August 5, 2004

Asking around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is

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

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

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

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

James White. Well good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

And that's also one of the reasons why we don't have to worry about having a comment section on my blog, because you know what, if you want to get hold of me,

I'm easy enough to get hold of, it's a toll free number. We do this for two hours every week, and you know, if you want to get through, you can get through.

But it's odd, isn't it strange, I've noticed, that many people who are very brave behind a keyboard are not nearly as brave when it comes to actually facing the people about whom they can be so utterly nasty and use such ridiculous language about them.

Yes indeed, the keyboard does create a lot of false bravado that doesn't translate into real life.

But anyway, 877 -753 -3341,

I started off the day posting something that, you know, just basically said, you know what, it's about time somebody exposed these people for what they are.

So it's just sort of been that kind of day. But anyhow, we're open to your phone calls, they don't worry, you know, you can call in and we'll be nice, until you say something really silly and then, you know, we'll have to slap you around a little bit, but hey, that's okay.

I also was reading an article on Envoy Magazine, snipping

Calvin's tulip. A former Calvinist who converted to the Catholic Church discusses

Calvin's theological system. Christopher Cuddy is the name there. Interesting the people they get.

This fellow converted as a freshman in college. There you go, there was somebody who was grounded right in there and ready to go.

And but at least, you know, most of what is, almost everything, except for, oddly enough, the definition of Sola Scriptura, it was pretty good.

I mean, the responses were utterly anemic and may want to post some blog stuff on this because it's just unbelievable.

But, you know, what do you expect for something really short? Well, I don't know how many words this is, it's a fairly long article for something like Envoy Magazine.

But it was interesting to see, I even commented once in channels

I was reading it, that some of the descriptions were actually so good that it was like, you know, this is really good that, you know, maybe somebody is actually reading this and they'll go, oh, look at that, like Unconditional Election, here's what he said about Unconditional Election.

And then we'll take our first call. We already have a caller. And in fact, I forgot to open up my little window thing, my bobby wobber here again, which

I do very frequently, so I forget who it was. So somebody's going to have to re -enter that for me. But anyhow,

Unconditional Election is connected to the reformed view of predestination and it builds upon their belief in total depravity.

Because mankind is so radically corrupt, so thoroughly sinful, and so diametrically opposed to all things good, especially the ultimate good,

God himself, man cannot even take the first step towards saving grace. In his book, Grace Unknown, noted

Calvinist theologian R .C. Sproul, I feel like we're going to hear some classical music come up in the background there as soon as I say

Sproul's name. Theologian R .C. Sproul presents the reformed view of election as follows, quote, from all eternity

God decided to save some members of the human race and to let the rest of the human race perish. And there's a reference to the proper footnote there.

Thus the reason why some people choose to embrace God is because God chose them first. God's choice is unconditional.

His sovereign choice is not at all dependent upon any inherent good or merit he sees within us. A Calvinist would vehemently disagree with the belief that God merely foreknows who will come to saving faith and thus bases his choice upon human decision.

God isn't a celestial Santa Claus who looks down the corridor of time to see who's been naughty or nice. He chooses us not because he sees any particular value or worth in some that is lacking in others.

Rather it is only because of the mystery of his sovereign will that he chooses some and not others. There you go.

And then it's sort of funny the response is many Catholics are shocked when they discover the church actually permits one to hold a view similar to the

Calvinist view. He goes on to talk about Thomism and stuff that is sort of funny. Anyway that's actually on the

Envoy magazine website and it's fairly easy to get hold of there. So it was interesting to read that.

Anyhow I'm not sure who we're talking to here because no one reposted the thing but we're going to be taking our phone calls at 877 -753 -3341.

And I'm going to have to go with, hi

Kyle, how are you doing? Pretty good. How are you? I'm doing all right. Well good.

It's a pleasure to talk to you, James. Hey, it's good to talk to you. I was first directed to your site looking for information on Catholic apologetics and that's the subject of my question today.

I've been involved in a discussion board on a Catholic website dealing with all of the issues involved there.

And my question is, when do you know enough is enough? When you go around and around with someone on an issue and you've made your point, you've clarified, you've given your biblical exegesis and they just don't seem to be getting it.

They redefine your terms, they turn it into personal attacks. How do you know when to end the debate, especially when there's issues still on the table you haven't addressed and you don't want to leave it like you don't have an answer but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

That's always the decision that you have to try to make, is when you are beginning to cast the proverbial pearls before the proverbial swine, when you are not any longer investing your time in a proper fashion.

And it's really, there isn't a hard and fast rule as to when that is.

Sometimes if there is a listening audience, if there are people who are watching this that have not demonstrated that kind of an attitude, that kind of a response, sometimes you can really extend a tremendous amount of patience toward someone that otherwise – and my headphone is sounding really strange.

If I start dropping off at all, it just disappears. It's driving me insane here. I've never had this happen before.

