Passion of the Christ, then Amyraldianism

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 and good morning, welcome to The Dividing Line. Today have lots and lots and lots of stuff, have audio clips and have books stacked up here to my left.

And we are ready to go and normally on a Thursday morning we get a little more time for that kind of stuff than we do calls, but hey, the phone lines are open at 1 -877 -753 -3341 as well.

Obviously, what's on many people's minds today, February 25th, the

Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson's portrayal of the last 12 hours of the life of Christ will open in theaters.

And my good brother, John Sampson, pastor here locally in the Phoenix area and also affectionately known as Silly Britt, too, even though now he's an

American, dropped off a DVD that was sent,

I assume, to his church. It is from an outreach organization on how to utilize the

Passion of the Christ as an outreach tool for your church. It is a DVD containing a lot of Lee Strobel.

Lee just talks and does more talking and even talks after that. And there's outreach suggestions and things like that.

But there was the trailer, and I don't know if that's the actual trailer we're going to use in theaters, if it's even going to be in theaters for that matter, as far as the trailer goes.

It was about four minutes long. Didn't seem like it while watching. It went by very quickly. Obviously, as we are being told by everyone, it is a top -level production on a cinematography, you know, like movie -wise.

And as far as cinematography goes, early in the morning, which we expected.

I mean, Mel Gibson's not going to sink 30 -some -odd million dollars into something that isn't done well.

And so we expected that. And it's going to be primarily communicative via images rather than words, which we could comment on that as well.

But moving on from there. But what was fascinating to me was included on the

DVD was an interview, both with Jim Caviezel, who plays the

Christ in the film. I didn't remember his name. I'm not really good with actors' names, because that's just not something

I'm really into. But last abiding line, I mentioned this individual, the only thing I've seen him in personally was

The Count of Monte Cristo. And he plays Christ, and they've obviously had a lot of shots of that and so on and so forth.

And it seems to be, you know, again, the production value is very high. But then they had an interview with Mel Gibson, and it was an interview that aired on EWTN.

And I listened to it, and I listened to it carefully. And I wanted to play two segments.

Now, again, I'm sort of assuming, and I know this isn't the case, but I have, I did present a brief sermon on this subject two weeks ago this coming

Sunday evening at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. All I was doing in that sermon,

I was not, you know, really, it's still difficult for me at times when speaking within the context of local church to consider the fact that I am speaking beyond the bounds of that particular room and that particular congregation.

It was primarily a sermon for our folks. That's really all I had in mind was our individual church.

And basically, it was a call by one of the elders of that congregation that we need to be ready to give an answer for our faith.

We need to be ready to respond. We need to be ready to explain the cross in its fullness, what it means to us, what the

Bible says about it, what the purpose and intention of the cross was, the concept of propitiation,

God's wrath, sin, all those things that are going to be missing in the hearts and minds of a large portion of those who are going to end up in the theater watching this film and they're going to experience a great emotional impact by watching this film and far beyond anything that I think most films have produced in the past.

And so we need to be ready to give an answer. So I was listening with a fair amount of interest then to the interviews that were provided simply because it helps me to understand what's being said and obviously

I'm looking for some evidence of what this film's really going to be like.

I have not had the opportunity, like many have, of actually seeing it yet, but just trying to keep up on it.

And so I have a couple of clips, they're very short, from the interview with Mel Gibson that I would like to play.

Now I know some folks are already saying, ah, you know, because he's a Catholic you just think it's terrible.

I've never said that. I'm really hoping that it will be something that can be positively used.

God can use even a crooked stick to draw a straight line. So I think God can use it.

I'm simply saying that as I see the state of the church today and the tremendous degradation of understanding concerning the nature of Calvary, the fact that the cross has been turned into something that, rather than displaying the power of God, is something that has been robbed of its power by turning it into the centerpiece of a man -centered gospel, it's been turned into something that is pure sentimentality.

And so that's my concern. And am I concerned that Mel Gibson is a very conservative, possibly even non -Pope -following, steady -vacantist

Roman Catholic? Yes, I'm concerned about that, because I'd love to see the man come to know in fullness.

If he is so passionate about this, and yet he doesn't have a finished sacrifice in his own theology, in his own beliefs, how much more awesome would it be if he could come to know the fact that when

Jesus said, Tetetestai, it is finished, that it really was? I think that would be fantastic.

But am I concerned that this ecumenical concept that sacrifices all that, that doesn't seem to think that being precise on the nature of what

Scripture says about the gospel, maybe that's a discreet proposition, I don't know, am

I concerned that that's going to cause problems? Yes, I am. So, keeping those things in mind, there were two things that sort of jumped out from the

EWTN interview that sort of struck me as I listened to it.

And so I'm going to play those two sections for you. These are, again, from the EWTN interview of Mel Gibson, and let's go ahead and listen to the first one right here.

...sort of underscores, and I've read the script, there's a lot of attention to the

Last Supper as you go along. Why visually cast it in that way?

