The Real Intention of the Leftists is to Destroy Marriage

And welcome to The Dividing Line. If we are here, we don't know. We just had to reset the modem. The computer crashed twice. It's great to be back. Evidently, the computer would rather have John Samson sitting in this chair, because it obviously does not like me, because it isn't working too well.

Well, John doesn't use computers. He uses paper. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's probably why he decided to start the ESV-only movement. And I've got to admit, I suppose this needs to be plugged in.

Boy, which hole do I plug that into? We'll find out soon enough. Ha, ha, ha. The endorsements that John got for the ESV-only movement were, I thought the Ergon Kanner one was just classic. That was good.

That was good. It's good to know that when the cat's away, the mice will start heretical movements. There you go. But it's good to be back, even though I'll have to admit the weather sure was nice in Santa Fe and in Evergreen, Colorado, and Boulder, and places like that, and at the top of Mount Evans, and going over Loveland Pass, and all those other things.

And I was going to do a travelogue for you. Maybe I will yet in the future, but we have other things to do. And let me just briefly thank everybody that made the past two weeks for me possible. I hope you all found the debate with Bob Enyart to be useful.

I've seen a lot of commentary about that. And the presentations we did on the subject of response to the, quote, gay Christian movement, end quote, though I don't obviously use that terminology myself.

But we'll hold that off a little bit later. 877 -753 -3341. We have not tested the phones. But the nice thing is I actually do have connection to the stack. So that's one of the few things that's gone right so far, technically, for us.

So we'll see what happens. That angle looks different. Did you move it, or zoom it? Or it seems to be taking a lot more of the computer screen in that it did before. I don't know. It's just, you didn't.

Things got moved. No, I had to, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Back off, back off. Stop, stop moving, stop, no, go away. Oh, is that a different stand? Yeah, but we can, you know, if you want, we'll just.

What are you doing? Get it all, you know, how's that angle, is that better? You know, the phones ring. I thought I'd let you know. There's someone out there, no, it's, no, it's. Did it work? OK. You know, people, people on the podcast are really wondering what you're doing here.

I hate so much for the professional aspect of things. OK, whatever we were saying, now see, that may have been an exceedingly important phone call right there that we missed, because now someone else is calling.

It may be the same person, we don't know. We don't know. Anyhow, I did want to mention one thing before we go to calls. There was an article, just absolutely amazing, and I didn't get to comment on it, so Michael Brown did.

I saw it the day that it happened, and as reported in the Huffington Post, California's same-sex couples may now be pronounced spouse and spouse, after Governor Jerry Brown, with a big old D behind his name, signed a bill last Monday eliminating outdated husband and wife references from state laws.

The Post also explains that Senate Bill 1306 was introduced by State Senator Mark Leno, big D, San Francisco, openly homosexual, to eliminate confusion and correct discriminatory phrasing in the California Constitution that contradicts state law.

Of course, there have been a few folks out here, primarily ignored by the mainstream media, who've been trying to say for a long time that there is more to this than the surface-level, absurd, ridiculous, outrageous civil rights argument, which has been refuted so many times, and most eloquently by especially black women Christians, who can say, wait a minute.

That's absurd, and it is, of course, absurd. The whole civil rights thing is completely absurd. But there's a reason for all of this, and there is a greater reason. It's not just that people are stumbling into this, and it's going to have bad effects here, there, and everywhere.

But there is a, everyone who, and anyone who would want to destroy a culture, and a nation that has been blessed by a culture that was informed by a Christian worldview, this would be the way to do it, to introduce a level of utter confusion that will fundamentally cripple human flourishing within a particular culture.

And that's what we have here. There is nothing more basic, in my recollection, than to think of my father and my mother. And I know the difference between the two. I think about how, for example, I would misbehave as a child, and my mom would say, I'm going to tell your dad when you get home.

Now, why was that relevant? Well, because my dad was the primary person responsible for my discipline. And my, and if I got hurt, the first person I read to would be my mom. And that's natural, that's right, that's the way it should be.

And I learned about compassion, and empathy, and things like that from my mom. I learned about what it means to be a man, and to do the right thing, and not to be ruled by emotion from my dad. I learned, I saw their interaction, and that was an appropriate thing.

But I knew who a mother was, and I knew who a father was, and I didn't grow up in a culture of confusion at that point in time. But now in California, the leftist, secularist nutcases are doing away, and some of us have said, this is exactly what they want to do.