Anyway, sorry about that. That's very distracting to me, what I'm trying to think. Anyway, I've seen situations where I've gone a lot farther than I wanted to go with a particular person, not because I was really focused upon that person, but because there were other people who were listening who

I was hoping would be watching and learning. I remember back in, this would have been about 90, somewhere between 91 and 93, somewhere in that particular range of things there.

I was spending a tremendous amount of time posting on – and this was really before I got into the internet at all.

It was in the infancy stages of the internet, as far as that goes. I was posting on some, what were called

BBSs. There was a Catholic one, which has now, of course, become a website since then. I would spend a day and a half writing responses.

I really would. It was good because I was digging into resources and the stuff that I was doing there was laying a foundation for later debates, stuff like that.

It wasn't wasted time, but it was a lot of time dealing with that particular issue.

I didn't feel like the people, especially since it was a Catholic web, or not a web board, but a

BBS, I didn't really feel like I was doing real well as far as really getting through to anybody.

Years later, many years later, I get an email through our website from a fellow who is now a member of a

Southern Baptist church who had been one of the, how should I describe him, less vocal of my opponents on that particular

BBS many, many years earlier. He narrated for me how after I would post this, sometimes it would be five, six messages.

It would be very lengthy, a lot of text, a lot of citations. This is back before I had a decent enough scanner that you could scan anything, so you're typing everything in and it takes a lot of time.

I would post this stuff and he says, we would then get together in private and we would divvy this up and we'd basically sit there and have discussions.

Okay, how can we get around this? It wasn't, how can we demonstrate this is wrong?

Because we basically knew we couldn't do that. Instead, it was, how can we come up with an answer that will sound good for the people who are reading this?

And he said it eventually, you know, eventually I just woke up one morning and said, what am I doing? If this isn't, if it really isn't true, if I'm just having to struggle to find a way around it, then maybe, you know,

I, you know, I can, I can find something better than this.

And he became under conviction and eventually left the Roman Catholic Church and renounced it and so on and so forth.

And so if I, there were many times I just wanted to throw my arms up in the air in that particular situation and say, forget this.

And you know what? I don't participate much on web boards because the fact that if the book of Ecclesiastes was being written today, instead of in the last chapter there being, it says there's no ending of the writing of books, it would say that there's no end to the writing of web board messages.

It just goes on and on and on and on. And six months after you just, you know, pored your heart out as far as that goes, you can have somebody basically just start repeating themselves like you never wrote everything that you wrote before.

And if you dare say, well, look back and, you know, look who I said also. So you can't really answer and dah, dah, dah, dah, dah.

I fully believe me, I fully understand the frustration of dealing with people who accuse you of doing things that they themselves are the kings of doing.

I remember a woman back in the BBS days, back in the twelve hundred

BOD BBS days for the old folks in the audience. You're going, oh, yeah. And that automatically starts people talking about, you know, their

Atari's and their Tandy computers, stuff like that. But I remember a Roman Catholic lady named

Sue Weidemark. And I'm going to tell you something. I learned early on every possible false form of argumentation from that lady.

It was absolutely incredible. And, you know, a lot of folks just are not built for it.

It takes a tremendous amount of commitment. You've really got to have a clear idea as to why you're doing what you're doing.

And I don't know that it's something that someone can do for a long, long period of time, to be perfectly honest with you.

I've lost a lot of patience for it as I've gotten older and a little more crotchety. And it seems to be something that younger folks can handle a little bit better.

But, you know, you really have to have to prayerfully consider why you're doing.

Are you doing it just so that you can, you know, fight a battle against a particular individual?

Or you're really doing it because you want to get the message out there with clarity and you're using this as a forum to do so.

And since both sides are there, you know that other people are going to be watching and they're going to be evaluating and so on and so forth.

And one other thing, just keep this in mind. People who do what you've been doing,

I've done the same thing, sometimes lose. Well, of course, if they're not reformed, they would always say this.

But even reformed folks will sometimes lose sight of one particular aspect that can be extremely disconcerting to people.

Anytime you talk about truth, anytime you raise issues of the gospel, there is going to be a response.

There is no such thing as neutrality toward God's truth. The gospel is powerful.

The gospel is either that which is a sweet savor of life or it's the stench of death.

It's never neutral. And what that means is if we have people who are today nominally members of what we would call evangelical churches, when the gospel is pressed upon them or when they are exposed to clear teaching concerning the gospel, it's going to have an effect upon them.

And in fact, your discussion of the truth in a particular context may result in people who are today members of what we would call true churches, leaving those true churches and joining false churches.

And that bothers people to no end. It shouldn't. Now you go, what do you mean it shouldn't?

I mean, you see someone embracing falsehood that should always bother you. Yes, in the sense that there is an image bearer of God embracing falsehood, then it bothers you.

Yes. But if they're a hypocritical, false member of a true church, they're probably in graver danger there than if they go ahead and show their true nature, embrace the falsehood.

And now at least you know who you need to be evangelizing and who you need to be talking to. And so when we do debates,

I know those debates have resulted in people becoming members of other churches, of false churches. I know that.

