Hijacking the Scriptures Part IV: The Romans 9 Debate - Rightly Dividing the Word?

And good morning, welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is Rich Pierce, and I've got about three computers going here

I'm trying to control an Apple one at the moment here and try to figure out where the volume is

And there it is. Oh, let's bring it on down and We're gonna bring that to a quiet nice little fade there.

How nice and welcome to the show If you don't know me My name is

Rich Pierce as I said, and I am the president of Alpha Omega Ministries I don't do this very often but last

January I Began a series when James was out of town reviewing the

Romans 9 debate from last May Going through well what was supposed to be

Romans 9 and I did what was called what I called a remix where I kind of swapped things around and had

The second debater go first in their opening and then walk through that and then followed through actually

Paired them up I did it in that particular order But actually broke it down by the sections of the passage that they were covering in the way that they were covering it

I thought it was a really interesting way of approaching a debate but today

I'm gonna be beginning a the next section of this

Presentation and I as I'm doing things here I am trying to make sure that I have all my technology right because I'm engineering the show both video and audio and All of the things going along with it here

With you today, and that is one of the things I'm wanting to make sure I have all my ducks in a row here as We begin to dig into this so if you're looking at me looking around I've got three different mice or trackballs over here controlling three different computers that I've got queued up here and It was interesting

I thought about the fact that I've got to actually start the show from the other side of the wall and come through the door with an open mic

Now, how do you do that? When all you have is what's called a cough drop. It's actually a button you have to push and That keeps you from you know, if I have to cough which my timing has already been bad

And I thought how am I going to close that door with a open mic and then

I realized you know There's things called paperweights Just put them on the button and they held it down interesting things that Fascinate me.

I don't know if they fascinate anyone else. But anyway, that's how I think that's how I function I I notice things like that Anyway the plan here today is to begin the cross -examination

Section of this debate again a little bit more about me I'm currently attending King's Church over with John Samson who you saw do the previous two shows

I am teaching the Wednesday nights over King's Church. We're a very small church at this point we're pretty much just a startup, but we are growing and The Lord is blessing our work and we meet at the

Palace Verde's Facility just south of 80s just south of Union Hills on 87th

Avenue up in Northwest Peoria And we would certainly love to have you join us on Sunday.

Our services begin at 11 a .m. And we kind of gather start gathering about 1030 for a little fellowship before the service and And as we grow

I think we'll be able to incorporate a Sunday school into the equation as well as other more commonly known

Well established things that things that well -established churches do and But at this point we're in the process of growing

So with that out of the way, I want to reiterate a couple of things about Romans 9, which was the focus of this particular

Event this debate and the idea was that both debaters were supposed to come in make a presentation exegete

Romans chapter 9 they're supposed to walk through it and they're supposed to comment on it as they walk through it and Exegesis is a verse -by -verse process it is the is the extrapolation of information as you go through the text and I Believe without a doubt

I proved in the previous few programs that I did One debater did that and the other debater ran as far away from that as he possibly could

Now On Tuesday at the end of the show or at the beginning of the show I made the comment that I'm going to prove that the reason why

I say Layton flowers is not listening and is not interested in listening and This is why

I use the some people feel it's harsh But I you know, there are some people in this world that they're like talking to a brick wall

They're just not interested in hearing what you have to say They just aren't but they want you to hear what they have to say and you better listen and even if they're just misinformed and so Again, that was the way in which

I laid the program out to begin with here. I am using dr White's Mac and I am using my

Windows 10 machine here. So I need to keep an eye on the time as I you know, be a good steward of time

Just like you're supposed to do in a debate Remember the Apostle Paul wrote like a lawyer making an airtight case

He built he his writing style is to build element upon element. It's a detailed thread writing with precision each point is connected to what came before and the

Book of Romans is Rightly known as the gospel according to Paul now in the

Previous Comments that I made on this in the previous programs I did I took I wanted to separate the method

I wanted to focus on the method and separate the topic out So that we don't get hung up on the

Calvinism issue. That is the topic of the debate yes, but I wanted you to look and take a look at the the the manner of the handling of Scripture is

The debater rightly dividing the word of truth as he's handling this and they the simple act of contextual reading is what was at play and in order to properly understand the text at hand you must first Establish the text itself

Before you can go off into anything else related. You have to understand what this is saying right here

Whatever that is whether we're in Colossians chapter 1 and we're talking to a Jehovah's Witness Whether we're in John 1 1

Talking to a Jehovah's Witness Context matters. We must first establish the text now the debate structure as I've dug into this portion of the debate

I I'm now convinced that the the debate structure in the way they laid it out while it was inventive

It was unique. It was unusual. It was a mistake and The reason that it was a mistake that I believe was a mistake is that as We dig into this this first section that we're going through Dr.

White has no idea what professor Flowers is going to say in his opening remarks So as the cross -examination section that comes next you have dr.

White who simply walked through the text Now we have cross -examination of professor

Flowers crosses cross -examining. Dr. White on his text But there are questions that are going to be asked here that dr.

White has Pretty much no idea. What is coming next as Professor Flowers does his opening remarks.

He is oblivious to the fact that Professor Flowers ran away from the text.

