E-mail and Debates

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 602 973 460 to 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.

Responding to the Email on Romans 9 and Divine Culpability

And good afternoon, welcome to Jumbo DL number three. Here's the plan for today third day in a row for the dividing line. Some of you are either becoming addicted or don't care anymore. I wanted to.

And.

Another 90 minutes, we're going till 530 our time. I realize that it's already 7 o 'clock. So be 830 Eastern Time. 30 minutes three different segments. I wish to finish the note that I've been responding to Beginning on Tuesday.

I will finish that up in the first 30 minutes or sooner depending then spend 30 minutes on The Fernandez Comas debate and then I wish to begin an examination of the claims of Roger Perkins oneness theology advocates.

Be looking at three debates. One debate with Matt slick of karm and two debates with a Church of Christ representative there. It's really a two-night thing two sections of the one debate, I guess but I want to start this evening by looking at some of the fundamental problems of methodology that plague many of the oneness advocates specifically their use or abuse or misunderstanding of biblical languages and I want to talk about some examples of that and I have queued those up and we should be able to get to those in the last half hour and then Over the next couple of months before my trip down to Sydney and Brisbane for those debates the Muslim debate and the oneness debate I want to be going over Statements made by both the folks.

I will be debating. Which I think not only helps the audience sort of pray toward those debates but also the individuals who will I will be debating. I would think it would make their preparation a whole lot easier and in fact, I would think it would make it a whole lot harder for me because I've basically laid out my case and But I think that makes for better debates, so that's the That's the role for today now again, I apologize if and in fact when we put these in the wayback machine, we may have to We may have to make sure that they run concurrently because it would be very difficult for folks to really understand Everything that I'm saying without having a background first.

I am responding to an email that I was sent last week. That is a very lengthy email. I read all of it on Tuesday and began responding then I've spent an hour and a half so far in response, this will make two hours and It is written by a man raised in a Christian family and It is questions, but I think objections as well To some fundamental Christian thought and I need to try to finish it up today if at all possible.

So I'm just diving back into the middle of it. We're right toward the end I should be able to finish it off. We will see I continue with the note It says to me. This is the most important idea in all of Christian thought this has to do with God's predestination Judgment man's culpability yet.

Even Paul did little more than completely ignore it When he said who are you a man to bring a charge against God and then simply states God can do what he wants. He can create people whose sole purpose is eternal destruction and people who get eternal bless.

All these people had sin projected on them from oblivion and a complete inability to obey. It is insanely difficult if not completely impossible to understand how anyone is culpable in any humanly definable sense the word.

Well That is To me a rather surprising Statement when we talk about what Paul said because we know what is being referred to here and That is specifically Romans chapter 9 but my concern really is that You know and I can I can understand it's possible this individual has not encountered a in-depth discussion of Romans 9 that even happens within within Reformed churches and I have read Reformed commentators and authors Who have in essence said that that Paul did kick the question down the road in essence and did not answer it.

Let me remind you of what the text says you will say to me then why does he still find fault for who resists his will and Then literally Romans 9 20. Oh, man Who are you the one answering back to God.

The thing molded will not say the mold or why did you make me like this? Will it or does not the Potter have a right over the clay to make them the same lump one vessel for honorable use? And another for common use now, that's that's not What our correspondent?

Seemed to remember it saying. But I would like to suggest that Paul does answer the question. He does not skip the question. He gives a very Fundamental and foundational answer to the question. He doesn't ignore it.

The objection is you will say to them why does he still find fault for who resists his will. So the objector after what has been said concerning God's sovereignty in the matter of Salvation and the words of verse 18.

So then he has mercy on whom he desires and he hardens whom he desires. The objector says well basically says how how can there be any Judgment in light of this. How can there be any judgment in light of this?

How can he still find fault because if his will is the final? Determiner of all things then then there can be no judgment and the response That our correspondent has missed is the fact that verse 20 begins.