But that's the nature of truth. Truth is going to make that happen. It's going to force people to do things.

You know, someone was just mentioning in Channel John six.

And what happens there? You know, the beginning of John six, you've got five thousand people that look like they are followers of Jesus.

They are even called people who are seeking Jesus. And you get to the end of John six and there's twelve left and one of them is said to be a devil.

The proclamation of God's truth. And in that case, the proclamation that Jesus Christ is the only source of spiritual life.

And that is so detrimental to the ego of man. What was the result of that? Those people walked away.

But you see, they needed to walk away. They needed to be offended. They needed to have their true need exposed.

And that's what God's truth does. So keep that in mind. Don't let that get you down when you when you see that happen.

It's going to happen. In fact, if it doesn't, then I'd suggest to you that probably you are not being as clear and as forceful in your proclamation of the gospel as you should be.

So, you know, when people like interview me on television and radio programs, they don't have any problem getting me started.

You know, once they ask a question, I just I just take off and I just did about 15 minutes right there and answer to your question.

It's funny because you went to John 6. I had another question. I don't know if you have a moment. Oh, we certainly do.

No problem. OK, I've heard you talk about it. I've gone back and listened to the archives on the divining line and I've read the things on the

Internet. And I'm not I'm not a Calvinist yet or maybe never will be.

But I've definitely been challenged. And, you know, I follow the

I follow the context that it is about unbelief, as you've said many times that Jesus is explaining their unbelief.

And I follow that, you know, all that the father gives will come and all. And because it's the will of the father that they're not lost, that all who come will be raised.

And I definitely follow that connection that that is being being made clear. But in verse 44. I see that no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I'll raise him up on the last day.

And I can see that the one who comes was first drawn and then it's raised.

But I'm not seeing that the one that all who are drawn definitely come like I'm not seeing that part.

OK, how would you how would you like make that point? Yeah. Well, you see, the first thing is, if if you're going to assume or conclude that the one who is drawn in verse 44, unless the father sent me draws him, if if you want to make a class available who are drawn but do not come, then in essence, what you're saying is the the hymn in the middle of the verse can be different than the hymn.

Actually, only three words later in the Greek language. So you're you're introducing a distinction between the two hymns.

And of course, I would say, where does that come from in John six, 44 or in the context on six, 44, especially since the very next verse continues that thought and says it is written, the prophets and they shall all be taught of God.

Everyone who has heard and learned from the father comes to me. Well, the hearing I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, OK, see, when

I read it, you know, I see that the one who comes is the subject of the sentence and both hymns refer back to the one who has come and definitely the one who comes is raised up.

So. I'm not saying that the hymn is, um, well, first of all, actually, you have an infinitive there, no one is able to come to me unless the father sent me, draws him that that's at the main clause there is actually and I will raise him up in the last day.

The hymn. Are you saying the hymn in both is the same if one is drawn by the father, one's raised up by the son?

Well, the subject, I would say is the person who has come. No one can come to me unless the father who draws him and that hymn is referring back to the one who has come.

And then I will raise him again, the one who has come on the last day. So we're getting two pieces of information about the person who has come.

We're finding out that he was first drawn and that he's also going to be raised up. But I'm not seeing that it's saying that the one who's drawn is also is always raised up.

Well, who are the ones in John six thirty seven? How many of those who are given by the father to the son come to the sun?

All of them. OK. And so are you saying that it's possible to come to the sun without being drawn?

Come without being drawn. So it's not an impossibility according to forty four. OK. All right. So where would you get the idea of a of a person who is drawn but does not come or come?

Well, see, I'm just trying to find where where this this middle group is. I'm not seeing where where you're coming up with it, because would you agree with me that all who are raised on the last day, that's to eternal life, right?

Sure. Yes. OK. And so if if all who are drawn are raised up to eternal life, then you're not asserting some sort of a general drawing different than this drawing, are you?

Is there a general drawing that that is not like a universal drawing that can be rejected? Right. But then there's a special drawing.

You see, I don't know. I'm not sure if, you know, giving and drawing is a synonym.

I would say that all that are given by the father to the son are drawn by the father to son, because remember, what's the father's will for the son in John six, 38 and 39, that he lose none of those but raise them up on the last day.

There's your connection is raised up on the last day. All that are given to him, it's the father's will that he raise them up on the last day.

Oh, and then he's the same language about the one. There you go. And verse forty four and then verse forty five then says ties this all together by saying everyone who has heard and learned from the father.

That's another way of saying the drawing does what comes to me back to thirty seven. I mean, it's it's almost if you if you were to if you were to put each of these clauses and I should do this,

I should put a Web page together. If you put each of these clauses in thirty seven, thirty eight and thirty nine and then forty four and forty five and put them parallel to one another, it's almost like lacing up a boot.

It absolutely ties all the concepts together. The exact same language is used.

In fact, if you look at the phrase at the end of John six, forty five, it's the exact same phrase that's in John six, thirty seven.

And so it's it's a clear unit of thought with all the same language being used.