He just We're gone he he did the the hopscotch he did hopscotch if I didn't define that in the last one theological hopscotch picture the hopscotch pattern on the sidewalk and the idea is is that you're supposed to jump with one foot two foot out to fit in one foot and and you're bouncing all over the place as You're going through the text and that is what professor

Flowers did in his opening remarks But dr. White doesn't know that yet. So as we get into this cross -examination section

You need to recognize that he is at a disadvantage in that regard

The structure of debate I want to remind you you have the opening remarks the point in Doing opening remarks as you are supposed.

This is where you make your case Time is limited and supposed to be limited. So you got to make it count

Now as we get into cross -examination that's coming later the next section is usually rebuttal and the idea behind the rebuttal is you're supposed to be responding to your opponent's opening statement

So as your opening statement is laid out you've made your case you have a limited time to do it

So you make that count and then the other guy is supposed to interact with what you said now He can bring in new information

Into this if you make a comment or if you make a point in your opening statement and you've written a book that Completely contradicts what you just said your opponent

This is where your opponent would bring that information in and then hold your feet to the fire on it Say wait a minute.

You just said this this and this but in your book over here You actually said this and you contradicted yourself or something like that.

This is the kind of new information But it again is supposed to be interactive is supposed to address what your opponent had to say now the cross -examination

Section is where the debate really happens cross -examination is

Where you can directly inquire of your opponent the things that he said in his opening and in his rebuttal

The problem here is in this case, they had professor flower. They had dr. White go first then professor flowers cross -examines the opening

Then professor flowers gives his opening and then dr. White cross -examines that opening and by this point in time cross -examination has occurred without any rebuttal and This is where I think the mistake was made.

I think in this particular case It may have gone a very different direction had

Professor flowers gotten up and had to face a rebuttal Directly after he gives his opening statement.

I Think it would have been a different scenario, but who knows I am guessing on that go from there so the

The cross -examination inquiring into your opponent's opening and rebuttal this can be very This can vary depending on the order of presentation the structure of this debate was and I've already covered that so let's move on closing remarks we are probably going to get to that on Tuesday and Hopefully if I don't take all this time rambling on myself right now

The closing remarks are supposed to be your summation of your case. Just like your opening remarks are

Making your case you've now argued your case in rebuttal and in cross -examination And now your closing remarks are supposed to be the summation of your case

No new information is supposed to be entered at this point

So the point would be if your opponent already did his closing statement

You have the last word So the rule is you're not allowed to now suddenly bring in all of this excess information

That hasn't been introduced into the debate yet and dump it on him He has no opportunity to respond

So that's the whole point of no infirm new Information and these events are timed for a reason and that reason is no filibustering

Every bit of this you may sit back and go okay all these academic rules and regulations and process

Why is that such a big deal Rich? It's a big deal because it matters to the audience It is a structure that is designed for the audience to learn something from you if you

Run away from these rules if you run away from this process your audience learns less from you

Than they would have had you held to it. So keep that in mind as we move forward

Now the the first section we're going to go to here and I need to cue a couple of things up here we're going to okay, let's engineer that little shot right there and then stage that shot and We can move forward so I'm gonna play the first clip remember as we get into this

Professor flowers has not yet made his presentation So this is the portion and I am using the professor flowers is posting on YouTube I'm using that recording in this so this clip starts at 20 at the 25 -minute mark in that So if you're watching you want to go back and watch on YouTube the time mark for this is 25 minutes into the presentation and this is the portion that I call pleasantries and let's make sure

I got this right and Let's begin. Well, first of all,

I do want to thank Heath Dr. Marion, thank you for hosting us the Oaks Jason and the crew in the back

They got here several hours early to get things set up Thank y 'all for everything that y 'all done.

Y 'all give the Oaks a hand and thank them for everything And also,

I dr. White welcome to the promised land Texas and a

Calvinistic front of the promised land has a lot of traffic. That's all I can say Had a

Calvinistic friend tell me just this morning he said, you know this debate of yours it proves determinism is true

I said, what do you mean? He said no one would freely choose to debate Romans 9 with dr. White And I I understand that now going through this preparation process

But I do appreciate you doing this and I do think this is an important discussion I do not think

Romans 9 or Ephesians 1 or John 6 or any of these passages should be skipped I think that's been part of the problem.

I think that's one of the reasons that we have Misunderstanding and disagreement within the church is because it has been

So neglected for so long and the reason that we do this I hope we know both know is to glorify

God and I think we both agree with that. It's not about winning points or Making the other look bad, which

I know would be very easy for you to do to me This is my first theological debate But I I honestly and I haven't felt that from you at all in this in this discussion since we haven't started yet Give him time.

Give him time. We have a warm -up yet Okay, so this is the portion I call the pleasantries and the problem with what

Professor Flowers is doing here You may look at and go. Oh, that's it's innocent as all get -out The problem is and you're going to see the contrast when

James comes around to his cross -examination He's gonna go right into the first question

Because in crossings you got 12 minutes You are locked into a period of time

To get it done and you the goal here is to extrapolate as much information out of your opponent as you possibly can this is to be conducted like a lawyer cross examines a witness and So you want you have 12 minutes to get as much information out of your opponent as possible and so you'll notice that James will dig right into his questioning when he gets there and also

You're gonna hear well he said that his He's gonna explain.

I think that's actually coming up that his understanding of the purpose of cross -examination is

Clarity, so I'm gonna point you in the right direction here if he's going to call this clarity

Then I want you to To to listen to how much clarity he brings out let's proceed

But the reason the reason that there is cross -examination and the questions is to bring clarity to each other's

Viewpoints and that's my ultimate goal as a professor as a teacher at heart I want you to understand

Calvinism rightly and I want you to understand my perspective rightly And you're like, what's your title?