Oh man. That's the first the first address is. Oh man, and if we would but understand what that means the address is to a creature and Asking the question if in fact if I could turn this around in light of what has been said in the rest of this email The rest this email said it would be absolutely absurd.

For a creature who knows God exists has has knowledge of God's existence to sin against that creed that that God That is the ultimate of rationality. Well, may I suggest to you that it's likewise the ultimate of rationality for the creature To answer back to its creator and not recognize His created state.

Oh Man on the contrary Who are you? The one and Then it let me look back at the at the email here. It says To bring a charge against God well sort of yeah that that's that's one possible way of looking at it.

Because it has Krina there so it it but it actually means apocryphal my To reply to answer back again has anti in front of it so there is a there is a a response being given to God and it is a a response that is inappropriate for the creature and Paul doesn't just simply say well he can just in fact, this is a misrepresentation.

I want to correct the misrepresentation when it says He can create people whose sole purpose eternal destruction people who get eternal bliss. That's not what he says that that's that is that is a again just as the nature of Adam has been simplified to a a mere calculator That is honest.

He's got the right information. He'll come out with the right answer and that's not how human beings make decisions in the same way, I Wonder why someone would hear Paul in this way He can create people whose sole purpose is eternal destruction and people who get eternal bliss first of all as soon as here anybody say That the sole purpose of the non-elect is eternal destruction.

You are not dealing with someone who's actually Really fairly handling the scriptures. You're just not Because they're looking at only the final Destinations and they're not looking at the process by which God Glorifies himself and by which his attributes are demonstrated which includes The fact that these are individuals who live in a universe Surrounded by evidence of God's existence his fingerprints are all over everything that they touch everything that they are.

They've suppressed that knowledge. They've twisted that knowledge. They've engaged in every form of idolatry and yet he has not destroyed them the first instance. They take a breath. In fact, he has given them tremendous amounts of blessings.

He has restrained them from committing many other sins that they would have committed Otherwise and yet he's done also all that for his own purposes. If you don't allow that in there, then you're not really dealing with what's being said.

I'm sorry you're just not and so it is not he can create people whose sole purpose is eternal destruction and people who get eternal bliss and As if those two were just just this simplistic equation. Because especially the extension of grace Powerful grace that brings about the salvation of undeserving people who actually deserve destruction Is part and parcel what's being said here out of the same lump remember.

So it's it's right there, but Paul does not just simply ignore this. Because the discussion of the thing molded Will not say to the molded the plasma will not say to the Placentae the one who molded it.

Why did you make me like this? That's a given and in verse 21 does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and Another for common use. Now you may not like and they're there I can understand.

In fact, I would submit just as I said last time outside of the work of the Holy Spirit in someone's life. There will never be a joyous willful submission to the recognition that we are the clay in the potter's hand.

As.

Long as the heart of man remains in rebellion against God that is something that is going to be absolutely reprehensible.

But.

The question remains if God is the potter and we are the clay Then is there any basis for answering back to God and that's you know that's why verse 22 says. What if God it presents to this objector a Hypothetical situation.

What if God although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known Endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. What about that enduring with much patience is it?

Normally in these types of objections the holiness of God the fact that God's wrath should break forth Immediately against any rebel sinner in his universe all that stuff is just laid aside and the focus is upon Oh that that poor little child in Compton that poor little person in the Himalayas and So I I would I would say Paul does answer and he answers rather clearly and rather forcefully at that point.

So it says it is insanely difficult if not completely impossible to understand how anyone is culpable in any humanly definable sense the term. Well, there's the problem. You're trying to humanly define it rather than allow the divine definition of culpability.

And.

I would suggest to you that that divine definition of culpability and we're gonna have to go into this in in in the discussion in the Fernandez comas debate as well is seen over and over again in Scripture and Such things as the holding of Joseph's brothers accountable for their sin.

