Grace in Reformed Theology

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 the mega 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 It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good morning afternoon wherever you are welcome to the last dividing line until Let's see

August 26th So that would that would be two weeks from today.

Yes, indeed. I am headed to the not -so -sunny climbs of Anchorage, Alaska I will be speaking at a conference with Tom Askell and Steve Lawson Up there in Anchorage.

There are I believe two Calvinists in Anchorage and so they've invited us up As some of you may recall

I was up there last year had a wonderful time and So we're going back and we're doing a conference and then

I actually get about three or four days To do fun stuff haven't done.

I haven't had a formal vacation since 1989. So I guess it's a good time to start one.

I Have feeling I'm gonna be really busy during those days actually, but thankfully Hopefully not except in the evening maybe dragging out the computer, especially now that I have a true computer

Yes, I have seen the light the brainwashing that that I experienced decades ago has has finally broken way to the truth and sitting in the other room

Even now transferring files and doing all the things I need to do is a 15 -inch

MacBook Pro Oh, it's good to be with a real computer I'm gonna tell you it's night and day.

It is night. I shouldn't be saying that though because you know poor riches in the other room and He I shouldn't be saying all these types of things our budget

I might be able to get one in five or ten This one when this one starts getting dilapidated.

We'll pass it on down. It's we're like a family around here you unfortunately get the let the hand -me -downs and So anyway, no it is.

Let me tell you it's That is a machine. That is wow Look out now folks here.

I come so anyway, so no dividing line next next week

You know I can I believe and I already have Skype installed And I have you know built -in sound the

Hawaiian yards, so we've talked about Doing it many times

So the possibility exists we possibly could do it It might behoove us to throw out a little reason why we had to go down this road to our supporters

Oh, you mean the the the the fact that Vista is just unreliable we we had to replace a laptop a few months back that we just needed to do it and it was a budgetary decision that was a little bit tough, but we did it and Unfortunately since that point in time it has made your situation virtually non -functional you got it

We we've had no choice on the market That's out there, but to get you a machine that we know you can work with it's gonna work and every time you know the thing is the thing that drove me nuts about it, and I know there are some

Vista defenders out there about two of them in the world but I would it would work fine in office and Then I'd get to church, and I'd set it up the exact same way.

I do the exact same thing and it wouldn't work and It just drove me nuts.

Yeah, you know at least with XP you knew you know what you were getting And if it worked once it was gonna work the next time too, but not

Vista. No no it decides It's gonna. It's going to improve itself Computers should do what computers are supposed to do each time computers.

Do it. That's how it works so anyway Yeah, definitely when I'm sitting a debate, or if I'm doing a presentation

I've got you know I'm doing some type of presentation with my projector or something. I've got to have something

I can trust so Just just got to go that direction so anyways. I'm I'm very excited about that and But only arrived yesterday.

I'm leaving tomorrow, so it's not a whole lot of time to get stuff moved over But I it just it just works so well that it's it's it looks like to be a possibility a couple things on the program today

I've already got a phone call. We might have some more coming in I have some clips a fascinating clip from Jimmy Akin.

I really want to get to that's just truly amazing But I see one of the two

Vista defenders in the world defending Vista and channel at the moment, but You know

Yeah, there's some folks. Just you know Don Quixote go go defend. You know go on a crusader

Anyway, no we we we love even we are equal opportunity people.

We love everybody even if you use Vista, but anyway I Want to start off however on a somewhat serious note.