And, you know, people I've had some folks get absolutely emotionally upset with me when

I say this, but I honestly I get sent by people all the time.

Their means of trying to get around John six, thirty five to forty five. And I've looked at them.

I'm talking Lutheran scholars and and all sorts of things like that. And I can honestly tell you, I've never, ever seen an explanation that even begins to allow the text to define its own terms.

It has to use a means of exegesis that none of us, for example, who believe the deity of Christ and who would go over to Titus two, thirteen together,

John twenty, twenty eight together. And we would we'd all be on the same page as far as exegesis goes. I've never seen anyone who would agree with me about how we're supposed to exegesis on the deity of Christ or the

Trinity or whatever else. They all abandon that form of exegesis when we get to John six.

I can stay consistent. They don't. That tells me something, you know, so take a look at it.

All right. Appreciate it. All right. Thanks a lot, man. All right. All right. God bless. Bye bye. Eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty one.

I have no idea whatsoever what the next question is about. It could be a long one.

It could be a short one, but we're going to take a shot at it anyways. Andrew in Orlando, Florida. Hi, Andrew.

Hey, Dr. Thanks for taking my call. How are you doing? What's going on? This is kind of unusual. And it may seem kind of childish, not really the

Catholic thing that's going on right now. But I believe me, I don't get up in the morning looking forward to that.

So it's OK. I've looked into a lot of the sort of the apologetics, higher apologetics, you know, that are against higher criticism and things like that.

And whenever people in high school approach me with stuff like that, I can usually answer pretty good. But here's one that I just couldn't.

And I thought maybe your background as a biologist and things like that could help out. All right. You know, when

Noah landed after the flood, I have two questions. One, how did the individual pairs of each species, how were their like grandchildren not all deformed and stuff?

And what did the carnivorous animals eat, especially the ones that would only eat like live things, like some kinds of snakes?

Yeah, well, a couple of things. The problem we have when really the background, as far as I can see it in the question, is we want to look at an incredibly unique situation, but we want to look at it not in an incredibly unique context, but in the same context that we would observe.

We go over the local preserve and examine the way that species survive today, so on and so forth.

How those animals survived in the context of the

Ark had to have been just as supernatural as the survival of Noah and his family.

I mean, there is a reason why the natural order was suspended, because as is clear to anybody, animals generally do not get together with their, you know, a male and a female and go walking into a man -made structure on their own.

So obviously something's going on there at that particular point in time that violates the normal behavior of animals.

And so if their behavior there at the beginning is different, then

I don't understand why we would expect that their eating habits or anything else is going to be exactly the same while they're in the

Ark or immediately thereafter until the generation, that they're put into the

Ark for a purpose. The purpose is so that there doesn't have to be a re -creation in totality after the destruction of that evil generation that existed at that time.

So if the purpose of putting them in the Ark is so as to begin the process all over again, then obviously that's a supernatural purpose.

And there's going to be a supernatural means of getting those populations started that once they're started, there's no longer necessary after that.

It's similar to the issue of creation itself. I mean, if stars and lights in heaven are created for a purpose and that purpose is relevant here, then they have to be visible.

And so, you know, I've always wondered why it is. And well, I guess I shouldn't wonder. I know why it is.

And I understand the whole process of thinking. If you're taught to be a naturalist, if you're taught to examine things without any reference to an overriding divine purpose or anything like that, then you're going to import that into, you know, the examination of everything else.

And so, you know, that makes sense. But we as Christians especially need to be careful that when we study science, there's everything right in studying science.

But the problem is we can't forget the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. And hence, when we examine those things, there's a fine line to walk between being a good scientist and being a humanistic scientist, being one that rejects the existence of the supernatural and immediately just simply says,

I can't look at that because I am a scientist and therefore I must automatically define

God of existence. So, you know, my answer basically to say the whole flood situation was like supernatural and therefore to look for naturalistic responses and reasons as to why a carnivore would for a specific purpose in a limited period of time be able to eat something other than his neighbor, you know, that's just looking at the whole story from the wrong angle.

All right. Thanks a lot. Okay. Hey, thanks for calling me. Enjoy it down there in Orlando, Florida. Go ride a fun thing for me.

Just don't throw up on the people below you. And I've never ridden one down there in Orlando. I've seen them. I've driven right past them, but I've never had a chance to ride any of those neat rides down there.

I really wasn't expecting Andrew to respond to that. But we're supposed to be taking a break, I believe. Yes, we're supposed to be taking a break.

And we have Jason in the United Kingdom who wants to talk to me. And I had some British people in the channel saying that my accent's not a good one.

And I don't feel very good about that. So I may have to talk to Jason about that. Hey, turn that music down. You can't hear me. We'll be back after a break.

Bye. Such a rarity today. So many stars, strong and true, quickly convictions once held and died for among Bible believing

Protestants are now being reconsidered with the advent of the recent Auburn Avenue movement. Is there currently a common basis for dialogue between Roman Catholics and Protestants?