They want to destroy marriage. If you do not have husbands, and if you do not have wives, you don't have marriage. That's all there is to it. Spouse A and spouse B is not marriage. No father, no mother, no husband, no wife is not marriage.

Call it whatever you want, it's just not marriage. Never will be, never can be. And calling marriage that is absurd, ridiculous, stupid, on its face. It's disgusting, it's depraved. And from a Christian perspective, it's downright sinful.

It is an act of utter rebellion. There's no question about that. No question about that at all. So we already had heard about how, for example, in certain European countries, you have progenitor A and progenitor B.

There was a day when our culture had enough common sense to realize that a nation that loses track of these things was a nation in great decline. Great decline. But there is tremendous common sense that has been lost in our nation, and I believe it to be part of God's judgment.

If you want an example, then, of what that has resulted in, you have California doing away with these things. And then just before the program, someone sent me a BBC article about Casey Stoney, why being a gay mom can help my England career.

And she's a footballer and says, until last season, my partner, Megan Harris, was a footballer and we played together at Lincoln Ladies, but her desire to be a mom far outweighed her ambitions in football.

So she is the one who is pregnant. But not by you, huh? No, not by you. Can't be by you. Will never be by you. And so that's not your child. Yes, it is. No, it isn't. In fact, up until just a few years ago, people who wanted to have other people's children, we locked them up.

You know, when they snuck into the nursery and took other people's children, we recognized that was wrong. And now, see, when you look at this and you see... One of the reasons I came out about my sexuality last February was because my partner and I were planning on having a family.

And I'm so excited to say we are expecting twins later this year. That is like saying that I... You know, I rode up to top Mount Evans this past trip to Colorado. Never been that high. I remember watching the altimeter on my cycling computer and once it went past 11 ,990, I knew that was top of Loveland Pass.

And so I was going into rarefied air, literally. And wow, you really feel like you can just see forever. It is sort of the top of the world feeling. There's no question about it. And it would be like my going to the top of that mountain and looking out over the broad vistas you can just see forever and deciding, you know what?

I'm going to fly over all of this. I'm just going to jump off of this. You know, there's lots of places if you want to get a good start. I rode around a few corners where gone fast enough could have gotten a real good start.

Terminal velocity would have been pretty ugly, but... And I'm just going to spread my wings and fly. Well, I can't do that because God didn't give me wings. Don't have them. Can't do it. It's against nature.

I'm a human being, not a bird. But we've lost track of that nature thing, of recognizing what we are. And so now you've got two women. And my partner and I were planning on having a family. And I'm so excited to say we are expecting twins later this year.

You know, when I told people that my wife and I were expecting, that had a special meaning. This is an insult to that meaning that I expressed to others. An insult. Because what she means is we underwent an expensive medical procedure that has artificially begun pregnancy in one of us.

And it's going to result in that child someday wondering who those twins, actually, someday wondering who their real father is. Because Casey Stoney is not a father, will never be a father, cannot be a father.

And if they dare tell these twins that their actual mother who bore them is actually their father, is that not child abuse on a level that is absolutely perverse? It is. It is. Absolutely amazing. So one of them decides that they're going to get pregnant while the other one keeps playing football.

I am in a very fortunate position where I can become a mom in women's football without it impacting my career negatively. The selfishness, the absolute self-centeredness of homosexuality. It truly is narcissism, childish narcissism.

It's just, well, it's not going to... I can become a mom. No, you won't. You're not a mom, never will be a mom. You may be taking care of kids, but you're not a mom. That word has meaning. And I've said over and over again, isn't there anybody anymore?

Isn't there anyone anymore who actually values something called motherhood, fatherhood? Don't those things mean something? Well, just because they're coming up with a different meaning doesn't mean it impacts me.

Yes, it will. What about these twins? What if you're a parent right now and one of your offspring falls in love with one of these twins raised by two lesbians? Remember the last program I was on? Or was it the one from Colorado?

I can't remember now. But it was talking about the little kid who is undergoing sex change therapy at like age 11. So he won't go through puberty because he was raised by two lesbians. It's child abuse, plain and simple.

That's all there is to it. You can deny it. You can close your eyes to it. It's amazing, amazing. Professing themselves to be wise. This is foolishness on a level that is truly, truly difficult to begin to comprehend.

It really is. It really is. All right, we have phone callers. The phone lines are open, 877 -753 -3341. 877 -753 -3341. And let's talk to Kyle. Hi, Kyle. Hi, how are you? Doing good.