We didn't but now we'll have to shift over to that I Wanted to just briefly address

Basically the the issue of The fact that over over the years. I have been very very privileged, and I do consider it a privilege to have introduced a number of people to the doctrines of grace and That's a wonderful thing and In that process

I have a number of times been reminded of A little booklet

That Al Martin wrote many years ago called the practical implications of Calvinism I I almost feel like we should see if brother

Martin would let me insert that in the back of the potter's freedom or something the reason being there is nothing more disturbing

Then graceless Calvinism in fact. I don't know you could call it Calvinism if it's graceless

But what I mean is there there should be some kind of a connection between talking about the fact that God is holy and we are filthy in his sight and yet he has

Condescended to show to us mercy and grace, and he's taken out a heart of stone and given a heart of flesh

And you know there's everything right about defending What I just said

God takes out a heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh I mean, it's amazing how many people do not want the gospel to include that I Don't touch my heart

I will slowly chip off parts of the stone or I will massage this rocky heart and make it a little less rocky

You know the the humanism of all the religions of men Should be repulsive to the biblically sound

Christian. There's no question about it But you know there's Doesn't doesn't having a heart of flesh then also speak to What we are and and how we behave and and that means that we should have some some graciousness to us possibly in in that process somewhere and There's just nothing to me more disturbing

Than then graceless Calvinism then Calvinists who just Don't get the the balance between a zeal for the truth and The overwhelming desire to just run somebody through with your theological

Lance And I get you know I get it from both sides I'm constantly being described as being far too mean and nasty and unloving all the rest of stuff and 98 % of time when

I get a chance to actually talk to those folks They're going on second third and fourth hand information even some people who are good friends of mine today will admit that Initially they weren't so sure they wanted to get to know me because they wouldn't believe what some

Roman Catholic told him about me I mean if if all you knew about me was what you read the Catholic answers forums

I mean you'd figure most of the unsolved murders in the southwest were due to me I mean, that's that's all you could come up with If I believed a tenth of what is written about me on the internet

I I would not want to be around me. Just it's just it's really that bad So I get it from that side, but then believe it or not.

I also get it from people who think I'm just too wimpy That I'm that I'm compromising, and I suppose as long as you're getting it from both sides.

It's probably a good thing It means you're somewhat balanced, but you know balance is so important It's important in the

Christian life, it's important in Reformed theology as well and to be given a heart of flesh

Rather than a heart of stone means we we you know yes, we're given a new nature. That's yes. That's all

That's true. That's the dogmatic the doctrinal element of that, but isn't there an implication to that isn't there something that we can

See from that that if we've been had a heart of stone taken out. We've been given a heart of flesh That maybe that means we should we should recognize our own fallen state and We should probably be a little bit slower to want to you know wish somebody into the fires of perdition than Then otherwise you know

That just seems to be the case and we we need to have a balance and and I don't claim to always keep the balance

But I know it seems to me you can agree or disagree with me if you want, but it seems to me that There is more danger

Here the two the two dangers on the one side is Compromise on the one side is the easy road of just letting everybody you know let's just all get along You know

Rodney King theology. Let's not worry about doctrinal distinctives. Okay. That's that's the one danger That's the one side on the other side

And I think this is a bit of a more of a danger for the reformed person the reformed person can't go that direction and still

Remain reformed look at anybody who was a Calvinist who went that direction are they really a Calvinist after a long after a while I mean do you even hear anything anymore, and they're preaching about no you don't the other direction the other danger is to become so hard and so judgmental

That you lose the ability to keep your balance and to make proper distinctions distinctions between theological viewpoints and those who hold variations thereon

You can see this amongst those who? Simply cannot get the difference between saying this teaching is wrong this teaching is in error, and then the next part of the spectrum this teaching is

Dangerous it can become a full -blown error And there's a whole spectrum and you have to be able to recognize those things and then you have to be able to recognize that there are people in this

Life that hold the teachings that we recognize as being dangerous and could lead to full -blown error

But they don't go all that way They are inconsistent as in fact all of us are in this life in one way or another are we not and?

so when you when you Lose the ability to make that distinction then in essence what you end up doing is well look you know anybody who disagrees with my very very narrow view is just on their way to hell and You can take a proper thing there are times

You have to say this is the gospel, and that's not the gospel you do have to do that But then they take that and they not only expand the appropriate borders of that to the nth degree but then you have to start basically turning yourself in the

Holy Spirit and condemning people to hell and saying this person is going to hell and that person is going to hell and You have to then and almost always along with this comes a real hardness

And this is what I've objected to with some of these folks in the past is

They may be theologically accurate and what they're saying I may agree With what they say on particular theological issues and in a particular debate situation

I might agree with the specific points they make but I will never agree with someone who will accurately define the truth and then as their parting shot as their

Adornment of their argumentation to go and not only that but your mother's ugly There's no reason to do that Why in the world give absolutely positively

Completely unnecessary offense now these folks seem to think that what is actually a necessary offense is

Just being strong for the gospel, and and you know this kind of thing but if you if you have to take people's names and turn them into isms all the time or You know there there are times.

