Passion of the Christ, then Amyraldianism

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 973 4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White.

The Passion of the Christ, Roman Catholic Sacrifice, and Mary

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 eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty one 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 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 Brit to even though now he's an American dropped off a DVD that was sent I assumed 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 and does and does more talking and and and even talks after that and and there's outreach suggestions and and things like that, but there was the the Trailer, and I don't know if that's the the actual trailer We're going to use in film in Theaters if it's even gonna be in theaters 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 as we are being told by everyone it is it is a top-level production on a cinema cinema Cinema tacker if he gives easy, you know like movie wise and as far as its cinematography goes early in the morning and 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 is 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 it's not something I really into but last abiding line.

I mentioned this individual. I 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 of that and so on so forth and and Seems to be you know, the again the production value is very high but then they had an interview with 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 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 was our into our individual church and Basically, it was a call by one of the elders that congregation that we need to be ready to give an answer for our faith.

We need to be ready to 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 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 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 to the interviews that were provided simply because it helps me to understand you know, what's What's being said and and I'm obviously I'm looking for some evidence of What this film is 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 the interview with Mel Gibson that I would like to play now I know some folks are already 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 draw straight lines. So I think God can use it. I'm simply saying that as I see the state of the church today and the the tremendous degradation of Understanding Concerning the nature of Calvary the fact that the cross has been turned into something that rat 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 that Mel Gibson is a very conservative Possibly even non Pope following steady vacant just 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 to tell us I it is Finished that it really was I think that would be fantastic. Fantastic, but am I concerned that there that there this this This ecumenical Concept that sacrifices all that that doesn't seem to think that the being precise on the nature of what? Scripture says about the gospel.

Maybe that's a discreet proposition. I don't know. That 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 that sort of struck me as I as I listened to it and the song you 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. I know I've read the script. There's a lot of Attention to the Last Supper as you go along. What's the what's the 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 yeah that as he's being tortured and murdered and killed and everything.

That you cut back in 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 bread and the wine and I get it so that it 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 you heard the same thing that I heard. Let me let me just replay right at the beginning of the of the clip usually 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 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 and and strongest defense against the standard evangelical Argumentation on this subject that Rome has mustered is the sacrifice of the mass sacrifice of the altar.

Gibson put it there is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary and therefore, it's not a resacrificing over and over again is a representation of the one sacrifice. But that means that one sacrifice does not perfect anyone and in fact that one sacrifice in essence creates this this.

This treasury of merit to this 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.

And so it is a 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 double speak to most of us, but that's that's the position.

And so you just heard Mel Gibson say hey look. Here you have The the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice the altar and they're the same thing. It's it's the same. 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 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 and and the wine and and yeah.

You could but here again. We have the illustration of what is is going to be heard because of what you bring into The the 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 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 the real issue.

In regards to you know, what is really communicated in the context of this particular film? Then there was just one other little thing. It's it's not nearly as important from my perspective, but it is interesting to hear that the language that's used here.

This is something concerning Mary and component here. Mary is really I want to go back on that. Let me let me go back about two seconds on that. She's amazing. Talk to me about the Mary.

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 in the background. You don't see her. End of the real. Yeah, right.

She's here every step of the way. She goes. 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, yeah, and not only that but your child who you know is a deity.

I mean imagine that 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 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 Mary another Redeemer, you know. That many Popes have taught that that Mary Suffered with Christ that's part of the whole basis John 19 whole basis of the concept of Mary as co-redemptrix Comediatrix and advocate the people of God is it because she emulates 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 in the discussion here, but it sounds to me Like that's what's what's going on here. Sounds to me like that's where he's going with that the idea of her suffering with Christ and and things like that.

I'm not you know, he's not theologian, but it just sort of makes me Cringe a little bit when especially when you know, your son's a deity. 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 This particular program this particular Movie and 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 at the cross but obviously she's going to appear much more often than that because I understand there's these flashbacks to to Christ's earlier life and Things like that and so on so forth.

So that's 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 promised and so talk about Mary? Well, well we should I mean she'd have to be there and 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 that's going way out the 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 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 want to play a couple clips here from a call to to BAM last week because it made mention of me.

And it was it was very interesting. There's actually two calls on two different days. But if you understand how that's done you 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 you're wondering, you know.

Are we ever gonna 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 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 you end up with nothing left really but Amaraldian ism really has more to do with the with the confession of a universal atonement it becomes the various forms of it become very specific as to intentions and purposes and and all the rest that kind of stuff and so the 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 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 to views from Multnomah and 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 like do that as soon as possible because we don't want folks buying it from Amazon when they could buy from us and help continue to do the the.