Well, I wanted to juxtapose the sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar, which is the same thing, and just kind of demonstrate that, that as he's being tortured and murdered and killed and everything, that you cut back through the eyes of John, who's at the foot of the cross, you just cut back to him remembering, like, oh yeah, with the

So that he, the penny drops for him at that point. Now, I don't know whether the penny did drop for him at that point or not, but I think he's a pretty smart guy, and maybe it did.

Now, hopefully if you're listening carefully, you heard the same thing that I heard. Let me just replay right at the beginning of the clip here.

...visually cast it in that way? Well, I wanted to juxtapose the sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar, which is the same thing.

There you go. The sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar, which is the same thing.

Now, if you're not familiar with Roman Catholic theology, let me try to bring you up to speed here for a moment.

One of the key issues, and it sadly is an issue that non -reformed apologists to the

Catholic faith really struggle with this, the fundamental and strongest defense against the standard evangelical argumentation on this subject that Rome has mustered is, the sacrifice of the mass, the sacrifice of the altar, as Gibson put it there, is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary.

And therefore, it's not a re -sacrificing over and over again, it's a re -presentation of the one sacrifice.

But that means that one sacrifice does not perfect anyone, and in fact that one sacrifice in essence creates this treasury of merit, this grace that is then dispensed through the sacraments, and specifically and most especially through the sacrament of the altar, and that this then is the means by which the benefits of that one sacrifice are appropriated by the faithful through the attendance at mass.

So it is a repetitive sacrifice in the sense that you come to it, but it's allegedly the same sacrifice over and over again.

I know that sounds a little bit like doublespeak to most of us, but that's the position. And so you just heard

Mel Gibson say, hey look, here you have the sacrifice of the cross, and the sacrifice of the altar, and they're the same thing.

It's the same issue going on. And so in the film, evidently you've got John as he's looking up at the cross, and he goes back and forth and sees what happened at the

Last Supper, and he quote -unquote makes connection. Now, could a Protestant, a non -Roman

Catholic, could a person who is much more biblical in their view of things look at that and go, well, see, there's the symbolism of the

Supper. This is what Jesus was communicating when he talked about the broken bread and the wine, and yeah, you could.

But here again we have the illustration of what is going to be heard because of what you bring into the theater, what's going to be seen and heard is going to be fit within the context of what you yourself bring with you.

And evidently for Mel Gibson, the point here is that the sacrifice of the cross, the sacrifice of the altar are the same thing, and that again brings us to the real issue in regards to what is really communicated in the context of this particular film.

Then there was just one other little thing. It's not nearly as important from my perspective, but it is interesting to hear the language that's used here.

This is something concerning Mary. ...component here. Mary is really... I want to go back on that.

Let me go back about two seconds on that. She's amazing, you know. Talk to me about the Mary... Oh, come on, come on.

Do something nice for me here. She's giving it everything. She's amazing. Talk to me about the Marian component here.

Mary is really a key figure in this. Normally she fades to the background. You don't see her until the final end of the reel.

She's here every step of the way. She goes through it. Why was that important? Because I think she suffered as much, almost.

I mean, she didn't have to bear the wounds and stuff, but imagine if it was your child, and not only that, but your child who you know is a deity.

I mean, imagine what that's doing to you, you know. So I thought it was absolutely necessary to sort of put her right there on the front row to watch the whole thing, and to see her sort of bear it, and to see her suffer it.

And she's done a remarkable job. Now I, obviously, when

I listen to that, when I hear the use Marian, and then I hear, well, she suffered like he suffered,

I cannot help but wonder what Gibson's position is on the definition of the fifth

Marian dogma. I mean, I've written a book on the subject. If you've read Marian of the Redeemer, you know that many popes have taught that Mary suffered with Christ.

That's part of the whole basis of John 19, the whole basis of the concept of Mary as co -redemptrix, co -mediatrix, and advocate of the people of God, is that because she immolates her own son, she suffers and almost dies at the foot of the cross.

She enters in this mysterious way into his suffering. I don't know where he stands on that particular issue.

I don't know if he is a supporter of the definition of that. Doesn't go into it in the discussion here, but it sounds to me like that's what's going on here.

It sounds to me like that's where he's going with that, the idea of her suffering with Christ and things like that.

He's not a theologian, but it just sort of makes me cringe a little bit, especially when you know your son's a deity.

I could never get my voice quite as low as Mel Gibson can get his with regularity. But anyway, that seemed to me to possibly indicate some element of that.

I know Mary is very big in this particular program, this particular movie, and you wouldn't expect it to be anything other than that, and nor could you, obviously, logically, do much of a presentation on the cross and on the last 12 hours of Christ's life without including at least

Mary at the cross. But obviously, she's going to appear much more often than that, because I understand there's these flashbacks to Christ's earlier life and things like that, and so on and so forth.

So that's going to be there as well. I don't know how much of that there's going to be, but something to consider, something to look at, and something to be aware of when the questions come up concerning, well, how come you apostates don't talk about Mary?

Well, we should. I mean, she'd have to be there, and her example of faithfulness would have to be discussed if it's going to be meaningful whatsoever.

But that's a far cry from the concept of Mary entering into his sufferings in some supernatural way so that she becomes the avenue through which all the grace of God is to be channeled by his decree.

