can't walk through this thing point by point and have it teach where what you want it to teach.

So That's just that's just the way that that works. So let's let's look at here at at what?

George had to had to say he says a

Person must be drawn which is what God does for us and he must believe which is what

God enables us to do for ourselves So my question would be does

God enable all men to believe equally Is this some kind of prevenient grace position?

Where does where does George derive this especially from John chapter 6? I I don't see anything in John chapter 6 that Makes any reference to this.

In fact, Jesus has just said but you do not believe you are unbelievers

Here's why all that the Father gives me will come to me Which is the exact opposite point that is this being made by?

George Bryson He says Calvinist and non -Calvinists agree that there are many who do not and will never believe in Jesus Christ Okay Well, there are non -Calvinists or universalists who wouldn't agree with that, but we'll leave that side

Calvinists and non -Calvinists agree that those who never believe will forever be lost

Again, leaving off the universalist true Calvinism says however, here's the question that the reprobate do not believe and will not believe because they cannot believe

Now that's close, but not quite It is not because they cannot believe it is because they do not belong to God which results in Due to their fallen state and slavery to sin their inability now

George may not like that But that is the direct teaching of the

Lord Jesus Look at John chapter 8 When when Jesus speaks to the unbelievers people who had believed in him, but it was a false faith

It was not a continuing faith John 8 43 Why do you not understand what

I am saying? It is because you cannot hear my word. They have an inability

They cannot hear Jesus's word why John 8 47

He who is of God Hears the words of God for this reason you do not hear

Because you are not of God Now that's not

George's position George's position would have been something along this way Why do you not understand what

I am saying is because you choose not to hear my word he who? Chooses to be of God.

Here's the words of God for this reason You do not hear them because you do not choose to be of God That's the that's the

George Bryson rendition of John chapter 8 But that's not what John wrote

Jesus did not Jesus said they do not hear his words because You are not of God Now who decides who is of God?

Well, he would say well we do we choose The operational factor in Jesus teaching is

God the operational fact in George's teaching is the sinner God centered versus man centered the dividing line remains the same

And then he quoted my words to Dave Hunt on John chapter 6 verse 44

And this is what I said to Dave Hunt in John 6 44 the key passage regarding drawing We read no one could come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I'll raise him up in the last day

This is a single sentence in Greek. We have Hokusai out on Kago Anesto out on and a eschate

Hemera the direct object of the action of the father's drawing is the first out on him a

Grand total of two words separate the first him from the second appearance of the same term and I will raise him up on the last day

Now you're telling us that this is a different him a different group of people That in fact, there are many who are drawn who will not be raised up You are telling us the father draws millions to Christ But they do not experience the last phrase of this single sentence and upon what basis you don't tell us

Surely you can do so. What is the basis? Mr. Hunt? There is no exegetical connection outside of your own theology that says that and Then he goes on to say in effect, here's what white is saying

Because there are only two words between the first him and the second him of John 644

What happens the second him must happen to the first him and in fact the first him the second him must be the same him

Well, yeah, basically when you have a single referent in the context and there is nothing in the context that Distinguishes between the two pronouns the burden lies upon the person who is differentiating them to prove his point

It cannot be simply assumed which is exactly what Dave Hunt George Bryson Norman Geisler William Lane Craig Eric and Canter, etc, etc, etc

Assume I've never seen a one of them Attempt to exegetically prove that from the text, but they assume it that there is a different audience one audience is drawn a

Different audience is raised up to the last day Jesus used one word Unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day

So if you're gonna say those are two different groups one groups bigger than the other then you're gonna have to provide some evidence from the text for your position and If you jump off someplace else, then you're demonstrating that you are not doing exegesis.

I continue with him White's argument is misleading in part because it misrepresents hunts argument

To say as hunt does that all are drawn which we know to be true from John 12 32

And that all those will be raised up will have been drawn which we know to be true from John 644 is

Not the same as to say that the first him the second him referred to a different him. No, that's exactly what it means

First of all, notice what he does as with almost all these folks. They can't stay in John 6

They can't do exegesis in order in which the writer wrote these things

They have to leap out of John 6 someplace else misinterpret a text in John 12, which is about the

Greeks coming to Jesus and Ignore its context come up with an interpretation based on it.

That is that is Individualistic every individual it will be drawn to the cross and we know that's directly opposite of what the

Bible itself teaches about the nature Of the cross the cross is is repulsive to those who are not chosen That's what

Paul said. So you interpret John 12 32 So it contradicts Paul in first Corinthians 1 you create a contradiction in Scripture But ignore that and then draw you take that universalism and bring it back to a previous incident

So the people who originally heard Jesus words would have no clue what he was talking about Because John 12 wouldn't have happened yet.