The work as the ministry, so let's listen to this call. Let me briefly explain something. They'll ask the question. Okay, sure. A few weeks ago James White 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, 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 I would be interested in knowing how that conversation went, but I wish the second caller on your play had called the ministry.

That is what that is what I would like to hear, but anyways we can we can continue on. Well.

I 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 and that of course is. Is what?

I was trying to press in the debate and When people listen 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 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 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 is was that one of the places where I got the read the book thing.

I'm not sure if I don't remember to read the book things. Maybe there was a third read the book thing, too. I'd have to Listen to that and and find out if that's the case, but anyway the it is a biblical issue, and I would direct folks to Hebrews chapters 7 through 10 and And You know I Presented 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 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 first Timothy 2 for 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 2nd Peter 3 9. And I addressed that there's an entire chapter in the potter's freedom on the big three.

I have not heard a response to the materials on Matthew 23. 2nd Peter 3 9. 1st Timothy 2 4. I didn't get one during the course of the 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're getting hold of me or next to 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've never ever get anything done absolutely so.

So you're the brick wall, right?

And this gentleman called me and he essentially now. 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 that the call to the program would have. What's today's days? There's would have been Tuesday.

No, it seems to me probably would have called before that. Here after that really I thought I thought you told me about this. It's possible. I'm not plugging that in but.

If I can remember when I was taking my medicine.

Very Very funny. Well. You know the interesting thing about his call in what he asked me was I think it was coming from a point of view that you needed to offer The idea of Amaral dionysm as an alternative view evidenced of evidence of Calvinism that 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 a 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 the 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 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 he said well. What. 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 Amaraldean ism is the intentions the atonement the effect of the atonement all that's fine and dandy. And if they want to bring an Amaraldean on. To present the Amaraldean position great and we'll find 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 kind of a demand and and when people say well. You know you're weird. You're. 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 not other issues outside 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 that part doesn't really make any sense to me exactly?

But that was that was the gist of or certainly where he was going with me when he called here. He's for some reason felt that you need 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 is as Calvinistic as you are I don't know.

I don't know what I 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 just about this 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 the John Calvin didn't believe in limited atonement therefore He's added him to the hypo Calvinist.

You know when you become a hyper eventually the 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 who've read the blog. There's something there.

Thank you very much that description. Let me get a few more minutes of this in then we'll 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 let's listen to the rest of this here.

Underscores that the Lord is not wanting anyone to perish, but come to repentance. For first John 2 to Christ died not only for our sins But for the sins of the whole world. Or even going back to the Old Testament where Ezekiel Quotes the Lord is saying as 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 as I've said me 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 to. Dave hunt beats the drum of you Calvinist. Can't go the Old Testament. Well, first of all the the the clarity of God's sovereign decree, especially in the.

Like saying you 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 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 turn from their ways.

And as I've said many times in this whole debate the thing that needs to be preserved is the sovereignty of God.

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's that is a common argument that that somehow if you believe in a sovereign decree of God if you believe that Ephesians 111 says he works all things after the counsel of his will but that somehow is less than a God who somehow works all this out with with libertarian Lee 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 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 In light of an eternal decree. We're not told exactly what that is, but we'll look a little bit more of this briefly as we come back from our break.

We have one one caller on hold. Please be patient. We'll get to you sort of hard to break these things up and make them make any sense because the subject of the call is Completely different than this.

So we'll try to finish this up 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 the straightforward and loving manner. They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.

The same-sex controversy defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at a omen or 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 .a Omin 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 potter's freedom James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply. It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded.

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

The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen. But free you'll find it in the Reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org.

Sovereignty, Culpability, and the Justice of God

Back to the dividing line. We are talking about a number of different things day. We've talked about the passion and we're talking a little bit about Reformed faith and objections there, too.

I'm gonna finish this up real quick. Which 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 RC Sproul would say. That's not report foreign people believe any Reformed theologian would say it's not Reformed people believe. I don't know why. There is an insistence upon continuing to use inaccurate language.

It does not help to to You know make the discussion go forward to continue to use an accurate language in that way. The the idea is that God created us In such a way that instead of instead of looking at federal headship.

Which I brought up and I asked and it was you can listen to it. I said does anyone here deny the federal headship of Adam and there's this silence and isn't isn't that a section? I'm not sure if that's section where I got so into it that Hank's only response to my my statements was I wish we all had your energy that doesn't really 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 and 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 the righteousness of Christ as well and eternal life and being in him and all things to go with it and Many people are willing to do that.

But hey, you know, I'm not so this type of genuine culpability is a 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 427 through 28 and I just sing it over and over again.