What do you call yourself? That's part of the problem We don't have a title really Southern Baptists traditionalists that tradition they don't like traditionalists.

That's for sure And there's a lot of different titles out there. And so I'm a non

Calvinistic Southern Baptist I don't know how else to say that any better but just a few questions with regard to what you were talking about Now I'm gonna put a thing a bookmark in this right here

He is now two minutes and 16 seconds Into His cross -examination time and he hasn't hasn't asked a single question yet on topic or of any kind So the point is he is now down to nine minutes and 45 seconds 44 seconds of his time

To achieve his goal This is why I keep emphasizing and I emphasize in the last series the way you manage the clock is vital in doing this in an effective manner

So the question then has to be asked does he know that I think professor flowers is a smart guy

I Think he does know it and I think as we start to dig into or listen as he proceeds

This is a stalling tactic. I do believe that it's a stalling tactic. He's already taken this much time doing this and The first question hasn't yet been asked

So let's go ahead and get and dig into the very first Question and remember

James hasn't heard anything that professor flowers will present yet So if you went back and listened to the presentation that I gave back in January There there's some things that should red flag your your memories here as you start listening to Certain buzz phrases that he's using as he asks his question

First of all, you believe Paul is teaching that Jacob was chosen for salvation over Esau Isaac over Ishmael and so I want to ask about Abraham's six additional sons that came after Isaac and I'm trying to understand if you believe

They were reprobates for the same reason that Ishmael and Esau were reprobates that God Predetermined them to go to hell before they were born also because they obviously weren't chosen to carry the promise and so I'm what

I want to get what I'm getting to with this question is What I want to understand is do you acknowledge in any way the difference between those descendants chosen to bring the word?

Like Isaac and those who may or may not believe that word like the other brothers, for example

Well, I need to correct the the assumption of the of the of the question Which which was right there at the beginning which

I tried to correct in the opening statements to believe that this text is relevant to individual salvation is not to say that it does not have relevance to other aspects of God's dealings with the people of Israel and therefore the issue of Say the sons of Keturah or whoever else you might have in mind at that particular point in time is not even raised here

Because that's not the point the point to illustrate on Paul's Part is determined by what's in verses 6 or 6 and 7.

Why is it that Israel is? Rejecting her Messiah and the answer to that is that has always happened in the past God has always had his purpose in freely choosing because those individuals are not even brought up.

There is no discussion of what their eternal state was and that there is nothing in what

I said that assigns the meaning of eternal salvation solely to the promises

So if the promise is not brought through you that it does that that means that you're eternally lost

So there Paul doesn't even raise those objections. I don't know if anyone had ever raised them to him but he does not even raise those objections in this in this text and I would say it goes outside the realm of Romans 9 and what it's trying to communicate

There we have it Your question sir is off -topic

It is outside the debate premise But what dr.

White doesn't realize is professor Flowers his entire presentation is going to do that and So he's pointing out number one the questions outside of the text and our focus is on the text

This is where I think he starts to realize That professor

Flowers is going off the rails and He is going to go a whole different Direction now.

I also want to point out watch the interaction here because again Part of cross -examination and this is where cross -examination is difficult

Part of cross -examination is that you ask a question and you get an answer now the question is to be phrased in such a way as to elicit an

Answer that you know, you're going to get they say, you know they tell lawyers in cross -examination never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to and So that's what's going on here you're supposed to be asking a question of your opponent that you already know the answer to so that you're able to steer the

Questioning in a particular direction as your opponent gives you answers that you know how they're going to answer

Now they're not going to answer exactly the way you're going to predict they're going to answer and that's the whole off -the -top -of -the -head

Thing here, that's where this gets difficult and unpredictable so if your answer that comes back is slightly different than you expected you got to make note of that and Like I said earlier the idea and we actually had this happen in a debate

Dr. White did with the atheist a few years back where he objected to dr.

White Introducing and reaching out to a book the man had written where in fact the book said something completely different than what the man was advocating and The irony is the book was for sale out in the narthex of the church that you know at his book table, but The idea is that you're supposed to elicit information and then interact with the answer it goes back and forth

Watch and see if that is what professor flowers does For example lot we know he was declared righteous by Peter We know that he was saved, but he wasn't chosen for the lineage

He wasn't chosen matter of fact. He was a lot like Esau in that his his descendants end up rising up against Israel and attacking them they were cursed, but lot was saved

He wasn't chosen for the promise much like Esau and so what I'm trying to get to is Why do you assume that Esau was chosen for reprobation when?

Lot for example who meets the same criteria. He wasn't chosen to carry the promise He wasn't the lineage, but he obviously was still saved well again as I as I mentioned the text point is to Demonstrate that before the twins had done anything good or bad

God had a specific purpose lot was not involved with that He would not have he would not have been involved with that one way or the other at least as far as lineage is concerned, but the point is that even when there was a natural the

Natural choice should have been Esau. He's he's the older sure God had the freedom to overturn

Even the standard tradition of how the promise was to be passed on and in regards to Jacob and Esau obviously did much more to demonstrate

The reality of his freedom to choose than he did with anyone else and again It seems like you're making the connection that well

The promise is is only about salvation That's that's not that's not the point the point again, and I think this is good.