Come in, Paul. You know, we're just talking and getting to know each other. But, you know, the rubber eventually has to meet the road. And so I committed to them, I will read the Book of Mormon. And, you know, then I'm saying, OK, you need to read John.

Now you belong with me as well.

And I'll comment on it. They'll only let their leaders, they'll only let that go so far, by the way.

Well, I've met the leader and I don't think he likes me. But which actually, at the end of it, I'll be honest with you, I'm fairly heartbroken because I really do care about these guys. Yeah, I understand.

For some reason, I don't have the compassion for the leader. I don't know why.

Well, I understand that you see these guys as as the ones who've been deceived and those who have authority over them as the ones who have been doing the deceiving.

I mean, I've run into some of some of the people from their ward when I take them out to dinner and stuff. And it's like I'm in my in my heart. I just like let them go. Do what you want to do, but let them go.

But I've seen some some of the lectures you've given on YouTube. They're very helpful. But rather than to kind of jump into the, you know, the standard things that I think people get into, I just started looking at it and and I tried to take some things that I'd seen where you're going through the Koran and saying, listen, that the author of the Koran didn't really understand the Bible.

Right. And I think you see the same thing. Have you seen the same thing in the Book of Mormon where? Well, yeah, like off comment and you say there's no way. You know, my point to them is, listen, Tom Clancy from book to book doesn't get his characters wrong.

So the Holy Spirit can't. Right. Right. And so on one hand, you know, like there's offhand comments that if I'm reading it correct, Jeremiah would have said that Lehi was a bad fig because he left Jerusalem instead of accepting the discipline.

And there's a comment where Nephi is bragging that just as Moses smote the rock and provided water for all of Israel. So I'm doing blah, blah, blah. And that's the great downfall of he didn't go into the promise land because he struck the rock instead of speak to it.

You know, and I'm just like there's these offhand comments that the Holy Spirit could not have inspired, you know. So there has to be different authors. And I'm just wondering if you if you've kind of taken that.

Well, yeah, I've gone through the Book of Mormon. Yeah. But you got you got to remember a couple of things. First of all, if the two young men with whom you're speaking are like a lot of Mormon missionaries, though they've been encouraged to do so, they may not really have read the Book of Mormon.

I mean, I remember years and years and years ago we I was driving and at that time I was driving a 1964 Dodge Dart. No two body panels were the same color. My wife to this day just shakes her head when she remembers that particular vehicle.

And we were up in Provo, Utah, and we pulled in the parking lot of the Provo Temple up there and we ran this missionary. Little did we know that right down at the end of the of the parking lot was the missionary training center.

We eventually went down there. But we ran into this missionary. We started talking to him. He did not even know where the Book of Abraham was. He had never read it. So he you know, you can't necessarily assume a high level of knowledge of the Book of Mormon or its context on the part of an LDS missionary.

It would help if they had it, but you can't necessarily assume that. Secondly, you've got to remember the eighth article of faith. We believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. We believe the Bible, the word of God, as far as it's translated correctly.

So there is a fundamental assumption on the part of the vast majority of of Mormons that if you if you encounter a contradiction, if you encounter something like that, then the problems with the Bible, not with the Book of Mormon, because the Book of Mormon is the most perfect book of any on earth.

So I've also heard like, well, not arguments, but comments and references. Well, it's basically we believe these three books, but we really want to submarine the Bible as much as possible. Yeah. Uh-huh.

You know, it's like it's almost like that's a ruse. I'm really I'm using I'm using the word, the Bible, and I'm using Jesus name to kind of get me in the door with people. But, you know, that's not that's not the focus that I'm hearing.

And it's very disheartening.

Oh, yeah, there's no question about that. And by the way, keep something in mind, Kyle, about the leaders. I believe me, I know exactly how you feel about that. But those leaders were probably missionaries themselves.

And what you're seeing is generation after generation of deception. And, you know, those leaders are just as you know. Well, I think it's very well described by Paul deceiving and being deceived. So so they've they've been deceived.

And as they've been deceived, they now deceive others. And then you become truly established in your and and then you become the one deceiving others. That's that's one of the horrible things about untruth.

That's one of the reasons that you have such strong terminology in second Thessalonians. If you will not love the truth, you'll be caused to love a lie. And we just don't take that very seriously. But no, that is a good direction to go.