Their sin was the result of God's Intention. That's exactly what God intended to happen to get Joseph into Egypt to save many people alive. God's intentions perfectly good. Man's intentions evil. Man is judged on the basis of what his intentions were.

Isaiah chapter 10. God brings a Syria against Israel to punish Israel and then he punishes a Syria for what they did against Israel. Now is this a Syria this wonderful good country that God forces down and makes them do bad things.

No. If anything God has to restrain their evil. He uses them to punish his covenant people, but because they do it all with III they never acknowledge God. They are they are proud and arrogant then he punishes them same action.

God's intentions holy and good. Man's intentions evil. What are they judged upon some type of concept of libertarianism? No, they're judged on the basis of the intentions of their heart. Acts chapter 4 the church.

Prays.

To the Sovereign Lord Herod Pontius Pilate the Romans the Jews gathered together against your holy servant Jesus all sorts of different intentions. Herod's a nut. Pilate's a political coward. The Jews hate Jesus because he's exposed their their religious hypocrisy.

The Romans just kill people. And What does the church understand one action? God sovereignly determined the action. They weren't forced to anything. In fact, they were constantly with hell. How many times did it say his hour had not yet come.

They wanted to kill Jesus. Not yet. Nope can't do that. They're restrained. And What are they judged upon the fulfillment of their desires? Now if you want to say well, yeah God just sort of made us so we could never have evil desires then what you're saying is you you really do want some kind of mechanistic determinism where mankind is just a puppet on a string and That's not how he's made us that's not how it works.

It goes on to say I have no problem with what Paul said an infinite being Can obviously do whatever he wants. There is no doubt about it. My contention is that there's no possible way for humans to define characteristics of a God who creates feeling Dreadfully minuscule beings simply to destroy them.

He's never done that. I Want to because I know who this person is. I want to in first person say to you. I don't know where you got that. That's not what God has done. God has created this universe to bring about his own glory and to redeem a particular people in Jesus Christ.

And.

You have somehow become so focused solely upon Those who are justly punished by just God. That you've lost sight of the mercy and grace that he's extended to all of them. Let alone the mercy and grace in Christ Jesus that brings about the redemption of this well people that according to scriptures of a number greater than the sand of the sea and I don't understand that.

Simply destroy them. No, I that's not that's not the God I worship and and I doubt that that's really the God you've been introduced to.

Over your life.

It continues on not just a few either. It is highly unlikely the roughly 30 of the world that claims to be Christian actually have we describe as saving faith. I Would agree with that at this point in time.

I mean, I don't know. I I don't know their hearts. But I would definitely agree that a large portion of what calls itself Christianity isn't. Neither do I judge God's? Actions and purposes solely by polls of today in our current situation.

That means billions upon billions of people are going to incur infinite misery. Simply because they lived with no possibility of anything else. No, no triple. No. It's not simply because they lived. They lived in a universe soaked with evidence of God's existence and they suppressed it and engaged in idolatry.

They followed the lusts of their hearts. They did so willfully they had to be restrained from doing more than that. You you can't ignore that part. At least 70 of humanity is created to be torn limb from limb torture and indescribably brutal ways for all of eternity.

That is not why they were created. That is not why they were created. You have you have I can fully understand why someone encountering the Bible's God-centered teaching that God is glorifying himself that it is all about God.

It's all about the demonstration of all of his attributes to all of creation. I can understand how someone Understands that theology but doesn't get the God centered the centered part of it and becomes focused not just upon man but specifically upon Unregenerate enemy of God man boy, I can certainly see how that would end up creating some massive imbalances massive imbalances.

But that's what we've got here is this this poor miniscule little creature that's been created just to be beat up on as if his evil is not something he loves and Yet he does love his evil. Oh, but God should have kept that from happening.

Well, you and I have a minuscule amount of the information that is available to God and To judge him on that basis. I want to take this right back to Romans chapter 9. Who are you? Oh, man. This is obviously an enormous problem for any human being with even a modicum of empathy or feeling Depends on what your empathy and feeling is focused upon.