The original writer is convicted of confusion and misleading as readers because they wouldn't have any idea of knowing this yet until later on and You cram it in there and say see everyone

Every person is drawn John 12 32. That's the Manhandling of the text of Scripture that is absolutely necessary for the

Arminian to survive. So you do that and Then you take the fact that all

All those who will be raised up will have been drawn Well, yes, but that's going backwards, too

The fact is all that the father draws Jesus raises up So if you if you actually allow language to function as language where you start at the beginning and read through to the end

Which these folks cannot do And we've documented so many times Norm Geisler and all these other folks

Who read this text backwards because they have to because their traditions their theology is unbiblical

And so it it causes problems when you actually try to read it in a biblical sense so you have to mess things up and so you put all these things together and Then he says it's not the same as to say that the first him the second him refer to a different him

Well, of course they do if you have people who are drawn by the father Who are not raised up by the son?

You're saying that the scope of the father's drawing is different than the scope of the son's accomplishment of salvation that's what you're saying and The whole point in John 6 is that the father and the son remember this continues from out of John 5

What was the point of John 5 I and the father what the father does I do there's perfect harmony between us

That's going to continue all the way into John 10 I and the father are one and bring about the salvation of God's people these folks are actually willing to disrupt the very testimony to the unity of the

Godhead because of their zeal for libertarian autonomous free will that's where these folks are willing to go and it's

They may not know that maybe let's face it in the vast majority of churches people never raise these issues

They never push for this level of consistency But that's what they're doing So he goes on to say

John 6 44 does not say That some of the drawn will not be lifted up ie saved and does not need to That is said elsewhere and clearly implied in John 12 32

Thus the first and the second hymn can be one the same hymn without saying what white says or suggests. I'm sorry

But that's just an incoherent That that is that is babbling there. There's there's

What? So again, you go make John 12 32 contradictory first Corinthians chapter 1 you ignore the context of John 12 32

You misinterpret it and then import that backwards into John 6 and on the basis of that say well

We know that there are gonna be people who are drawn who aren't gonna be saved Which might give you an indication that your understanding of John 12 is wrong

But no, no, no, no, my mind saying John 12 is perfectly right. I don't care about this Greek stuff

I don't care that the Greeks had come to Jesus and Jesus doesn't even speak to them. I Know no, no,

I don't care about that. I don't care about the context that the all men there is Jews and Greeks No, no, no, no, no,

I don't I don't care how obvious that is in the context I want universalism there and so I'm gonna take it and I'm gonna rip it out of John 12 and I'm gonna stuff it into John 6 and Try to get away from the text by reading things backwards.

And that's what George Bryson does And that's what Norm Geisler does and Eric and Cantor does and so on and so forth.

It's manhandling in the text So I didn't misrepresent Dave at all.

So he goes on to say that is just because John 6 44 does not say that all will be raised

I'm sorry, just because John 6 44 does not say that all will be drawn Does not mean that it says or suggests that all that will be drawn will be raised up ie saved

Since John 12 32 does say all will be drawn because in fact Christ was lifted up from the earth and because in fact not all will be saved as white agrees then scripture contradicts white and Does at least imply you can be drawn but not saved?

Okay, so here we go. You can't stay in John 6. You've got to misinterpret

John 12 important backwards to get around John 6 That's that's the the isogetes way to demonstrate the fallacy of white's interpretation of John 6 44

Let us consider another issue suppose I was to say God is love Well how shocking that would be now suppose someone argues that since I say

God is love. I must also say that love is God The second affirmation that is not true does not follow from the first affirmation.

That is true again Suppose I were to say that the sky is blue Someone then suggests I believe blue is the sky that would of course be silly

What is silly is this entire example, which has absolutely positively nothing to do with the subject and If mr.

Bryson knew any Greek he would know that you cannot say love is God Because in the original language

God has the article love does not therefore God is the subject love is the predicate nominative and they cannot be exchanged with one another

And that is basic first -year Greek knowledge That I don't know why George Bryson doesn't have it given what he does, but evidently he does not so Entire point completely wrong.