I mean, that's going way out the door with something like that. So two little things from the

DVD. Thanks again to John Sampson for dropping that by, and just more reason to be prepared, more reason to be thinking about these things, and maybe memorizing a few passages of scripture and things like that before the beginning of the film.

I just wanted to play a couple clips here from a call to BAM last week because it made mention of me, and it was very interesting.

There's actually two calls, two different days, but if you understand how that's done, you do, well, we did three hours in a row, and then it's played over three days frequently.

They'll do two hours and play the second hour the next day. I mean, that makes sense. That's an efficient use of time.

And it was interesting. A man calls up, and he's an Amaraldian, and you're wondering, you know, are we ever going to run out of terms for people?

Amaraldian is, and this isn't really an accurate viewpoint, to be honest with you, but sort of a four -point

Calvinist. Almost every single four -point Calvinist I've ever met was not a four -point Calvinist.

When I hear someone describe themselves as a four -point Calvinist, I'm almost certain right off the bat that they're actually a less -than -one -point

Calvinist. The vast majority of objections to particular redemption are actually, once you start pushing on them and sort of blowing some of the dust away, objections to unconditional election, which are based upon beliefs about libertarian free will, and you end up with nothing left, really.

But Amaraldianism really has more to do with the confession of a universal atonement.

The various forms of it become very specific as to intentions and purposes and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

And so an Amaraldian calls up, and I don't think that he got an answer to his question, but the comments that were made were interesting.

I just want to run through it here. Make some comments as we're going along. Seems to fit with the blog at the moment.

I put a little discussion up there last night concerning the use of Samuel Fiske's book by Dave Hunt.

Don't forget, not only is The Passion of the Christ coming out in February, which is the important thing, but on a much lighter note, or a lesser note, so also is

Calvinism Debated Five Points, Two Views from Multnomah. My debate book with Dave Hunt will be out in February as well.

And so keep that in mind. We need to, actually we need to get that on the website, don't we?

Yes we do, because Amazon is already taking pre -orders, and to my knowledge we aren't, so we need to do that as soon as possible because we don't want folks buying it from Amazon when they can buy it from us, and help continue to do the work of the ministry.

So let's listen to this call. Let me briefly explain something that I'll ask the question. Okay, sure. A few weeks ago,

James White and you and Greg, George Bryson, were debating the sovereignty of God.

And one thing that I noticed that was never discussed is a four -point Amaraldian Calvinist view on unlimited atonement.

I tend to hold to that, a midway between Arminianism and between James White. What's your opinion on it?

Well, are you asking what specifically, whether you can be a Calvinist and still hold to the idea that God died for the sins of the whole world, rather than just for the sins of the elect?

Yeah, as well as your opinion, both. Now that's interesting. First of all,

I don't know why it sounds that way. It didn't sound that way before I played the Gibson stuff. I wonder if the low level of Gibson voice.

It sounds really weird. But anyway, I just got messaged that this fellow called the ministry, so I would be interested in knowing how that conversation went.

But I wish the second caller I'm going to play had called the ministry. That is what

I would like to hear. But anyways, we can continue on. Well, my opinion is that Christ clearly died for the sins of the whole world.

The weight of Scripture adequately underscores that. So the idea that God died for Jesus Christ died only for the elect,

I do not think squares with Scripture. And that's ultimately what our whole position is based on.

What does Scripture clearly teach? And that, of course, is what I was trying to press in the debate.

And when people listen to that debate, I would simply ask, was my question concerning the substitutionary nature of Christ's atonement answered?

Did either Hank or George answer the question? I mean, well, George did, in a sense.

He said, he said, in essence, that Christ died hypothetically.

I mean, he pretty much said that. But he then did not explain the issue in regards to, all right, if Christ bore the penalty of sin of John Brown, knowing that John Brown is going to end up in the lake of fire, then how can

John Brown be condemned? I did not hear a response to that. I even tried to redirect the question after a long discussion about something else.

And I did not. Was that one of the places where I got the read the book thing? I'm not sure. I only remember two read the book things.

Maybe there was a third read the book thing, too. I'd have to listen to that and find out if that's the case.

But anyway, it is a biblical issue. And I would direct folks to Hebrews chapters 7 through 10.

And you know, I present an entire chapter in the Potter's Freedom of exegetical, not philosophical, but exegetical, and not just citing the passage, but working through a passage, argumentation on this particular issue that, again,

I didn't hear any response to when we were doing the discussion. So I continue.

So the plumb line, again, is Scripture. And I think that what Scripture clearly teaches is that God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Or what Peter underscores, that the Lord is not wanting anyone to perish, but come to repentance.

Now, I addressed 1 Timothy 2 .4 briefly. I only had a few seconds to do it.

Didn't get an answer in the context of the debate. That's a miscitation of 2

Peter 3 .9. And I addressed that. There's an entire chapter in the Potter's Freedom on the Big Three. I've not heard a response to the materials on Matthew 23, 2

Peter 3 .9, and 1 Timothy 2 .4. I didn't get one during the course of the debate either.