If your empathy and feeling is focused upon what you think are these poor abused little creatures, okay. It doesn't seem to be any empathy or feeling for God's holy law doesn't be and how do you deal with man's sin?

How do you deal with man's with what man does to man? I mean just look at the last hundred and fifty years of human history how many millions of people died. I just watched Sadly a very troubling video about a week and a half ago of the Taliban executing a bunch of Afghani policemen Brutally brutally, how does that happen?

Oh Well, you know, but but since since God knew it's gonna happen then then, you know He's just unfeeling and they're just doing what they've been forced to do. No, they They wanted to do this. And in fact the Every day God restrains it from doing worse Doesn't get any credit for it.

That's for sure. But anyway it is obvious why most Christians don't believe what the Bible clearly teaches about predestination and is really Whether in Scripture or not nothing but a logical consequence of an omniscient God I would even say most people that do believe in predestination never think about what it really means.

I'm not going to dispute that in this sense. There are many people who by God's grace have in his grace Been given true teaching and just are sort of apathetic about it and don't think these things through.

Let me tell you something brother When I was first introduced to these things, I remember spending some long hours trying to think through these very ramifications and We certainly have I Think I can say over the years the 900 some-odd hours of Dividing lines were currently streaming live across the internet on 24 -7 and that's not including.

I During that time sermons at churches all across the United States and now in the UK and Australia and Sunday school classes at PRBC. I mean we're talking thousands and thousands of hours and Sometimes I'm criticized for raising issues there.

They're a little uncomfortable for us to talk about these things. Well Maybe your experience is that a lot of people don't think these things through and you're right I think there are a lot of people that don't But here we are sitting on the dividing line and we're thinking them through.

And it's not the first time we've done it and that's one of the reasons I asked and received permission To discuss this and to do so.

Openly.

It is unbelievably unsatisfying to hear Paul's response my friend. You haven't heard Paul's response. Because I can't think of anything more satisfying personally. I remember When I first started really wrestling with Romans 9 that I saw the connection between Paul's response and and I don't know if anyone The existence and attributes of God by Stephen Charnock.

What an incredible work. I mean, you cannot speak read this stuff. It's it's you have to Ponder it you have to chew on it. And I I remember seeing the connection between what Paul was saying if you just knew the grandeur and glory and Trustworthiness of this God then you would understand that Paul did given it an answer and I can tell you my friend I am satisfied with Paul's answer and I would suggest that anyone thinks it was a surface level kicking the can down the road type answer.

That you just haven't understood it. Like I said not because an omnipotent deity could not do as he wishes But simply due to the fact our entire faith is based upon words like love sacrifice mercy goodness righteousness evil judgment, etc and None of these can be properly understood or defined in any meaningful sense with what we know about eternal predestination culpability from conception.

I Know this is what you believe. I have not in having read all of this found any foundation for that assertion. You have read into the story of Adam and Eve you have confused categories and I I'm sorry, I see no basis for that.

I can identify love. All I have to do is look at the cross. In fact, I can identify love and recognize that the true God has Such a manifold Varieties of love that it is appropriate to say that God has shown love for every single creature.

In.

Provision for them in making his son to shine upon them and for everyone that is born Unclean a stench in the nostrils of a holy God yet. He has shown them patience and mercy and grace. And again, the real Question that has to be asked by a person who knows his or her own heart is not why?

Bad things happen to people notice. I didn't say good people because there ain't no such thing. But why good things happen to anybody.

In.

Light of the reality of our sin. I can dive I can define all of these. I Can define judgment in regards to Joseph's brothers. They experienced judgment And yet what they did was predestined by God. There's no question about that.

And I say God was absolutely just To do what he did he used them To save many people alive. He could have just simply struck him dead and you'd have to admit that would be perfectly just and yet you seem to have a Problem because he lets them live and then he uses them and his judgment comes upon them in other ways.