We need to emphasize this the point in looking at Romans 9 is

God's freedom in the fact that he has Chosen to take the gospel to the

Gentiles and that there has been a Hardening of the people of Israel and that this is not inconsistent with what he has done down through the history of the people of Israel it sounds like you're starting from a

Human perspective and arguing upward from there I'm trying to say that this text starts from God and that we have to reason down from there

And I don't think that the two the two perspectives actually end up lining up which may be why we're here this evening,

I think indeed that is why we're there were there that evening and so is one thing

I want to move back here on my Was latent interactive no, the pre -prepared question just simply moves forward and ignores the previous answer

So whatever you're giving me in the way of an answer in this dialogue I'm gonna just push it aside and ask my next question as I press forward

Even though you just corrected me and told me you're off topic You're not even in the text lots not involved here and So James is now forced to respond lots not involved in this text

He tries to get the focus back to the text again Second attempt he points out that God's freedom is the choice the point of the the text and Man centered reasoning versus God centered reasoning is at the is the issue here

But again, listen as we proceed forward to the for interactivity in the next question

Are we going to keep pressing the issue on lot? Does Layton even follow up?

Does he even hear the answer let's move on to the next section

You and I both agree that verse 6 is key to understanding the entire discourse I think we both agree that God has blessed

Israel by entrusting the very Word of God to come through them I think that's a distinction when what I'm trying to draw between his choice of one brother over the other

The nation is selected for this noble purpose of bringing the world the Messiah and his message

Yet for the most part Israel is now I got to stop there James hasn't had the benefit of the quote noble purpose

Argument yet from the opening statement. So that's where the first mention of the noble purpose in the cross

Examination is however, you will find that James will later on ask him about Noble purpose.

What is this noble cause you keep referring to in your writings? so This will need to get drilled into this will need to get interrogated and he's going to do it

So that's not going to slip away. Let's keep going In direct opposition to their own Messiah and his gospel message, which does obviously lead one to ask has

God's Word failed and I think you and I would agree that the reason the Israelites are standing in opposition to the gospel and rejecting their own

Messiah is Because God is actively Hardening them like the verb you said it's active hardening.

We both agree with that He is as Paul says sending them a spirit of stupor Just as Jesus spoke to them in parables to prevent them from understanding and believing so what

I want you to explain is What you feel is the difference between our views on this particular point because I think we both affirm that God's active

Hardening of the unbelieving Israelites, but you seem to think that's hardening from birth It's a natural condition from birth.

Whereas I obviously believe it's a judicial act of one who is freely rebelled It's a it's a judicial act of Israel Specifically at this time in order to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose yet You seem to assume correct me

You seem to assume it's a natural condition from birth this hardening this inability to hear see understand and turn to God Well, all right.

I'm gonna stop it right there again. I Want you to you need to take notice and even if you rewind and re -listen to professor flowers assumptions in All of the questions that he just laid out he used his buzz phrases that he hasn't even introduced into the debate

So this is front -loading the debate With when with a position that hasn't actually been entered into evidence yet so this is where This was the exchange where I sat back and went wait a minute.

This was a mistake doing it this way because professor flowers is not asking about what dr.

White just did and Genuinely, it's as if he didn't even hear it

He's got his script and this is what he's sticking to and he's going to just simply keep asking these

Questions and it doesn't matter what you said before I'm not even gonna engage you on that So he's front -loading the debate the questions are not about James's presentation instead

Layton's questions are from his own presentation, which actually hasn't happened yet James can't possibly know what late

Layton is asking about because it hasn't yet happened So his answer you'll notice is going to come from the text

Because that's the prophet's perspective on fallen man We have a heart of stone not a heart of flesh the the picture that is drawn is of a valley of dry bones

The the psalmist makes it very clear that from we have gone astray from our mother's breast

We were born altogether in iniquity and sin we can no more do good than the leopard can change its spots

And so this is the consistent testimony. It certainly is how the book of Romans began. There is no

God seeker There is no fear of God before their eyes. This is This is simply that the biblical teaching on the fallenness of man and where I would say that we we disagree with one another again, because of our starting presuppositions is

In this text, it's not an issue of yes There has there is a judicial act of hardening that God does

In regards to making sure that the gospel goes out to the Gentiles. He's chosen a Gentile is even the issue of For example,

Paul says that they will they will hear From a people of strange tongues and he makes the application that this is to make them jealous so on so forth

But one of the one of the things I hear you saying and and sort of putting into your presentation here

Especially even in the few first five verses was this idea of Israel's?

being called to be the mechanism of proclaiming the message of the Messiah and I have a

I have a real problem with that because the whole point of The final verses at the end of chapter 9 is that it had always been

God's intention To take the message to the Gentiles. It had always been

God's intention that You know verse verse 25 I will call those who are not my people my people those who were called low army become army

So all through the Gospels you have these prophecies that this is what God's intention was from the beginning and it sounds to me like you're saying well

God's intention was this and now he's he's changed that and I don't see that that is is actually a sound position to begin from Okay, I don't know why

I clipped that there but again, James is he's trying to get latent to To interact with what's in the text and He even has to Extrapolate things from the question itself as it was framed

Because again, like I said Professor flowers hasn't done his his opening yet.