Were the signers of E .C .T. correct in their ecumenical efforts and all of the reform scholars who opposed them in error?

Does Trinitarian baptism make one a member of the new covenant? Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ?

Join us in Los Angeles, California, on November 5th, 2004, for a full three hours of moderated debate between Dr.

James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries and Douglas Wilson of the Auburn Avenue Movement and New St.

Andrews College, as these topics are debated between two of the most respected representatives of the opposing viewpoints.

Additional information and tickets can be ordered at AOMIN .org. That's www .AOMIN .org.

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning

Bible study begins at 930 a .m. and the worship service is at 1045. Evening services are at 630 p .m.

on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805

North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.

If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at PRBC .org,

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

At the heart of the controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformation theology is the nature of justification itself.

It is a debate not merely about how or when or by what means a person is justified, but about the very meaning of justification and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What's a debate reserved for Roman Catholics and the Reformers? The doctrine of justification is now being challenged from within the walls of reformed evangelicalism itself.

Join Alpha and Omega Ministries as we embark on our first national conference and confront this very issue.

Justification, the heart of the gospel. With pastor and co -author of Holy Scripture, the ground and pillar of our faith,

David King, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Founders Conference, Tom Askell.

New Testament Research Ministries founder and author of Evangelical Answers, Eric Svensson.

The founder of the Spurgeon Archive and executive director of Grace to You, Philip Johnson. Nationally renowned

Reformed Christian artist, Steve Camp and the founder of Alpha and Omega Ministries and author, Dr.

James White. Join us at the Los Angeles, California LAX Sheraton Ballroom on November 6, 2004, beginning at 845 a .m.

Seating is limited, so order your tickets now at AOMin .org. That's www .aomin .org

Odd people in our channel. Only 43 people. That's actually sort of small for us on a

Thursday afternoon. We had a whole, I think we had more or less, we've had what, up 70, 80 at one point.

I forget why that was. If I mentioned it on the dividing line, say we're gonna do something odd or we're gonna have an announcement or something like that, but Man, everybody's a critic, you know.

I'm asked to scroll this ad about the crews and stuff like that. And so I put it in bright yellow. I have an almost black background.

I have very dark background. It's very easy to see. But, you know, I can't see it.

Let's put a background on it. Oh, well, let's...

Uh -oh. I see, I see an announcement from on high. The powers that be say

I need to announce something. Dum -dum -dum -dum. Well, wait a minute, wait a minute.

Turn my thing up here, and I will give you a proper introduction.

Here we go. There, you feel better?

That's amazing. We need to do something with your unit there. We got a lot of 60 -cycle hum in there. Well, you know,

I'm not the one accountable for the... You changed something. I haven't touched it. You know I did.

You know I did. Because I'm recording off of those... Who's accountable? Hey, but did you test it before the program?

Huh? I learned a long time ago, buddy, when you're in charge of the technical stuff, if you don't test it before the program, it's on you.

Okay? You're a very funny man. Anyway...

Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah, well, I'm fresh out of bailing wire, so I wouldn't have been able to do anything with it anyway. Mike and I had a conversation with the fellas over at the

Sheraton today. Oh, you did. And I want to let everybody know, this is very important, the rooms in our reservation block are going very quickly.

In fact, we anticipate in the next few weeks a kind of a big rush to grab up the remaining rooms.

If you're going to get a room at the Sheraton and get your tickets either to the conference or to the debate,

November 5th and 6th, you need to do it now. You need to make those reservations, get on the list, get those reservations done, or you will probably be staying at a place down the street.

Or on the street. One or the other. Depending, because the other side of that coin is that once our block of rooms is eaten up, once they're gone, the $89 a room price goes up to somewhere around $150 to $200.

Can you say cha -ching? Cha -ching. Cha -ching, that's what this place normally charges for those rooms.

So we're getting an excellent discount, and if you want to get, if you plan on staying there, my advice is get it done and get it done now.

You mean there might be reformed procrastinators? Is that what you are suggesting?

Oh, come on. We're Baptists for the most part, right? We show up 20 minutes late to everything. Actually, I think we're going to have more

Presbyterians at this than we're going to have Baptists. Well, I don't know how the Presbyterians do things if they show up at all.

So I don't know. We'll have to ask

David King about all that. We had 50 people calling in. As soon as they heard that, they said, forget it. Not going to do that.

Okay, well, was that the whole announcement? That was the announcement.

You can go ahead and cue your music again. And fix that 60 -cycle hum.

Okay, hold on a second. Oh, turn it back up.

Oh, oh. See, that's what has to come after that. Isn't that what has to come after that?

I cannot believe you sang that. That is absolutely amazing and disgusting at the same time.

Yeah, you know, I think we have callers. I know we do, and we need to get back to them. Okay, I fixed the 60 -cycle hum.

You noticed I knew what to do. Yes, I know you knew what to do. I just had to turn that line in often. That's what you did wrong, if I knew it.

Okay, well, let's go to our callers. Oh, let's go to Jason.