I Can I identify all of those words? Our foundation of belief simply cannot be laid without understanding this incredibly important question everything is based on it alone. I Don't agree with that. I do agree with your identifying this as a central issue and it is a central issue and I do agree that this touches on the very nature of God.

But I think that there are even more Foundational things in regards to God's existence and attributes and holiness and purposes That I've had to keep bringing in to provide an answer here and your focus has been a little bit up the ladder Yes far more foundational than most people.

I give you credit for that But still not quite there. I Think there's more I think there's more So believe it or not. That's um, that's the note. That's that's all of it. And I hope once again, if if if there are people in our audience that have been troubled by this discussion, well, I apologize for that only in the sense that if that being troubled has been due to my lack of ability clarity of thought preparation, whatever else it might be then I apologize for that, but I do not apologize for raising issues on this program that I admit can be very troubling for people.

It is troubling for people to think difficult things through but I have said many many times it is far better to think these things through within the context of faith than to be thinking them through within the context of unbelief out there in the.

World.

That's why I say to the church You're preaching and you're teaching your Bible studies your fellowships. Do not fall into the trap of trying. To avoid difficult subjects, that's where people's toes should be stepped on.

It should be in the context of faith. And I really hope that this discussion has been of assistance not only to the one who wrote to me but to others as. Well, we are gonna take a break yeah, and In fact, we'll take two breaks today if you can arrange that.

Oh great master of ceremonies we're gonna take a brief break and then come back with half an hour on the Fernandez tolerance modern culture. Okay, we'll just dive right into it now. That wasn't supposed to do that, huh?

We have a studio audience. So, you know whenever you have a studio audience, you know, the pressure is on rich, you know to just perform. Perfectly and that's of course when everything doesn't work. So we're gonna try it again maybe with some outgo music here or something like that and.

It is that the stretch thing you're doing there rich. Stretch it up. We're gonna do the Fernandez comas debate in the next half hour and then in the last half hour I want to address the issue of Roger Perkins oneness theology that whole issue.

Lots left to do on the buying line today stick with us right back.

Unconditional Election, Grace, and the Meaning of Divine Love

Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing. Some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior in their book.

The same-sex controversy. James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject. Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including Genesis Leviticus and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner. They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.

The same-sex controversy defending and clarifying the Bible's message about Homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at a omen. Or what is dr Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book.

Chosen, but free a new cult secularism. False prophecy scenarios. No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent.

Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant. In his book the potter's freedom James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply. It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded.

Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate. James White Masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.

The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen. But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen. Or the history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith.

Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. In his book the God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute. James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. J. Adams says I lost sleep over this book.

I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God who justifies by dr. James White. Get your copy today at a omen. Org.

I guess we'll just skip the coming-back music rich is having that, you know, just have one of those days, I guess, you know, and I Just got too much stuff going on out there, I suppose but we're gonna dive back into the Fernandez Comas debate anyways, because it's now 431 p .m.

And you might want to just get everything queued up for that short break at the top of the hour, but This debate took place a few weeks ago. We've already been dealing with various issues last time. We didn't get very far because I spent some so much time looking at things like first John 5 1 and and the various texts in the Bible to talk about the Relationship of regeneration and faith that were never mentioned by either side in the course of this debate, unfortunately, and So we brought those up discussed a couple of things.

We will now continue with dr. Fernandez is opening statements Rather arbitrary, I'm sorry. This is now the section on unconditional election. We've already objected to the phrase arbitrary a Sovereign God who is the ultimate authority in all things cannot be arbitrary.

The very term arbitrary is primarily applied to creatures who have multiple possibilities from which they can choose the biblical teaching in Ephesians chapter 1 is very very clear and that is God's choice is based upon the good purposes of his will and That I think for any Christian should be a sufficient answer but evidently that's that still gets the accusation of Arbitrariness.

Let me let me read it again. Just I know we're all familiar with this, but it's directly to the subject. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself. According to Kata Tane you'd a key on to the Lema toss out to the kind intention the good intention of his will.