Before I go too much farther with this, I guess there's someone who wants to describe...

I mentioned that this fellow called the ministry, and I don't answer the phone. If you try to call here, the chances of you getting hold of me are next to nil, actually.

It's a brick wall. It's a brick wall. And it's supposed to be a brick wall, or I'd never ever get anything done. Absolutely. So you're the brick wall, right?

I am the brick wall. And this gentleman called me, and he essentially...

Where I'm trying to plug this in is whether or not he called here. I can't remember exactly which day he called.

This would have been... the call to the program would have... What's today? It would have been Tuesday.

It seems to me he probably would have called... Before that. Here after that. Really? I thought you told me about this...

It's possible. I'm not plugging that in. I don't remember what day it was.

I don't know. Let me see if I can remember when I was taking my medicine. Very funny.

Very funny. You know, the interesting thing about his call and what he asked me was,

I think it was coming from a point of view that you needed to offer the idea of Amereldianism as an alternative point of view, evidence of Calvinism, that your point of view isn't the only one out there that is, quote unquote,

Calvinistic. And he wanted to know why you didn't offer that up as an additional evidence.

Maybe because I don't believe it? Yeah. But the thing is, I thought about it in the discussion and quickly realized, wait a minute.

No, in a sense, you did address it. You did address it because in the conversation, very early on, you brought up the idea of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ and why we say that, what that phrase means.

And fortunately, that launched us into a really nice conversation about the impact and the point of believing in a substitutionary atonement, that in fact, if you don't believe limited atonement, you don't believe in a substitutionary atonement.

And I kept asking him the question, will there be people in hell for whom

Christ died? Do you believe that there will be? And he wanted to kind of avoid that a little bit and finally said, well, what if I said yes?

And I said, well, then it's you who's limited the effect of the atonement, isn't it? Because Jesus Christ's blood didn't do for those people what it's supposed to do.

Well, and that's part of the whole discussion of Amaraldianism, is the intentions of the atonement, the effect of the atonement, all that's fine and dandy, and if they want to bring an

Amaraldian on to present the Amaraldian position, great and fine and wonderful, but I don't understand the rational basis upon which anyone could demand that I present, now this is my view, but however, since there's no one here to present this view, let me present a number of other views.

I mean, that's, you know, that's just, I don't understand that kind of a demand, and when people say, well, you know, you're, well, this is a common one, you're not even really truly

Reformed, you're a Baptist, you know, it's like, you know, I thought we were discussing the core issues, the doctrines of grace here, not other issues outside of that,

I can only defend my own position, I know the other positions are there, but if I don't agree with them, why in the world would you want me presenting them anyway?

That part doesn't really make any sense to me. Exactly, but that was the gist of certainly where he was going with me when he called here.

He, for some reason, felt that you needed to at least offer it up as an alternative point of view to these guys that,

I guess, not every Calvinist is really a Calvinist, or as Calvinistic as you are,

I don't know, I don't know what, and frankly, I think it would have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as I pointed out to him, in my opinion, if you don't believe in limited atonement, you're not a

Calvinist. Well, you know, then again, we just found out this past week that Mark Carpenter, the great hyper -Calvinist of the internet, is no longer a

Calvinist, because he discovered, he thinks now that John Calvin didn't believe in limited atonement, and therefore he's added him to the hypo -Calvinist hall of shame,

I tell you! You know, when you become a hyper, eventually the circle will be so small, only you can stand in it, and that on one foot, so it is a fascinating thing.

But that's, for those of you who've read the blog, there's something there. Thank you very much for that description. Let me get a few more minutes of this in, then we'll take our break.

I know we have one person on hold, but it's sort of hard to get through a call like this, just sort of stop it, right in the middle, so let's listen to the rest of this here.

Underscores that the Lord is not wanting anyone to perish, but come to repentance. For 1

John 2 .2, Christ died not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

Even going back to the Old Testament, where Ezekiel quotes the Lord as saying, Surely, as I live, declares the

Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, rather that they turn from their ways.

And of course, at that point, we talked about Ezekiel 18, and I would then point to not only the fact that the atonement offered in the

Old Testament that prefigured the atonement of Christ was always limited, no time when the high priest offered a sacrifice upon the altar was it for every single human being who had ever lived or ever would live.

Never was it for anyone outside of the covenant community, for that matter. It was not for the

Babylonians, it was not for the Egyptians, it was always limited. And it's fascinating that Dave Hunt beats the drum of, you

Calvinists can't go to the Old Testament. Well, first of all, the clarity of God's sovereign decree, especially in the, that would be like saying, that's a bit like a

Jehovah's Witness, you can't go to the Old Testament. That's a ridiculous argument, but beyond all of that, in reality, the problem is reversed.

He has to assume a universal intention for sacrifices that clearly were not universal in the

Old Testament. And we also then have to explain Isaiah chapter 6, where God hardens the hearts.

There's all this hardening passages that I still don't understand from a libertarian perspective how

God can restrain men from sin, every time I brought that up during the debate, stony silence. Nor how

God can harden men, well that must be just a result of their hardening themselves. Well, that's not always in the context of each one of those passages.