I would love to have heard him raise that one in the debate Even so going back to quoting him even so just because I say a man must be drawn to come to Christ is not to Say that all who are drawn must come which is simply going back to the whole point that he distinguishes between The work of the

Father and the Son in John 6 44 and has no basis in the text to do

So none zero zip nada This is this is what happens when you have someone who is so wedded to their tradition that they will not be corrected by the text

Something's got to give and either the integrity of the text will give way to tradition, which is what you've got right here

You've now got the clear results of grammar being thrown out the window in this favor of tradition or your traditions

Will give in to the authority of the text of Scripture But to do that, you'd actually have to abandon those traditions

To say it does white has to engage in eisegesis and commit a very basic logical fallacy, which we haven't seen any

Documentation of we've seen just the opposite. Thus. The problem is not with Hunt's exegesis, but with white's eisegesis

That is it is not that hunt refuses to see what is in John 6 44 But that white sees what is not in 644 while closing his eyes.

So it is in John 12 32 in Response to my own handling this portion of Scripture in the dark side of Calvinism white says though George Bryson directly quotes numerous

Calvinists all of whom point the same textual issues Especially the fact that John 644 says all says all those who are drawn are also raised up His tradition is so thick and so impenetrable that he continuously misses the point.

In fact, he can go on to make these claims the page 126 And I'm again since it's a text box it's hard to see if this was a

Quote or just just what it is here only in the imagination of a committed Calvinist Do we see that all who are drawn by the father?

Can come to Christ or believe in Christ only imagination of the committed Calvinist? Do we see that being drawn by the father means that one the one drawn must come to Christ only imagination the committed

Calvinist? Do we see that those who do not come to Christ were not drawn while white quotes me accurately?

He clearly does not accurately understand what he quotes for white goes on to say I Invite the reader to review

John 637 to 44 for a tremendous example the power of tradition displayed in these incredible statements It is my committed

Calvin Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that those given by the father and those drawn by the father are the same group?

Is it just my Calvinist imagination that the him who is drawn in 644 is the him who is raised up? another plain textual fact

Bryson ignores White is so convinced that Calvinism provides the only possible explanation to anything.

Well, not to anything but to John 6 That he finds it difficult not impossible even grasp the argument refuting his position

It is one thing to disagree with someone else's view We all do it is another thing to be unable to even see what the other point of view is saying

I see clearly I saw clearly in the debate what he's saying He's the one who evidently because of his tradition and his ignorance of the original languages doesn't see what he's doing to the text

That's that's obvious Suppose I was like 50 people to a celebration in my home

Suppose also that I was to say that only those people I invite to my home the 50 would be allowed into my home

Would it fall that since I invite all 50 to my home that all 50 will take me up on my invitation? Now notice the difference here between invitation and what's going on in John 6 to draw is an active thing it's something

God accomplishes to invite is different to draw than to draw and Besides that all that the father gives me will come to me

There's the will come it's right there in the text George doesn't see these things who is who is blind here by their tradition

I would suggest to you that it is it is George Bryson Well, there's a lot more that I wanted to get to there and maybe

I will but we've seen the fundamental error in Bryson's comments here and we've got another caller.

I need to get to and he's been waiting for a while. So but there's Everyone's while he pops up and then as soon as you try to engage him

I didn't I didn't see this one until I saw a further comment down the road I'm head to Russia now. Bye and and this is what happens.

He disappears and as I've said many times we've tried to arrange on the debate and There's been all sorts of stuff about well, but I'm not gonna have cross -examination.

I'm not I'm not gonna allow cross -examination blah blah blah And it's like well we see why The only way your position can survive is if it is not probed for consistency

And that's where the wheels fell off badly in the debate in 2002 and that's where they would fall off again because if this is all he's come up with Not very difficult to see through it.

Not very difficult to demonstrate its errors in what it says. Let's head out to Conyers, Georgia real quickly and talk to Harold.

Hi Harold. Hi, Dr. White. How are you doing? Good? Thank you very much for your commentary on on that whole debate there

I found that incredible how he would just dodge everything but well, but it's all he can do. I mean, I've honestly tried to find

Scholarly interpretations of John 6 that start at the beginning and walk through to the end. I can't find any

The only way around John 6 is either to adopt radical hermeneutics. There's this one guy pristine truth

Restoration society or something it comes up with some radical dispensationalism that he slaps on top of it So it's not relevant anymore blah blah blah, but if you simply allow the text to speak for itself it there's no way around it

So anyway, yeah Convinced against this will will be at the same opinion still

Indeed, but I did actually call up specifically with a question about John I'm excuse me,

John first Timothy 4 10 and the statement that for it is

For it is for this we labor and strive because we have fixed our hope on the

Living God Who is the Savior of all men? Especially of believers and the reason

I'm calling and asking you questions because I have heard recently an interpretation that would say that Basically, he

God is the Savior of all men in the sense that Good effects from the cross are generally given to people now