Jason in the United Kingdom. Hello, Jason. Good evening. How are you? I'm fine. Oh, good.

Actually, it's in the morning there, isn't it? It is, yes. Yes, okay. In fact, I saw you this morning talking with a guy named

Frink, and you were saying, let's get a bunch of Brits to call in all at once. Yeah, yeah,

I keep saying we ought to do that sometime. I'll have to see if I can arrange it. Okay.

I'm sure everybody in channel will really appreciate that. Oh, they would, yes. So go ahead.

I have a question about... Presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalism. Yes. I'm trying to say that in the proper way.

Well, I was going to ask why you think that that is the correct method of apologetics.

Apologetics? Is there ever a place for using any other method of apologetics?

Well, it might be helpful to maybe explain what we're talking about here, because not everybody just automatically goes, well, what are you talking about?

When I say presuppositionalism, what I'm referring to there, of course, is the belief that you can't simply present to a rebel sinner a set of facts and expect that the rebel sinner is going to evaluate that set of facts on a neutral ground.

Because, A, there is no neutral ground, and a rebel sinner is just that, he is a rebel. In essence, when you are presenting evidences to that rebel sinner, what you're doing is you are giving them more information, but the

Bible says they are already suppressing the information that they have to begin with.

So, what are they going to do with the more information you give them? They're going to suppress that, too.

And so, as a result, what you're going to be doing is they're going to take your information and they're going to twist it, just as they're already twisting the image of God that is within them.

And so, a presuppositionalist is just simply someone who's saying, look, there are certain foundational elements to our epistemology and our worldview that are non -negotiable.

And we can pretend that we are stepping onto neutral ground with someone and saying, hey, let's think about the cosmological argument or let's think about the ontological argument and let's just reason together in that way.

The problem is that we are not really doing that.

If we say we're doing that, we're lying. How can a Christian look at any fact and say that that fact is neutral?

A Christian can't. We have this radical belief that every fact that exists, exists the way that exists because the fact that God made it that way.

God defined that thing. And so, there is no neutral ground in our worldview for us to stand on.

We would actually have to deny our entire worldview. So you would say then that facts don't really speak for themselves.

Facts are interpreted by a person's worldview. Well, all interpretation involves a worldview.

And if I believe that God is the creator, how can any fact exist outside of the nature of its creation by God?

I mean, when you say facts don't speak for themselves, if what you mean by that is I don't believe that a fact exists unto itself as not having been created, well, yeah, of course not.

I believe God created all things. And if a fact is what a fact is, then it is that way because God made it that way.

So yeah, I can't look at a fact and say, well, you string enough of these together and it leads you to my

God. The reason that those facts are the way they are is because God made them that way.

The very idea that there needs to be a rational explanation for anything likewise requires that you believe that there is a creator because the illustration has been used many times before, but I believe it was

Greg Bonson that talked about the USC professor who believes that Jesus Christ did rise from the dead.

But he does not believe that that means anything else other than the fact that strange things happen in this world.

Well, we would go, no, wait a minute. If Jesus rose from the dead, there needs to be a reason, a purpose. Why? Well, that goes back to our worldview.

So everybody has that issue of ultimate presuppositions.

And from a biblical perspective, if you're dealing with a rebel sinner, you do not grant to the rebel sinner autonomy and then try to turn around and prove he's a rebel sinner.

The illustration we've used, and I think this is on our website, if I recall correctly, the illustration that I've used is of a rebel who has climbed up into the judge's chair and you are trying to bring before that individual evidence that he is, in fact, a rebel sinner.

Well, what's that judge going to do when you say, Judge, I wish to bring this fact into evidence?

Well, the judge doesn't want to be proven to be a rebel sinner who shouldn't be a judge in the first place, so he's just going to dismiss the relevance of that particular fact.

You can't start there. You have to start where the Bible starts. And have you ever noticed,

Genesis 1 .1 does not begin with a cosmological argument. The Bible never uses these theistic proofs that we have developed.

I'm not saying those theistic proofs are not valuable in some context, but I think they're primarily valuable within the context of a

Christian worldview. And so, yeah, I just don't believe that we can step off into some neutrality because there's no room for it in our worldview.

The only thing I would say, though, is that some Christians I've met have testified that they came to the

Lord through reading arguments, examining arguments like the cosmological argument.

There's a guy at my church who was converted through looking at the material produced by Ancestors in Genesis.

I'm not disputing the fact that God can use anything. I mean,

I've known people who've come to know the truth through some very odd directions.

And as it has been very well said, God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.

The question is not, you know, have there been people who've been saved watching the channel between 20 and 22 here in Phoenix?

Yeah, that thing. And the fact of the matter is there have been people.

The question is, do we become utilitarians? Do we become people who basically say, well, if it works, then use anything.

I would say, no, we don't. Our responsibility is to honor

God in what we do and not to say, well, you have to do it perfectly for God to use it.