But eventually you cannot avoid going after the testimony and establishing the reality of objective truth. You have to eventually say to them, look, you know, the testimony you've been taught to to look to your feelings, to your emotions, to pray about these things.

The reality is that the scripture says the heart is desperately sick and wicked and deceitful. Who can understand it? Jeremiah 17, 9. And that there is a way, it seems, right into a man. But then there are the ways of death and Proverbs 14, 12.

And and you've got to introduce them to a meaningful biblical anthropology that hopefully the spirit of God can use. You know, the spirit of God's working in that young man's heart. Then they themselves will know that their their entire heart is a source of of constant deception.

They know that they can convince themselves that what they're doing is right, even when they know it's wrong. And so that that's something just has to be dealt with. Eventually is getting them away from that very feelings and man based judgment of what is true and what isn't, because that's the only way to eventually get them to start examining Joseph Smith and to see that Mormonism is a is an utter perversion of anything that Christianity ever stood for, believed down through the centuries.

More than anything, I really just wanted to call just to say thank you. That especially kind of in some of the one of the addresses I saw from you, you pointed out specifically that you may say you may say a word and they will say a word, but there's different meaning there.

Oh, yeah. So. So there's times when they can say something that is quasi orthodox and you go, wow, I don't really know that we have that much difference here. But when you start unpacking what you mean by those words, then you realize, oh, we're actually just speaking different languages.

Big time. Big time. There's there's such a huge language barrier. If you don't know the language barrier, you'll sit there for hours talking, talking, talking. And then a few hours later, realize we haven't been talking at all.

And that's that's a real problem. So, yeah, pray for him. You know, you may never get to see him again. I mean, I've I've I've had situations where I've really gotten to know missionaries and they've they've been sent home.

They've been transferred someplace else. The those folks, the mission president knows when someone has gotten too close to somebody. That's why they'll switch people up. Normally, their their tendency is they will not allow someone to meet for more than just a few times unless they're seeing real progress toward that person expressing desire to be baptized.

That would be that would be different. But other than that, they they know that if they allow this kind of relationship to go too far, it ends up bad for them. And so, you know, you can only pray for them.

I've sometimes run into some of the missionaries that I had encounters with. Sometimes I don't. I've got to put them in God's hands at that point.

Yeah, I understand. But anyways, but thank you for the, you know, the stuff, especially on YouTube, you know, people do watch it and it's beneficial.

But thank you. All right. Thanks, Kyle. OK, bye bye. Bye bye. Yeah, I still I still look at those at those missionaries when they go by. And man, I'll tell you, I'm in the in the in between time where over the next decade and a half or so, they're going to become the same age as my grandchildren.

Right now, they're younger than they're a good bit younger than my kids. Right now, they're almost 10 years younger than my kids. Yeah, when I see I and when I first met with my first two more missionaries, Elders Reed and Reese.

I was younger than I was younger than. I think I was right in between Elder Reed and Reese, if I recall correctly. So we were about the same age, but I was younger than one of them because I got married at 19 and my wife was 18.

So we got we got a nice, good early start. So anyway, let's continue on with Colin in California. Hi, Colin. Hey, how's it going? Can you hear me OK? I sure can. For everything you do, I really appreciate it.

I wanted to make some you think that you think you're thanking me for riding, riding up mountains on a bike because I do that. Yeah.

And listening and studying while you do it.

In fact, let me tell you, Colin, you know what I was listening to. It was one of the most amazing rides in my life. I rode from Evergreen to the top of Mount Evans. Now, most people don't know what that is, but Mount Evans is 14 ,160 feet above sea level at the parking lot.

And you know what I was listening to all the way up that beautiful, fantastic, gorgeous mountain, Bob Enyard, Bob Enyard. And I will always remember that for the rest of my life.

The one thing I remember exactly where you were when you said each and every thing.

Almost. Almost. Almost. But it was it was. I would rather have been listening to like some Spurgeon sermon or something if I had to be listening to anything at all. But anyhow, go ahead.

Yeah. Comments in light of it's a little late at this point, a couple of months ago, all the stuff you covered. I guess this would this would obviously apply to any non-Calvinist view of the knowledge of God.

I wanted to, you know, respond to this accusation that comes along and basically says, you know, Calvinism's view of the sovereignty of God makes man into a quote unquote robot. Right. First of all, I understand I don't quite understand why a lot of Calvinists shy completely away from that accusation, because after all, they don't mean literal robots.