So let's go ahead and listen to some more Thoreau senior wrote double predestination or equal ultimacy is the view that God works in the same way and in the same manner with respect to the elect and okay,

I This drove me crazy. I Didn't know that R.

C. Sproul was in Romans 9 he's not and and so he's the answer is completely ignored and now we're going to move on from The front -loading of The opening statement that's coming and now we're gonna start introducing things that R.

C. Sproul and Lorraine Botner, I thought I was pronounced at Bettner, but maybe

I was wrong. I Have to say on these things It is becoming and will continue to become more and more apparent that the last place that professor flowers wants to be is in the middle of Romans 9 up to his elbows and And the one place that dr.

White wants to be is in the middle of Romans 9 up to his elbows with it He wants to grapple with it and professor flowers wants to run away from it and it's going to continue.

Here we go bait in the case of the elect regeneration is a monergistic work of God in the case of the reprobate sin and Degradation or a monergistic work of God this clearly makes

God the author of sin Such a view is indeed monstrous assault on the integrity of God. It's not the reformed view of predestination

It's a form of hyper Calvinism a radical form of super lapsarianism Yet you along with several other scholars have argued quote

The Bible is clear that just as God chooses some for mercy and salvation He chooses other others for judicial hardening and reprobation when he loved

Jacob before he was born He also hated Esau at the exact same time Does your teaching on God's active work of mercying as you call it and and then hardening

In verse 18, how does that not meet the radical form of super lapsarianism super lapsarianism as defined by spruel?

What is the difference and be specific if you can well two things? I thought we were focusing on Romans 9

But we can we can leave that if you need to at this point secondly I can guarantee you something knowing

RC Sproul personally. He's on my side of this debate tonight And I think you've misunderstood and I have

I don't know how many times I have I have corrected The concept of equal ultimacy.

I have spoken against it any of you who've listened to my programs know That I speak against equal ultimacy

Which is the idea that the action of predestination unto life is identical to the action of reprobation unto death there is obviously a massive difference between the extension of Divine power and mercy even seeing the incarnation that is necessary for the salvation of God's elect massive difference between that and the

Allowing of an individual to continue in the condemnation that is theirs as fallen sons and daughters of Adam There is no necessity of the extension of divine power to cause that to happen

And in fact, I would say that God restrains that evil That would flow from their heart if it were not for God's sovereign decree that they're only to do certain things

So I think you've misunderstood. Dr. Sproul at that at that point now this exchange

I thought was interesting because Dr. Sproul and the quote and The words the characterization

The professor flowers used as he characterized Dr. White's views is at issue and I think

While dr. White said I think you've misunderstood Sproul there which very well may be the case and flowers actually says well all

I did was quote him as I'm listening to this and I've listened to the section over and over and over I think the point listen to what

James does here He has to explain I have said repeatedly over and over and over all these things and he lists it out

So I think to properly understand the exchange the correction is you've misunderstood me

Perhaps it's both but clearly as dr. White gives his defense the clarification isn't

Sproul said this and Sproul says that it's I have repeatedly said these things so I'm in line with Sproul I Am perfectly in line and either way you go you misunderstand professor flowers

You're you're not understanding it properly and that is the chief point here. Let's uh

Let's see here Now I need to switch yes this

I believe I'm gonna play a little bit more of this But I believe we're about to get a that's it for a professor flowers is time at this time

Yep, there's our little alert on that. So I have this set up where I have this queued up to go over here and a whole oops, sorry about that and For those of you who are seeing me, you know this stuff popping up and popping down.

I'm sorry I I did miss the fact that using QuickTime for this The only way you see the time stamps is if you're hovering which brings all this other extraneous stuff up here and if it doesn't bug you it bugs me,

I don't like it at all, but just a a Technical point along the way here as I'm having to do double duty in doing this so Again, keep watching for interactivity is

James listening to Layton. This is going to begin the next section So professor flowers has now completed his presentation and we're going to go into the next cross examination cross examination section where dr.

White now cross examines Professor flowers and folks. I know it's inside baseball.

I keep pointing this out But if you if you learn anything from this

It's not just about this particular debate if you listen to any debate if you're watching any debate these are things you need to be looking for because the guys doing it know these rules and They know why these rules are important These rules are important for you for your benefit as you're listening to what they're having to say and so when they stray from these rules, for instance,

I I pointed out that It was common in James's Roman Catholic debates often for The The debate opponent

He ran out of time in his opening statement So instead of going to rebuttal, he just keeps doing his opening statement when his rebuttal comes around You're the loser when he does that you now miss out on information that is vital he needed to hone his presentation to fit that opening time and if he couldn't do that he needed to go back and negotiate with his

Debate opponent a longer opening statement time This is why these things are done because you're the ones supposed to benefit from this and so am

I So as we now begin this next section Watch for interactivity is

James listening to Leighton and Leighton's answers and Responding to them or is he just simply moving on to the next question the next question the next question

So, let's go ahead and dig into this section now professor flowers you

Indicated you used the phrase the noble cause a number of times.

In fact in your Podcast on Romans 9 you used it 24 times in just the first podcast

Could you show us the noble cause in in Romans 9? Yes If you look at the two lumps of clay he makes some for noble purposes and some for common

It's a noble purpose that he's made Israel for And what is the noble cause?

To bring the word to the world to bring the Messiah in his message to bring redemption okay, so Just to recap here, and I just grabbed a note a slide from my presentation when we went through his

His presentation the the to capsulize as Best I understand what professor flowers is the case

He's making the noble cause is using temporarily hardened Israel to bring about redemption.