If God had to, you know, if it had to be perfect for God to use it, then

God would never get anything done. All of us have problems in our methodologies and our understandings and things like that.

That's not the issue. The issue is what is honoring and glorifying to God? And when it comes to the issue of apologetics,

I think that biblically we have to recognize we're dealing with rebel sinners and deal with them on that level, not deal with them as if they are autonomous creatures who have the right to judge

God and what he said in his word. As a presuppositionist, though, you would present a certain type of argumentation, but wouldn't that also be suppressed by the rebel sinner?

Well, the rebel sinner is going to suppress anything that you present to him, no matter how cogent it is or how powerful it is or anything else.

There's no question about that. The question is, am I compromising God's truth and the means by which

I present something to someone? Am I giving them the false idea that they themselves have the right to judge

God and to put God in the dock, so to speak, and to demand of God some sort of answer that would allegedly satisfy...

You know, it's like when you listen to the atheist who say, we invite God to appear at all of our atheist conventions and he's never put an appearance, as if some miraculous manifestation is the only thing lacking in their being willing to bow down before God.

The fact of the matter is, as Scripture says, even if a man rose from the dead, these individuals would not be willing to abandon their sinful lifestyle.

They'd find a way around that, too. And so, yes, I will present an argument, but I'm not going to do it in such a way that I'm going to be saying this person and now you have the right to, in essence, judge

God. I'm not going to do it in that way. Right. All right?

Yeah, that's fine. I mean, I haven't really made up my mind on this particular issue and I'm just trying to get lots of different perspectives.

Oh, I understand, especially when, you know, so much of what you're reading has all these extra letters in it and stuff like that.

It takes much more time. Right. Well, thank you very much. Okay, well, be careful when you get on the lift there.

Sorry? Be careful when you get on the lift. On the lift? The lift, you know. Oh, yeah, certainly, yeah.

Yeah, they're elevators. You call it the elevator. Yes, the elevators. You've got lifts over there, you know. And you call the ground floor the first floor.

What do you call it? We call it the ground floor. Oh, okay. That makes sense.

That's all right. Well, thank you very much there, Jason. You can get some sleep now. Yeah, bye -bye. Bye -bye. You know, we have fun.

You know, it was funny. I was, about two days ago, I called for a pizza.

And my daughter's saying, Dad, stop the accent. That's funny. No, I won't do that.

I'll do it in your honor, Summer. Isn't that very nice of me? Anyway, we've got people doing drinking songs on the channel now whenever I do the

English accent. That's a really bad thing. Anyway, I was calling the pizza place called Domino's to get a pizza.

And so, you know, you give them the address and stuff like that and what the order was.

And I know this is sort of odd. The fellow goes, and your name?

And that's, you know, normally they have that or something like that. And I said, James.

And he goes, James White? And I'm sort of like, you know, normally when you've given your address, they've gotten on the computer and you can, you know, they're seeing who it is and stuff like that.

And I said, yeah. And he goes, the

James White? I always get really scared at that point. And I'm like, he says, ailmen .org?

And I said, yeah. Wow, no way. And I'm like, yeah, okay.

And he goes, I've got a friend. He listens to you all the time.

And I'm like, really? And he goes, yeah, and he's a Catholic too. And I'm just like, okay.

Well, I'm glad I was nice when I called the pizza guy.

Okay, I'm sorry. I saw it. I've got the window open now. I'm sorry. We need to go up to one of the three or four people who live in South Dakota and talk with Jamin again.

Hi, Jamin. How are you? Very good. And what's your question today?

Well, I'm reading a book. Everybody knows in the channel. It's that one by Gordon Olson. Oh, yes.

You know, you almost need a couple aspirin like when you're reading Debating Calvinism. It really hits you pretty hard with some pretty weird statements.

Like, for instance, Gordon says, I'm not sure what to think about some of this stuff that he's writing. Now, wait a minute.

You just confused me. Debating Calvinism is Hunt, and Gordon is Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism. That's correct.

Okay. But I'm saying the reaction is the same. Oh, yes. Yes, it is. There's no question about it.

He says, surprisingly, there are absolutely no references to God's decrees in the New Testament. What is that supposed to mean?

I suppose that that means that he is using the specific term

God's decree as if you have to utilize that particular term rather than looking at Ephesians chapter one or passages like that that clearly refer to that type of a concept, that type of an idea.

So I've reviewed a couple sections and also in the past.

I'm not sure if you were able to track those down in the archives or not. But as soon as I got this, and I don't think

I put a date on it. No, I didn't put a date on it when I got it. So I'm not sure when the date exactly would be.

And I'm pretty certain it was before April, so it should still be on StraightGate, I think.

I don't know. Maybe somebody in the channel would know. I'm not sure. But what I did is

I went through some of the key passages, especially John 6. And there are places where he's much better than most of what's out there.

He's a whole lot better than Vance's The Other Side of Calvinism, stuff like that.

It's obvious that he has some knowledge of the original languages and things like that. But what all that does is it makes it even clearer when tradition steps in and starts its stuff.