All they mean is that God has determined all things, including our actions, which we fully affirm. So I just simply when I when I.

I think I think I know why. I mean, we both know why, because it takes the humanity out. But it does so by misrepresenting where we're coming from. And I'm a little bit concerned that a lot of reformed folks don't know how to respond to that.

I mean, my my standard response to that is the incarnation demonstrates that's not the case because Jesus entered into our human experience and he didn't become a robot. So so obviously the reality of our actions in time are meaningful to God or he would not have decreed his own interaction with us in time.

I think that I think that's one of the reasons I took the open theism debate is that that's one of the fundamental problems that Bob Enyard has and his his followers is that he does not recognize the the richness of reformed theology.

He takes the robot perspective as well. But I run into a lot of Calvinists that really don't realize the richness of of what we're really affirming because because they they look so much to the decree that they don't at the same time see that the decree is what makes the temporal interaction of God and his people and us with each other and and justice and righteousness and and everything else that's what gives it the very matrix of meaning that it can have.

And that's what allows Christianity to be different than the Greek and pagan religions where you had the fates. That's one of the things about Enyard that drove me crazy is he he thinks that we believe that God is controlled by fate.

He's like the great Zeus or something. It couldn't be far from the truth, couldn't be.

The fact that accusation stems from is this, I could get somebody else to do what made them into, you know, something that he wants and I think it's just a false conclusion. We might, I won't even use the word create, but we might be human beings and I can assure you that the Almighty God of the universe's control over you is far more exhaustive than any amount of control you could ever have over a robot, even if you programmed it to do exactly what you do.

After all, you didn't create out of man. I mean, I appreciate the point you raised about stripping the humanity because that's true of the action, but this brings me to my main point. Calvinism's view of the sovereignty of God makes man to be a robot, and the Arminian's view of the sovereignty of man is actually making God up to be a robot, Peter.

And that he's choosing the best possible, he's gonna do the best possible. When you place God into a reactionary position, you turn him into a robot. The Arminian, when it comes to the foreknowledge of God, he's conveniently left out, and anything he's knowing about is to know that he's going to create, knowing that he's going to act.

Well, there's no question in my mind that I think what you're getting at here is that really, and I know my Molinist friends and my Arminian friends, if they would even use the term friends, are going to be upset about this, but there is a fundamental lack of trust of God expressed in both systems, because both systems are all designed around maintaining a way where man can control God rather than being fully controlled by God, because there's a lack of trust that God will do what is right in everything.

The judge of all the earth will do right. And that's really what I see in this, is that the overriding thing in open theism or in Molinism, whatever it is, why did those systems come into existence? To protect not the freedom of God, but the freedom of man.

And the result is to put constraints on God. Yeah, you can't, you know, it's all about the reactionary position. If you don't start in the logical order of this entire discussion, then you're starting with man-term, but you know, best possible worlds, where'd they come from?

In that logical order, and then God comes along and foreknows it, and that's what the real... now he's just reacting in the best possible way that he can, and where's the freedom in that? I mean, really, that makes God a robot accusation can actually be flipped around, even the standard Arminian.

But even if you take any given situation and have the standard Arminian, well, God knows how to bring good out of bad. Well, the trillion different possible ways to bring good out of a particular... gonna choose the best possible way, right?

I mean, he's got to choose one of them. He's got to choose to act in one way, but what's the problem there? Yeah, well, who.

Gets... God's reactionary. Yeah, he's not reactionary, but you also have to ask the question, who gets to determine what the best possible way is? At least the reformed person can say, God has a purpose.

That purpose is self-glorification, and he is going to work that out to provide that. And I don't know what the ultimate purpose is, in an Arminian, bare foreknowledge perspective. And there's all sorts of disagreement amongst Moulinists as to exactly, you know, why don't necessarily take the William Lane Craig view here, and all this kind of silliness.

And so, yeah, I think it is good to have a way of reversing the accusation. I certainly have suggested that in a number of contexts, especially in our culture today, but it's a good direction to go there, too.

Okay, thanks Colin. 877 -753 -3341. The video, I did not know this, but Berean Warrior posted a lot of the debate, and I had only seen the one, my cross-examination of Bob Enyard. But the actual 15 minutes of my being cross-examined.

Now, yeah, you want me to do that? All right, sure, fine. Manuel, go ahead. I'll be honest with you, Manuel. I doubt you could last 30 seconds without losing control, but if you want to try. We've done it before.