This is God doing this The problem is it is a misleading Extrapolation he plucked this out of thin air the phrase noble cause is lifted from Romans 9 verse 21 in the 1984 version of the

NIV It is in every other translation I could find translated honorable

Pro so from the same lump. There are vessels of honorable use and common use and It is about well, he just confirmed it so that that's

We're gonna continue on here. Okay, and you said that the clay

Represents temporarily hardened Israel Yeah, yes,

I believe he's not representing all of mankind Whenever he's talking about the the lump of clay.

I think he is talking about Specifically Israel at that time because that's what the very original question is that's what we're talking about from the very beginning

He starts off by introducing the question which is You know

I would cut myself off. I would be accursed for these people He's loving them and willing to be accursed for them because they are the people who have been entrusted with the promise

They've been entrusted with the prophets They've been entrusted with the very words of God and if the very people who are entrusted with the very words of God Aren't believing it.

They're standing in opposition to it. It would seem it's failed And so that's the question and so Israel seems as if they failed

Because they're opposing God's Word and what I think Paul is saying is no It's a part of God's plan to harden

Israel at this time so as to accomplish redemption through them So the lump of clay he's referring to is

Hardened Israel that they have been calloused in their hardness now now notice something

Professor flowers has already answered the question the question was about the clay Okay, now this is a basic debate tactic and that is during cross -examination if you want to Restrict how much information you're forced to give out under questioning you delay

You slow your answers down, and yeah, you do need to be thoughtful Okay But then you do this

I Just point out. I think I'm John Stott as well as Leon Morris both Calvinistic Commentators both agree that God never hardens anyone who hasn't hardened themselves first And that's why

I referred to acts 28 because they have grown judicially hardened over time I mean they've grown hard and calloused themselves over time and God is

Giving them over or blinding them in their their condition sending them a spirit of stupor as this text says so as to prevent them

From recognizing their Messiah why because if they recognize their Messiah They're they're not going to crucify him if they if they had the

Peter experience in Acts chapter 2 when 2 ,000 of them come forward and get saved they're not going to crucify him

So so I think that's real important to understand that we have to understand that what Jesus was accomplishing by hardening and cutting off Israel was to make sure the crucifixion came to pass and the engrafting of the

Gentiles because Jews were so biased in that day. They were not going to allow for go ahead. I'm sorry

You're obviously not happy with me continuing well I'd like to get I'd like to get to a few body language.

Well. Yeah, I'll be honest with you I go ahead. I think we need to get to more than one question and get back to Romans 9

So dr. White calls him out on this and he even sees it does he sees the frustration in dr. White's face twice

You could hear dr. White attempt to follow up another question so but instead professor flowers chases a rabbit changes the subject and Forces this the expression of frustration the point is you've already answered the question

Now going off on a rabbit trail Merely wastes your opponent's time and that's why he's frustrated here because again

He recognizes he's on the clock and he needs to get as many questions in as possible in order to achieve

His goal and what is his goal to inform the audience? That's this is why we say so much cross -examination is where the debate takes place

So let's let's continue on here So if the clay is temporarily hardened

Israel Then how does it then? conclude in verses 22 through 24

By saying that part of that clay, which is formed for honorable use

Those who are called of the Jews and the Gentiles Okay, before he answers that I want you to notice something.

Look at how dr. White just phrased that question. This is not on a script

This is not he's looking at notes that he took. Yes, but it is not a scripted I'm gonna just read what this says right here now kind of question he's interacting with professor flowers is

Presentation and What he just answered so he's trying to probe the issue of the clay and get more information on that so And he's trying to compare it his answer the previous answer with the text

Okay, you just said this that and the other thing but the text the text says this how do you make the two work together?

So again, there's that interactivity that That needs to happen in a cross -examination

Let's continue How does how do you? The Gentiles are just being introduced in verse 24

And so he's not he's saying so also not only us who are being called But the very purpose that he's doing all of this is to bring redemption to the entire world

So he's including now from verse 24 down. He's showing that this is the purpose is to bring redemption to all nations

It's almost like I like I like to use the comparison of Jonah Because Jonah is called to go to Nineveh and Jonah in a sense could represent

Israel And so if Jonah represents Israel and Jonah doesn't want to go he is he's running from God kind of like Israel They're not they're not be obeying.

They're not cooperating and that what he's saying is that doesn't matter God can accomplish through an unfaithful person even

Jonah to bring the message to the Ninevites which represents the Gentiles And so that's what's happening here

He's he's using unfaithful people to accomplish his promise to take them to all to take the word to all nations

So what he's saying is God's word hasn't failed because he can even use unfaithful Israelites this hardened lump of clay

He can recraft and mold some of them for common use to cry out crucify him For example, he can recraft some of them to be

Apostles if that's what he so chooses But he is going to bring his word because he always fulfills his promise So the vessels of mercy mercy here only has to do mercy here is not soteriological

It is functional as to who gets to be used to be an instrument of bringing the message of Christ Well, like I said,

I think it's both because how could it be both? Well, I can explain that I think that remember there's again

Of the Israelite in that day one. We've been entrusted with the words of God We're the authorities and then two we're automatically children of God if we're children of Abraham and so Paul is saying no

Neither one of those is true because one not all of you have been chosen to carry the word not all of you have been given the authority to carry

God's Word and To just because you are a child of Abraham doesn't make you a child of God.