It was nice, though, and I didn't leave the marks in it that I was looking for.

I grabbed it down off my thing here. But at least one thing you might want to note if you can – oh, wait a minute. You can track it down.

Ah, there it is. There you go.

This is on page 240, if you have it. How many people, when you're talking about John 6 .44,

immediately run off to John 12 .32? And you'll notice toward the – You mean, is that where it says, draws all men?

Yes. This almost last paragraph on page 240. Lord Jesus used the same word, Helcuo, again in John 12 .32.

And if I lift it up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself. In the context, especially of 12 .20, it is clear he is referring to Gentiles as well as Jews when he speaks of all men, which we know can be translated as all kinds of men.

Therefore, I would not claim this passage is a proof of general redemption. That's what I've been saying from the beginning.

That is the context, and that's why you can't connect the two together. So at least I've given the guy the kudos that he deserves.

He's willing to look at that passage and realize that's not a good argument. Now, does that mean that the rest of what he said in John 6 is actually any good?

No, it's not, but that's how you deal with it. Anyway.

Yeah, well, the biggest trouble, I mean, that really got me in the book,

I mean, in the first few chapters is on his – It's just another, you know, chosen but free.

He's saying, you know, how God limits his sovereignty and such. He says on page 63 that, like, for instance, every promise

God made to mankind is an additional limitation of his sovereign freedom. He has thus bound himself and will not go against his word.

The Bible is full of prophecies. These prophecies clearly imply that God's rule and dominion were not yet manifest on the earth, certainly not before the

Messiah's advent, and not literally in the 2 ,000 ,000 years since then. Does this imply a limitation in the exercise of the sovereignty of the present?

Or does this not imply? You know what he's saying? Well, that he promises things, and so he's limiting himself to doing anything else.

That is on top of all these other arguments on how he limits his sovereignty. Yeah, and the problem, of course, with that immediately is many of those prophecies, however, involve what would be called the free will choices of men.

And so if he makes a prophecy that I'm going to do such and so, all he's arguing is, well, he's actually proving the point, because he says, well, you're arguing that God's going to do such and so.

And now he's saying that's a limitation of sovereignty. No, that was what God chose to do when he decreed to do what he was going to do, and there is no power in heaven or earth, there is no one who can stretch forth their hand and stop him.

That's not saying that he's limiting his sovereignty, that's just simply saying God has chosen to act in a particular fashion when he created, and there's nothing that can stop him in so doing.

It's amazing when people try to get around this, the conundrums they end up creating for themselves.

That's what was bothering me when I was looking at the book, it's like, okay, here's obviously someone who does have some background material, some understanding, but just ain't getting this basic stuff about God being sovereign over all things, and he's got this overarching tradition that he's pushing on top of it.

So, yeah, there's one thing, you know, when it says an inductive, immediate theology of salvation...

Yeah, what is this whole spiel on the inductive? He's like pushing that hardcore the whole time in the book, like that's the only way to interpret scripture is this inductive exegesis.

You know, everybody has their own little peculiar thing. He's trying to say that he's not being bound by either of the two positions.

What do you mean by inductive and deductive, or between Calvinism and Arminianism? Between Calvinism and Arminianism.

He's trying to say, look, I'm not being bound by this. I have this free, proper method of exegeting the scripture in an inductive fashion, and I'm not starting from any certain presuppositions and so on and so forth, and I'm coming up with this immediate position.

But he's not immediate. I mean, okay. I know. I mean, come on. He starts the first chapter slamming

Calvinism, that's all he does. Oh, yeah. The first two chapters. If this is immediate, then so is the

Democratic Convention or something like that. I mean, come on. You're right. Let's just be real open about it.

This is an Arminian book, okay? You may not like a couple of the conclusions, but other than that, you're going to be real happy.

Yeah, I'll tell you, there's a lot of books out there. Someone's looking for them. They're going to track them down, and this is one of them.

But you still have to go to each of the texts and hammer it out one by one, and when you do that, the blocks start falling apart, and you discover most of these guys spend most of their time, as Olson does and as Vance does, on stuff that really isn't central.

It really isn't the focus of what's actually being said, what's actually being done. So anyhow, hey, we're about out of time here on the old

Radio Ranch today. I hope you up there in South Dakota are enjoying reading your book and being in the channel.

Thanks for giving us a call today, Jamin, okay? Yeah, you bet. We'll see you. All right, God bless. Hey, folks, we're going to be back. I've been told that I need to listen to Charles Stanley's sermon today from radio.

It was on John 6, and so I'm going to download that and maybe Tuesday morning. I'll try to remember to blog if we're going to talk about that.

Tuesday morning at, well, actually, it's Tuesday, 2 p .m. Eastern Standard Time.

It's 11 o 'clock my time, but 2 p .m., that may be what we'll be looking at. We'll see. Depends.

I don't know. But we'll be here, Lord willing. Hope you'll be there. Thanks for listening to The Dividing Line today.

God bless. We need...

Brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries. If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

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

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