So, I'm just giving brief responses here as we go by. Yeah, what does that mean?

What does sovereignty mean? I thought sovereignty implied active rulership. The fact that God can genuinely work sovereignly through free creatures and still accomplish his ends.

Now, that is a common argument, that somehow, if you believe in a sovereign decree of God, if you believe that Ephesians 1 .11

says he works all things after the counsel of his will, that somehow is less than a God who somehow works all this out with libertarianly free creatures.

Remember, we believe in free will. We recognize that man does as he desires to do.

Not as he's quote unquote wired to do, as we'll hear a little bit later, but as he desires to do. He acts upon the desires presented to his will by a fallen and corrupt nature.

There's no question about that. However, that does not explain how that somehow is a more glorious thing than God accomplishing his purposes in light of an eternal decree.

We're not told exactly what that is, but we'll look at a little bit more of this briefly as we come back from our break. We have one caller on hold.

Please be patient. We'll get to you. It's sort of hard to break these things up and make any sense because the subject of the call is completely different than this.

So we'll try to finish this up and then go. The call here on the dividing line. We'll be right back right after this. 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 almen .org. Answering those who claim that only the

King James Version is the word of God, James White in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true

Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .almen

.org. 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 Pottish Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, but The Pottish 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 Pottish 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 aomen .org.

A number of different things today.

We've talked about the Passion and we're talking a little bit about Reformed faith and objections there too. I'm going to finish this up real quick.

It underscores and heightens the sovereignty of God. The fact that we are genuinely culpable for sin.

We can't say, I was created to reprobate. I never had an opportunity to respond because I wasn't wired that way.

Now, I objected, of course, that language. I said that's not what Reformed people believe. R .C. Sproul would say that's not what

Reformed people believe. Any Reformed theologian would say that's not what Reformed people believe. I don't know why. There is an insistence upon continuing to use inaccurate language.

It does not help to make the discussion go forward, to continue to use inaccurate language in that way.

The idea is that God created us in such a way that instead of looking at the federal headship, which

I brought up, and I asked. You can listen to it. I said, does anyone here deny the federal headship of Adam?

And there is this silence. Isn't that a section? I'm not sure if that's a section where I got so into it that Hank's only response to my statements was,

I wish we all had your energy. That doesn't really accomplish anything. But we are in Adam, and so we inherit from Adam a fallen nature.

That is not the same as saying God wires us so that we are incapable of doing what he commands us to do.

We have fallen in Adam. If you want to reject the federal headship concept of Romans 5, then you need to reject the federal headship concept of Romans 5 in regards to righteousness of Christ as well, and eternal life, and being in him, and all things that go with it.

Many people are willing to do that, but I'm not. This type of genuine culpability is a way of saying that God cannot hold men accountable unless they have libertarian freedom.

And I, again, just throw my hands up in the air and rock back and forth and sing Genesis 50,

Isaiah 10, and Acts 4, 27 through 28. And I just sing it over and over again, and I go, please, someone, exegete the text.

Touch the text. Draw your theology from the text. And I don't hear that happening. And I tried.

Everybody heard. I tried, tried, tried, tried, tried, tried, but I didn't get anywhere. We want to make sure that we preserve genuine human culpability.

And then, of course, we want to preserve the justice of God. So, the idea of the justice of God.

How is the justice of God protected and promoted? In the non -reformed view of the atonement, in holding to substitutionary atonement, which is a reformed perspective.

I said that, by the way. I pointed that out. Nobody objected. Historically, it's a reformed doctrine.

Substitutionary atonement. Penal satisfaction. How is God's justice protected?

By saying that God punishes the same sins twice. Once on Christ. Once on those who end up moving, who end up in heaven, and, who end up in hell, undergoing the suffering for the exact same thing.

Where is the justice? That part I don't understand. The idea espoused by Calvin is not an idea that I can endorse.

I grew up in a Calvinist home, and I cut my teeth in the Heidelberg Catechism, but I do not endorse

Calvinism today, because I do not endorse the idea that God arranges all things by his sovereign counsel in such a way that individuals are born who are doomed from the womb.

Ah, there's going to be the new thing. We're going to hear it over and over again. Doomed from the womb.

However, however, I would like to point something out. If that terminology is going to be used repeatedly over and over again, we need to recognize that in God's knowledge, even in Hank's position, who confesses exhaustive knowledge of the future,

God knew when he created that every single one who would be doomed would be doomed.

He was under no compulsion to create that way, was he? Was some external force forcing

God to create in such a way that all these people would be doomed? I think I could answer no.

I don't think he would say that there was. So God freely chose to create a universe in which he infallibly knew that free creatures would doom themselves, and he did so for what purpose?

Don't worry, your signal hasn't gone away. I don't know. I kept asking. I never got any answers.

And so they were doomed from the womb in his perspective, and yet you don't have what then makes that a biblical and rational belief, and that is these are individuals who love their sin, who despite the general revelation of God's spit in his face, they take his law and pervert it.