I am a Calvinist and the individual heard this from what the kid is a Calvinist But he believes that this simply means that God is in a sense a helper of all men and especially of believers because the the helping of the cross to all men would be in a sense of well

Christians go out and we spread literacy and and hospitals and Humanity, I mean and so but it's especially of believers that he's the

Savior because basically, well Well their benefit runs out at death and and ours is yeah more than doubly

Yeah, have you you haven't gotten the new edition of the Potter's freedom yet? Okay, there's in part of the 32 extra pages in the new edition of the

Potter's freedom beginning on page 365 The Savior of all people but in particular of believers is a discussion of first Timothy 410 it goes to 370

So there's about five pages there I'll just read the the one section. It's very lengthy section

Hopefully I can get it in before the program ends, but we need to go a minute or two what we'll go there, but George W Knight the third in his

Commentary on first Timothy and I quote a number including Armenian scholars in this section, which actually is somewhat helpful

Marshall and Towner Well, in fact, let me just give you Marshall in town right now because they're not reformed. They are they're very much non reformed

Adoption of the traditional translation of Malista as especially

Leads to some strained exegesis. The usual solution is to distinguish between the all to whom salvation is offered and the believers who accept the offer

Kelly distinguishes between believers who have assurance of salvation others who may obtain salvation Easton, etc

Is forced to regard the phrase as addition to original formula these problems disappear if we accept the other possible

Translation to be quote to be precise namely I mean all is thus limited here to believers

And that is expanded much better I think by a doctor Knight and I'll try to make this as clear as I can

The assumption of the previous clause is now made explicit We hope in living God as the one who is the

Savior of all men Although the phrase Savior of all men occurs only here in the New Testament The concept has been set forth early in first Timothy in nearly identical words

Here is in 2 1 through 7 the phrase all men designates all sorts of people Savior means and I'm what

I'm doing I'm translating the Greek and English as I'm going along here a Savior means Savior in the soteriological sense that it has

Elsewhere in first Timothy in the Pauline epistles the focus on the promise of life Both now and which will be and on the hope set upon the

Living God demands that understanding of that understanding of Savior here But to understand Savior of all men in the sense that all people are actually and surely saved

Would be contrary to Paul's teaching elsewhere since Paul clearly regards some people as bearing God's retribution and punishment in the penalty of eternal destruction

Thus another understanding has been suggested in connection with all and that is that Savior is used in the broadest sense as preserver and giver of life for all people and then in addition to that as Savior in the spiritual sense for believers, which

I think is sort of what you were suggesting there Would that be close to how you what you were expressing as far as your position?

Yeah, yeah kind of and The but taking that word malice as Being like namely instead of especially that would be based on extra biblical example

Yeah, let me let yeah, let me get that for just a moment I was just want to make sure that was similar to what you were saying Oh, yeah It says the phrase malice to Pistone Contains the one qualification that Paul in the

New Testament always posit for receiving God's salvation I eat trusting God as the only Savior absolute

Pistone as used here and elsewhere in the New Testament Refers to those who believe in Christ ie Christian believers

Believers believes believers Has usually been rendered Okay, here we go

Malice to has usually been rendered especially in regard as in some way distinguishing that which follows it from what that which goes before it skeet and especially the parchments argues persuasively that Malista in some cases 2nd

Timothy 413 Titus 1 10 and 11 and here Should be understood as providing a further definition or identification of that which precedes it and thus renders it by such words as that is

He cites several examples from papyrus letters that would seem to require this sense and that would in their particular cases

Rule out the otherwise legitimate alternate sense if his proposals correct here Which seems most likely than the phrase malice to Pistone should be rendered that is believers this understanding is also in line with Paul's assertion that all sorts and conditions of people are in Christ even at times using

Pontus and With his insistence in those contexts that all such are in Christ and have salvation by faith

So that's night and then I quote mounts and then I quote the others You'll find five pages there in the new edition of the potter's freedom in the back of the book

That would give you those citations. I look very much forward to getting that Getting the new edition then.

All righty. I appreciate the call. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Have a good day. God bless. Bye. Bye All righty, that'll do it for the dividing line today.

Thank you very much for listening Like I said, I haven't been able to verify yet, but hopefully this coming

Thursday, I'll be joined by Sam Shamoon and we'll be talking about Zainab bin Josh and the

Quran and the history of the Quran and the giving of the Quran and adoption in Islamic countries and all sorts of Important things like that here on the dividing line

Lord willing you'll tune in then. We'll see you then God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at six. Oh two nine, seven three four six zero two or write us at PO box

Three seven one zero six Phoenix, Arizona eight five zero six nine. 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