We'll give it a shot. But we just have a... Some of you know that we've had a regular caller over the years, and have tried to reason on the subject of the Trinity, and have always failed. But hope springs anew, that are my memories back.

That's probably more my memories getting back than anything else. Anyway, but I had hoped that this video was up there, and I found it just before the program started, while Rich was running around trying to...

Did you look at amn .org? No. Why not? Because it was there. I didn't post it at amn .org. Yeah, well, I was on it. I had all three of the ones that were recorded by the end of the first day. Well, I know that the entire...

I know you mentioned you put the big one up. Is homosexuality compatible? No, that's a different one. The one that they posted, that has the entire debate. No, no, this was the day after the debate. This one started rolling in, and he started working on the...

He actually posted first... He attended my talk Wednesday night, and I didn't even know about this. Okay, well, he first posted you cross-examining Bob, and then he was working on... And I posted that, and while I'm posting that one, he's uploading Bob cross-examining you, and then later that day, someone else had recorded, I think it was Bob's intro, and your intro.

So, no, Bob's intro and your close, something like that. Yeah, well, so here's this section. Do you have it available? Because I'm sending it to you. You've got it? Okay. I'm not sure how much of it I'm going to play, but look, here's the background.

One of the reasons I do this is to give you some of the background. This is the Brown Palace Hotel in downtown Denver. Beautiful place. I had never been there before, but I've seen pictures of it. It's sort of a landmark in downtown Denver.

It's a good location. The debate was set up nicely. The moderator who's sitting here in the shot did not know me at all, and did not... I don't think he knew Bob. I'm not sure, but he was in between, and so he could be fair.

But I just don't think he even knew what to do, because we met beforehand. We stood right over... Well, if you're looking at this video shot, it would be to my left. It'd be the right of the camera, which is where my desk was, and we stood there, and we talked, and we had an agreement, and I said, look, when you cross-examination, what I ask...

First, I said, we need to be very strict on the times. I said, I will never go over. Here's my timer. Rich mocked me for buying my 15th debate timer or something, because I didn't have one in my bag. But I can say one thing with absolute certainty.

You go through the 137, 138 some-odd moderated debates that I've done since 1990, and you will find that there is one person who is very punctual, and I consider that to be an act of respect for the audience and my opponents.

Bob was not overly punctual, even though he's a radio guy, which he knows all about hard breaks and things like that. But anyway, then I specifically addressed cross-examination, and I said, you ask questions, you do not argue, you do not come back and make another point, you use your questions to make your points, but you are asking questions only, and we agreed to that.

Let's listen to just a couple minutes, and we'll take the call. Let's listen to just a couple minutes of this, and we'll see very quickly how this was really going.

Forever in the future, doesn't he have two natures, a divine and a human nature, forever? Yes. Okay, so that's not an action, right? That's a state. He took an action in today and forever, he has two natures.

So you agreed that eternally past, God the Son only had one nature. Of course. And today, God the Son has two natures. That's right. And so you don't think that's a change?

No, because it did not involve a change in the divine being, which is the only assertion we make in regards to divine immutability. His nature did not change. The Muslim debate you mentioned.

In 2013, that was titled, Can God Become a Man? Which one are you referring to? Well, the one in 2013 that was titled, Can God Become a Man? And so you're asserting that when God the Son lowered himself and became a man, that was not a change.

The divine being did not change in his nature. So it was an action that God undertook. Okay, I think the only reason you're saying that is because you're struggling between the omnis and ims and God the Son becoming flesh.

Is that a question? Because, okay, I'll go on to the next. Beginning with God's freedom. This question asks if God has libertarian free will. Jesus said that he could call on the Father to save him from the cross.

Do you think that the Father could have saved Jesus from the cross? If he had determined to do so, yes, of course. At the moment that Jesus said that he could call on the Father to save him from the sour, do you believe at that moment that the Father could have saved Jesus?

Well, again, you're asking.

A question about a decision that was made before the creation of time playing out within time. I'm trying to explain to you. And so the divine decree will not be changed. If God had chosen to do things differently when he created that, he could have done things differently.

But could time is. Once time is created, that's where it's going to be. Could God have decreed it differently.

When he decreed the way things would go? Could he have decreed it differently? God was absolutely.

Free to glorify the trying of God. Father, Son, Spirit could have chosen to glorify themselves.