Let's look around our nation today. Let's look at a particular, oh, political leader that just this week said that homosexuality can't be sin or otherwise

God wouldn't have made homosexuals. I mean, there's a perversion of God's law. How about that? These people desire to do these things.

They love to do these things. They are willful rebels. They are freely following the desires of their own nature, and they spit at the light that they have.

It's not a matter of if they respond to that light. They always respond to that light. The problem is, biblically, they always respond negatively. They always reject it.

They always suppress it. Catechism. Romans chapter 1. This is very, very, very clear. And so, all that is there in the text of Scripture.

If we just allow that particular, you know, that one tradition to step out of the way and let the

Scripture speak, it's very, very clear. God has a purpose. He's accomplishing that purpose. But you don't have that when you deny the sovereign decree of God in any way, shape, or form.

Let me try to finish this up. ...that individuals are born who are doomed from the womb to certain death, which is the view clearly articulated by John Calvin.

Again, this is an in -house debate. It needs to be conducted in a collegial fashion, and it will be something we'll continue to talk about.

There's a good book out. George Bryson, you mentioned. He wrote a book called The Darker Side of Calvinism. It is available, or The Dark Side of Calvinism, available on the

World Wide Web at Equip .org. Which I've ordered and haven't gotten yet, unfortunately. Good book.

I'm sorry. George is a nice guy. But George's books are not good.

They are not. And I'm not talking about anything other than the fact that I don't believe they're balanced, they're not biblical, he doesn't do exegesis, and so I don't consider them good.

And he has his own understanding of what he demands Calvinism be, and he doesn't get to it.

Now there's a call, I'm not going to be able to get to it today, in the second hour, where a guy... Well, let me just play the beginning of it.

I think Hank did a good job in responding to this. I'll be perfectly honest with you. You know, I hate to play the one where I have to disagree with him, but I thought he did a fair job in responding to this and saying, no, that's not...

yeah, The Darker Side of Calvinism. The sequel. That'd be the next one, after The Dark Side of Calvinism.

The Darker Side of Calvinism has a completely black cover instead of one that has a light on it. But listen to what this caller was saying.

I think the caller had a point in some senses, but I think Hank did a good job responding to it.

We'll just play what the caller said. How are you? Actually, my question is about limited atonement.

The question I have, then, is kind of a two -fold. One, in light of the main and the plain reading of the

Scriptures, in terms of salvation being to all and for all, isn't the

Calvinist point of view really heretical? Oh, I'd love to talk to that guy.

I would love to talk to that guy. Let's sit down and talk about this. I mean, you know, and see, there's one of the reasons, folks.

We'll go to our callers after this, but there's one of the reasons, folks. Why I so dislike the

Mark Carpenter hyper -Calvinism stuff, which I know he's not a Calvinist anymore, but he's more Calvinistic than Calvin was, but that's why

I reject it. You know why? Because here is a person who has only heard his traditions.

He's never heard the other side. It is painfully clear in the words of this gentleman that he's never heard the other side.

And so how am I going to want to respond to him? I'm going to want to go, oh, you dumb Arminian, you're going to hell because you don't have all the knowledge

I have. No, that's not how you talk to someone like that. So many people,

I'm looking at folks in our chat channel who probably would say, you know, once that would have been me.

That's all I knew. But someone took the time to patiently deal with me, talk with me over time.

They didn't try to cram it down my throat and use the high -pressure techniques.

They just simply shared things with me, and I started going, yeah, well, I hadn't thought of it that way before. I started looking at the scriptures, and boom, it was there.

That's why you don't handle things the way that some people handle things, and that's why I've used the term cage -stage

Calvinist. That's the new Calvinist who does more damage than he does good because he hasn't joined with his

Calvinism, maturity, and patience, and an understanding that, you know what?

God brings his people to an understanding of his truth in his time. And I'll never forget this one guy.

He wanted to argue with me. He wanted to argue a point with me, and I just said, you know what? Not now. And he was so, so downcast that I did that, that it actually ended up working.

He then was able to examine the issue in a less emotional way, and voila. There you go.

All right, we have two folks online now we need to really get out of here. I appreciate the patience of Brett in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Let's talk with Brett. Hi, Brett. Hey, how are you doing? Been a long time. Sorry about that, but it's really hard to break something like that and move on to another topic.

But you want to talk about Revelation 4 and 5. Yeah, I haven't had a chance to call since I listened to the Stafford debate.

Yes, sir. But he made a point, and this almost came out in your questions to him.

In Revelation 4, 9 through 11, even though the word proskuneo is only used in verse 10, it's clear that in verse 9 and 11 that proskuneo is taking place, that they're worshiping

God. Oh, of course. Of course. And then when you move over to chapter 5, we don't have the word proskuneo until verse 14, and that seemed to be his way out of what you were trying to ask him at the time in life.

Well, proskuneo isn't used directly at one person or the other person. Right. But in verse 13, it says,

To him who sits on the throne unto the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever. If this is, in fact, worship, then it seems he's got a problem, because, well, is this worship that is only reserved for God?