I Simply have to ask a question of any Christian do you accept what scripture says that it is the only kata that is here is not according to looking down the corridors of time not according to Some kind of external standard by which he could be identified as being good.

The kata that is used here is the kind Intention of his will and we saw in Romans chapter 9. We'll see in Romans chapter 9 again That is contrasted with man's will we saw it in John chapter 1 not by man's will not of blood not by the will of man.

Not but.

According to God's will and That's why it's then ice epine on doc says taste caritas out to to the praise of his glorious grace With which he graced us in the beloved one in Christ Jesus. That is a singular the beloved one In whom we have redemption.

So on so meet we may go ahead and take a look at Ephesians 1. Since. Again Mike again one of my concerns about the format of this debate is there was no exegesis. There's listing of verses there is no exegesis of the verses and that always leads to a.

Bit of a problem. He chose to save some for no apparent reason.

Not for no apparent reason dr. Fernandez. What what. In fact, isn't it funny? I just read that he chose same some for no apparent reason. You mean no apparent reason in them.

Or.

No apparent reason. Period. No, obviously. He chose to save to the praise of the glory of his grace. And so who is it that he has to save. He has to save sinners. Demerited sinners people deserving of death.

He saves them to the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the beloved one.

And.

So and unless that is meant well for no apparent reason as in If that's an objection Then are you really holding the position that the reason any one of us is saved is for an apparent reason? We've got something to boast of over somebody else That what we did attracted God's grace.

That was something that Chris Comas tried to keep bringing up is That what you're saying is is we will be able if it really is us. It's not a result of God's choice. It's our choice. Then that means that when we're in heaven, we'll be able to look at those who are condemned and huh?

Well, you know we all had the same prevenient grace, but My heart was just a little more You know pliable a little softer. I I was a little more spiritual than those folks down there in hell. I you know and and dr. Fernandez is responsible.

I'm not saying we earn anything. No, that's not the point. The point is That either it's Qatar according to the kind intention of his will Ephesians 1 or the Arminian It's according to the kind intention of my will Because I'm the one That ended up making that decision we're all given prevenient grace according dr. Fernandez and so what do we do with it?

Well, my will somehow did something more with it than somebody else's did.

Is that really the position that we want to take. He chose to reject others for no apparent reason?

He chose to reject others for no apparent reason. I guess the only objection here is to the freedom of God and giving grace. So what's the opposite of that now? Dr. Fernandez was in a negative position, so he didn't have to prove his own position, but.

The reality is in a Christian debate you are asserting a particular theological position you're asserting a particular truth and. So it sounds like what he's saying is is that God's grace who gets it is determined based upon our actions.

Especially in light of having received but that doesn't work for prevenient grace. So I guess it's only saving grace.

You know this distinction that really isn't there. If I am picking apples and all the apples are the same to me. Then my choice of which apples to select is arbitrary.

Thankfully there is a vast difference here because we're talking about rebel sinners. We're talking about those who are under the righteous judgment of God. And we're talking about the extension of Grace so as to save these individuals through the self sacrificial giving of Himself in his son.

Now that is not parallel to picking apples. It's just not. It is meant I think to create the sense of arbitrariness, but I would use a different phrase. In light of the kind intention of his will that is God is free in the matter of the giving of his grace.

Grace must be free and it must be sovereign. Otherwise, it's no longer grace.

And.

Chris Comas did make that point.

Not Calvinist like Jacob Arminius believed this does damage to God's justice and goodness and that it also calls into question God's love for mankind.

Really, I.

Would like to counter that by saying it calls into question whether you believe God can have more than one kind of love. Because it seems that dr. Fernandez is functioning on this ground that God's love must be.

A.

Monochrome variety. What I mean by that is again. It's the same error that the Dave Hunt is most famous for at least most famous for in our discussions of late. But Norman Geisler makes the same same error.