You're not saved because of your nationality You're saved by grace through faith And so he's undercutting both of those viewpoints by saying by going through this and showing there's other descendants

Edom is another descendant He's direct descendant of Isaac himself and he's not saved and he so he proves his point by pointing out

Edomites And so he's it is very soteriological. I think soteriology So soteriology is all throughout

Romans 9 Romans 8 and and into 10 and 11 as well And it is trying to is trying to prove why his word has not failed that it goes throughout

That's why I agree with you verse 6 is absolutely key to understanding the rest of this text. Wait a minute You have done your presentation professor flowers and you believe that we agree about verse 6

This is part of the problem This is why these one of the major reasons why these two men are sitting on opposite sides of this stage.

I Know I don't believe what professor flowers presents about verse 6 and all of what he did there is

Something we agree on we may agree that it is

Key Not the key but the point is is that I Don't see him understanding and I don't see him trying to understand

Instead I see a man who's got a square peg and he's gonna make it fit in that round hole no matter what and If you come along and you tell him that square peg won't fit in that round hole

He's gonna tell you it's a distinction without a difference and he's gonna keep trying You may think that's not fair, but I that's that's my take on it

So where are we at here? We are at 104 29. Let's keep moving here

We're gonna get into I'm gonna try to start and stop freely here we've got another five minutes on the program before I need to wrap up today if I'm hoping to get this section done today and then on Tuesday, we'll begin with the rebuttals as well as the cross examinations that go along with the rebuttals and Try to squeeze in the closing statements, too

I'm gonna have to play a lot more and comment less in on Tuesday but I'd like to get that done even if we have to go along and do a mega or a

Giga or a giga or 1 .21 gigawatts or something like that. I don't know. Anyway, let's

Move on with this you said in your presentation that This was your words that God has

Elected or that he has chosen that people be saved by believing that word

Do you believe that God chooses who will believe or is God's choice that that is just that salvation will be by faith?

the second so yeah, so God doesn't choose who will believe the object of his choosing is the method not the individual

Now the individual still chosen because the individual who believes just like the prodigal when the prodigal son comes home

He the father chooses to show him mercy. The father doesn't owe him that that's that's a monergistic work of the father

The father could cast him out or punish him or stone him even than that day for what he did It's a monergistic work of the father to decide to take that son back in So it's a very personal relationship between those two people when he's coming home.

He chooses to show him mercy so that's one of the reasons I think our view is a much more personal view of election than your view because your view has

God choosing people without any regard to their personhood or their knowledge of anything good or bad to do Whereas my part where my view they he knows exactly what they did.

They're coming out of their pigsty He knows exactly who they are and he's choosing to show them mercy in the midst of their shame and filth

But he's choosing to do so because they have humbled themselves Well, yeah,

I would say yes, yeah The Bible does pay close attention here because professor flowers his shoes about to get nailed to the floor

They humble yourself and you will be exalted if you so they have a lot of passages in Scripture Which teach that very clearly that humility or humbling yourself is a part of our responsibility

As as children of God, for example as children of God Well, well, okay.

Well as people There James 4 10 humble yourself before the

Lord and he will lift you up second Kings 22 19 is a great passage because it says Because your heart was responsive and because you humbled yourself before the

Lord When you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people That they would become cursed and laid waste and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence

I have also heard you declares the Lord. Okay Professor flowers. Do you believe that the presentation that we just listened to here?

models for us the kind of interpretation and exegesis that we utilize to Demonstrate the doctrine of the

Trinity the deity of Christ the resurrection justification by grace through faith

Necessity of the atonement. Do you believe that this kind of exegesis which you just gave us is

The same kind of exegesis that you would use to demonstrate those truths from Scripture Um, I would think that my the book that I'm writing the blog that I've written the podcast

I go into a lot more deeper exegesis. This is a 20 -minute presentation for the beginning of a debate but What I heard was a presentation on a group of topics that then eventually got to some of the verses in chapter 9

But it was not an exegesis of chapter 9. You did not walk through it. No, he did you

Created a system and then went in and said so that's why this says this and that says that what

I'm asking is Do you believe that that's the same methodology that we are forced to use?

to demonstrate to the Muslim the deity of Christ to demonstrate to the

Muslim the necessity of the cross or Make it any other situation.

We're dealing with someone outside the faith. Do you really believe that it parallels? The method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things

No, I think that it was a debate you got to take notice of that. Um, no

No Now he's gonna give what he believes to be a bunch of reasons as to why it's no

But ultimately it's no And he's right. He didn't and this is where James calling him on this was when

I decided I need to do something with this is something I can work with because Rightly dividing the word of truth.