If so, then it's to the Lamb also. Of course. Or is this worship the kind of worship that you would direct to the

Lamb, in which case you're worshiping the Creator like an exalted creature? Right. See, that's what's so wonderful,

Brett, about God's truth and about the fact that I can trust that God's people who are indwelt by God's Spirit will see

God's truth. I don't have to spend my entire cross -examination period on two questions.

I can ask a single question, I can make sure the answer is clear, and I can move on because God's people will hear that.

Anyone who reads Revelation chapter 4, and if you just stop them there, let's say they're not really familiar with the

Bible, maybe they're a new Christian, you just stop them there, and you ask them, is this the highest form of worship?

Do you see true, would this kind of worship be given to anyone but God?

The answer is so plain, so obvious, so clear, that I don't even have to give it,

I don't have to repeat myself. It is so obvious. So when we go to Revelation chapter 5, we see the exact same words, the exact same context, even the exact same geographical location.

This is in the same spot as Revelation chapter 4. How anyone can then say, well, you've got true worship in Revelation 4, but you don't have true worship in Revelation chapter 5, demonstrates beyond all contradiction that they have an external source that's driving their interpretation, and it's not the

Bible. There's something they're trying to avoid. And that comes out so clearly in the Stafford debate that I'm ecstatic.

We got word this week, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, we got word this week that Greg Stafford is going to be making the

MP3s of that debate available for free. Now, that's fine, he can do that.

We, I think, what's our price? I'm like $3, something like that. Of course, in fact, I'm going to take the opportunity now to explain, well, why would we not do that?

Real simple, Greg Stafford didn't pay a dime for that debate. We paid over $2 ,000 to put it on.

And we're not a rich ministry. We don't have a sugar daddy sitting in the back that's shelling out the big checks.

That's how we keep the lights on and keep things functioning. And we're going to have to trust that God's people are going to go, you know what,

I may be able to get it for free over there, but for $2 .50 or $3 over here, I'll get it from the ministry that did the videotaping, flew people out, didn't pay anybody a dime.

You had volunteers out there that had to pay to put them up at the hotel, had to pay for their flights, had to pay for the equipment, and provide all this for free to Greg Stafford, which he is now making available for free.

Hopefully, God's people will go, you know what, if I want to hear this kind of thing continuing to happen, then I'm going to support the folks that are making it happen.

And $3 for an MP3 is, you know, if that's going to break somebody, then you shouldn't be taking so many trips to McDonald's.

So be that as it may, I'm actually glad he's doing that, though, because that means people who would be deathly afraid of getting the

MP3 from us will get it from him. And as a result, exactly what you saw,

I just simply have to trust that anyone in whose heart God is working and has brought about an openness to his truth and is drawing them to himself, they're going to see exactly what you saw.

And he did not answer that. Anyone who goes, well, the Lamb is not worshipped here, that means, well,

I guess the Father isn't being worshipped. When worthy are you, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power, if you create all things, because you really exist and were created.

That's not worship. That's ridiculous. That is absolutely ridiculous, and it's such a powerful passage that I'm really glad that people are going to be able to listen to that.

Thank you. I'm really glad that they're going to put that out, and I hope a lot of people will get a chance to listen to it. I hope so, too. I don't know the truth of who the

Lord is. But can I ask one more question? I don't have time. Sure, real quick. In Philippians 2, he also brought up the question about the name that's given to Christ, that is above every name.

And you made the point that while you're breaking up the person of Christ, if something happens to any part of Christ, his divine nature, his human nature, it could be said that it takes place to the entire person of Christ.

Well, okay, remember, I tried to mention this really briefly, and it's hard during question and answer to do so.

Greg Stafford identifies the biblical identification of Christ as one person with two natures, as, well, in the

Bowman debate, he described it as bogus. He didn't use that term this time, but he described it as bogus.

And so there is sort of an underlying understanding from his own writings and from the previous debate that I tried to sort of explain so we wouldn't lose folks, but that is underlying it.

He tries to say that the emptying, the kenosis of Philippians 2, means that while Jesus was a

God beforehand, he ceased being a God and became a man in the Incarnation. So you've got to listen to our exchange on that with that as the background.

So go ahead with your question now that everybody knows what was being discussed. Well, the name, whenever I read the scriptures about Christ and I see things happening to Christ, like he doesn't understand something, he doesn't know something,

I understand that to be in reference to his human nature, that at the same time that he, in his humanity, didn't know all things, in his divinity he certainly did.

Well, and that this is a voluntary self -limitation for the purposes of the Incarnation and redemption.

Yes, I would agree with that. However, you need to realize, we need to be careful, and the reason I mentioned what

I mentioned is that you cannot so compartmentalize Christ where he becomes two persons to where what you're saying is, well, he's only speaking from his human nature here or his divine nature over here.

There's still only one person who's speaking. And the mystery of the Incarnation has to do with that self, by the way, he emptied himself, that was a divine action that took place there, so obviously requires a divine person, but he emptied himself in the sense of making himself into a reputation that's a self -limitation for the purposes of the period of the

Incarnation. And the purpose in emphasizing that with Greg Stafford is that he does not believe that Christ had two natures, he only had one nature.

That's why I talked about the Lord of Glory and things like that, because those are classical passages that have been used in the past to discuss the two natures of Christ.

If it's the divinity, because he didn't have humanity before he did the emptying, would divine attributes such as omnipotence or omnipresence or omniscience be involved in the laying aside for the human ministry?

Self -limitation would involve not the abandonment, or you could not be divine and not have those attributes.

However, God is free in his exercise of said attributes. And so the divine person who is

Christ is still one person. And this gets into, you know, there's arguments here, that's why Lutherans, for example, don't view

Philippians chapter 2 as having to do with a pre -incarnate Christ. They view this in regards to the incarnate

Christ, and hence his body is ubiquitous, and there's all sorts of issues that we really don't have time today, especially with one of the phone callers, to get into it.

But the issue is maintaining the unipersonality of Christ while recognizing the two natures of Christ.

And can we really wrap all of that up? I don't know that we can in light of the absolute uniqueness of the

Incarnation, but if we could, then it really wouldn't be a unique and special event that it is.

So maybe that would be something we could unpack a little bit further at a future time. But we need to move on.

Thank you very much for your call. God bless. Thank you. Let's talk real quick with Jeremy in Atlanta. Hi, Jeremy.

Hey, Dr. White. How are you doing? Good, good. Just let me preface by saying we're hoping and praying that you will indeed be able to come.

All righty. I look forward to it. Two quick observations, and I want to be quick, and that's how I'm going to ask the questions.

But one thing from the Bible answer and debate, it just lures me, and you may have mentioned this before, that the same folks that can look at Scriptures in context, if they're dealing with a doctrine like the

Trinity, something like, is tongues necessary, fail to be consistent in their application of looking at the doctrine of God's sovereignty.

And that's what amazed me in the debate was just the lack of consistency in that regard.

Well, and many people, and I'm very thankful this did communicate very clearly, many people saw that this doctrine is handled in a completely different way than the

Trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection, justification by faith, any number of other issues, whether it be ecclesiastical issues or whatever.

A different hermeneutic is brought to the text, and in fact the text becomes very clearly secondary to philosophical preconceptions and issues.

When you talk about this one issue, because that's how many times, libertarian free will is the heart and marrow of human religion.

It is what ties all of man's religions together, because it is the way that man controls the power of God through his various religious activities.

And so it is frustrating to see a situation where you're talking with someone who in any other area would agree with you as to the means of properly exegeting the text of scripture, but you get this one issue and all of a sudden everything changes.

And they abandon it. The other thing real quick, if I may, the Greg Stafford debate, I haven't listened to it or anything, but I mentioned it to,

I have a customer that I call on, and he's become a friend over the years, the Jehovah's Witness.

And the only problem was I was mentioning to him about the debate, and he's like, hey, the

Watchtower, nor would I even recognize this guy in any way, shape, or form.

So he's not one of us. So I don't care to even know anything about it.

And I think that's the only little... And there's nothing you can be done about that. Yeah, there's nothing you can be done about that.

We've heard that a number of times already. People have said, look, the Watchtower Society did not officially sanction this, which of course they never would.

Well, I take that back. Historically they would have, but since about the 1940s, about the past 67 years, they would not.

And so he couldn't possibly be a Jehovah's Witness. Well, at the time of the debate, and I don't know what's happened since then, but at the time of the debate,

Greg Stafford had not been disfellowshipped from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. There has been no movement taken to do that as yet.

Do I expect it to happen? I've said since 1998 that it will happen. It has to happen eventually.

It's just the grounds that are going to be offered that is the issue. It's going to happen, and I think that Greg Stafford knows it's going to happen.

But there's nothing you can do about that, because the society isn't going to send somebody out to do this kind of debating.

And not only that, but there are people within the society that not only know of Greg Stafford, but they agree with many of the things that he says and does.

And so, just like with Mormonism, there's development, there are things that are changing, and the

Internet and things like that are forcing changes upon a religion that only 30 years ago had an almost

Tupperware seal over the ears and eyes and minds of its followers.

And in the case of even the one of Pentecostalism, 30 years ago, it was just a known fact.

The Trinitarians believed in three gods as far as what I was taught. Now that's been laxed too, and it's like, well, no, we're not going to say that, but that's even changing.

That was just a sealed, shut case. Those are the folks who believe in three gods. Even that has changed.

Yeah, and part of the reason is technological. It's television, it's radio, now it's the

Internet. There's so much more communication that you can't maintain that kind of stuff.

But there's also postmodernism coming in, in the sense that, well, they have their truth, we have our truth, etc.,

etc., and it sort of goes that direction. Hey, thank you very much, Jeremy, for your phone call. I appreciate the observations.

Thanks, everybody, for listening today. We will be back, Lord willing, on Tuesday evening, 5 o 'clock, for the

Dividing Line. Hope you'll be listening then. God bless. 3 -7 -1 -0 -6,

Phoenix, Arizona, 8 -5 -0 -6 -9. You can also find us on the World Wide Web at aomin .org.

That's a -o -m -i -n -dot -o -r -g, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.