The scriptures are not your personal playground. I don't care who you are It is not the personal playground of the

Pope to sit on in in some chair in Rome and decide XY and Z because he can

It isn't the personal playground of the word faith movement it is not the personal playground of a

Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon or a Baptist or Reformed Baptist anyone

Our Dedication needs to be to understanding the word. All right

All right, and if what he's about to say justifies what he's

Did to that night in your mind. I think you need to get your priorities straightened out because that's not why you do

Theology, it's not why you do what we do here We're about showing people and demonstrating the truth from God's Word And letting it do the teaching

Not playing theological games let's finish this up and Then I'll wrap up with some closing comments

And and I think there's a time and a place for all things I think there's a time and a place for Sitting down and writing a commentary which goes line by line through every single point without a lot of emotion

These good people one one of them brother Joe from Arkansas. He had to be a Calvinist No, no, non -Calvinist would drive that far for this

So I mean these people driven a long way and so I don't I'm trying to give them An understanding in the shortest amount of time of the full view of what we hold to and this is the best way

I knew to do that and I do provide a matter of fact I released a podcast today that goes to line by line through okay, forget the debate

I went through a line by line on my podcast which lasted an hour and 45 minutes So I've already done what we're doing tonight of a passage in the last minute here

According to the bio that was read you were an elder in a Reformed Baptist Church and I was minister

Challenge the credentials a minister not an elder. It's not elder led. It was a congregational led church Well, it could have been a

Reformed Baptist then but the my question is this was found part of the founders conference So the maps convention, okay.

All right, but it wasn't a 1689 church. Yes, sir Here's here's the question you say that we believe all are judicially hardened.

Could you show me? Anywhere where I or any other Reformed Baptist or anyone else has not made the necessary distinction between being dead in sin and judicially hardened

Well, I'm basing it upon your interpretation of what is called total inability or total depravity where you speak of man's corpse like inability to respond to God in his appeals to be reconciled 2nd

Corinthians chapter 5 for example, it very clearly has Christ in us making his appeal be reconciled to God and the

Calvinist believes that mankind is born in a condition that they Cannot willingly respond to that appeal listen take notice that as he gives this answer

Remember back in the beginning of this debate. He explains that the concept of judicial hardening

Which he grossly misunderstands the concept of judicial hardening was what made him reject

Calvinism and Walk away from it. I think at some point he became absolutely committed to that and that this is not something that he can

Misunderstand in his mind if he does misunderstand it. Well There's there's more to come on that but there's no question.

He misunderstands it to anybody that knows the subject Let me let him finish here.

And then I'll wrap up with some comments and Thus that sounds a lot to me like judicial hardening judicial hardening is the inability to see here understand in turn

So as to be forgiven and that sounds just like total inability so my contention is that Calvinists do not make a distinction between total inability and Judicial hardening at least one that's worth a distinction worth the difference.

All right. Thank you men at this Okay, so that is the end of that I'm gonna go select a different slide here and we can switch over to that and get ready to close the show out take notice that he defines judicial hardening inaccurately

I Said it before I'll say it again Pharaoh is the example in Romans 9 of judicial hardening

Pharaoh was born a sinner Pharaoh was born with original sin

Every good thing that Pharaoh could possibly do in his life is stained with sin as Isaiah 64 6 tells us

All the good things that we can do are as filthy rags before God the best that we can offer him are as filthy rags before him

That's Pharaoh's condition and that's talking about total depravity that totally depraved man

Was used by God and that's described in Romans chapter 9 by the Apostle Paul as being raised up for a particular purpose

That purpose is judicial hardening not this That God would use

Pharaoh to make his power known and He hardened his heart even deeper and he hardened his heart even deeper

That's judicial hardening That is not this. This is an apple and this is an orange.

This is a square peg This is a round hole. One of these things is not like the other one of these things is not the same but for whatever reason professor flowers can't allow it and his theological correction

His theological answer his theological rebuttal is it's a distinction without a difference

I'm sorry From the moment. I ever heard of these two things. I never thought that and Trust me.

I'm the guy sitting in the audience James will tell you raising my hand objecting to four out of five points and there was no reason why

I should have held to the fifth point At a certain point James actually had to ask me to be quiet so he could actually finish the presentation that evening

Because I kept interrupting But when somebody laid out these two as part of that equation as part of that presentation,

I understood it easily easily This is a smart man.

I don't understand how he can make that case and make that argument with a straight face I don't understand it.

I don't understand So on Tuesday we're going to pick up where we've left off and start into the rebuttals and in this situation now we have professor flowers going first and then there's a cross -examination and Then dr.

White going and then there will be a cross -examination and then five -minute closing remarks Keep in mind the rules as you evaluate the debate because you it's not just the issue of Calvinism It's not just the issue of the treatment of Scripture.

It is also the treatment of the audience remember something professor flowers just finished saying his

Justification for doing what he did in this debate was that guy drove a long way from Arkansas And I didn't want to waste his time.

I wanted to put on the best presentation I possibly could and get all the information out there.

I think that's a fair evaluation of what he just said well if that was your motivation

Why'd you run away from the debate You didn't engage you never engaged in this debate through the whole time

That's why James calls it a bad debate but for me, I think it's a good debate because it illustrates it's very illustrative illustrative of the problem of why

Armenians can't talk to Calvinists because they want to dismiss us and Use phrases like it's a distinction without a difference and you know what

I hear talk to the hand because the ears aren't listening That's what I hear when you do this professor flowers and That's why

I say Trying to reason with you is like talking to a brick It's like talking to a brick.

There's nothing coming back your interaction in the cross -examination When you were asking the questions was non -existent

I don't think you heard a single response James gave you just kept to your script

One side's listening One side's interacting with what the other says and the other one can't won't

Or just doesn't care You tell me This is

Rich Pierce, and I'm signing off for today's dividing line Start the music up here.

Thank you for joining me Appreciate you come by Kings Church and visit us sometime and you get a chance