That's appropriate I mean Ruckman ism isn't is a is a meaningful phrase because you know Ruckman is really unique And his whole stuff

Ruckman ism that's pretty good, but you don't have to deal with everybody's name, and you don't have to necessarily

Drag in the most you know we know there are certain words that are just verbal landmines their verbal hand grenades and There are just some people that they can't get through a paragraph without throwing one they can't write something that's peaceful and So often what ends up happening is the truths that they present end up being completely lost and all the sounds of the explosions and That then gives people a reason to ignore what they're saying

Because well you know who cares what you're saying look what you said here and look what you said there and look how you acted Here, and I don't want to have anything do with it.

You know so on so forth I know there's a balance here because you've got the postmodernists, and you say anything about truth to them, and they're offended

But then you've got people who swing over to the other side, and it's like let's just offend everybody for absolutely no reason whatsoever

I think that's why we have things like speak the truth in love and Giving a reason of the hopes of then you yet with gentleness and reverence

You know there's there's this path we have to go down and We are given examples of how to do it in Scripture, but it still is up to us to really learn how to follow that path and So when

I fail on that I apologize and I ask you to pray for me And I would never want anybody that I have had the opportunity of introducing to the doctrines of grace

Slipping into that mindset and thinking that this somehow is a justification for For Behaving in a way that just simply isn't appropriate for the

Christian faith eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number and I'm I see here.

We have a call all the way from where I'm headed in November Lord willing and That's Jack in London hijack.

Hi. Yeah, can I call you James sure that's fine We share the same name except in a different language yes,

I understand I'm Good evening to you It's seven o 'clock over here.

Yes indeed and you I'm glad you shared about unnecessary offense, and I Compliment you in your courage in apologizing for for your your own failings

I I would share the same I would want to do that either And it's for that very reason that I I wrote a comment to you your friend

Lane chaplains Video he put on YouTube To which he then challenged me to bring you up Was that the canner stuff?

Yes, it was okay, huh and and and I thought You know that it was kind of devious and dishonest.

You know to suggest Some of the things said on the video such as what well the first of all possibly the category error that you mentioned

Because effectively Urgent canna was very clear that you know you You cannot say there's absolutely only two positions

He clearly said you know that there's that there is another option Jack let me ask you something have you read the about 95 to a hundred pages of Correspondence between myself and Eric and canner that preceded that program no

Okay, so you don't have that so you have the contact context where I have actually addressed all these things with dr.

Canner in the months preceding that No, I don't think any objective observer who watched the video which was

Posted by Lane would Should be in doubt that there wasn't sufficient on that video to to show that really

Urgen was not referring to a Theological position when he called himself a

Baptist You know so I don't wait a minute I'm confused are are you not are you aware or not aware of the fact that there had been extensive correspondence?

Between Ergen canner and myself in the months prior to this that addressed all these issues including category errors

Redefining historical terminology Redefining theological terminology, it's been in use for hundreds of years.

You're not aware of any of that. I am aware of it in that sense the interchange with Lane that there was correspondence right what

I'm referring to is the video itself which Is complete in itself no it has a context nothing is complete in itself, okay?

You know I mean it was it was an argue that no no we can't no no Jack We can't argue that because if you're familiar with the video was

Lane took this program the dividing line which takes place in space and time and That was one program of many programs that addressed this issue.

It wasn't the first program It wasn't the last program and all that documentation had been posted on the internet beforehand and so to to pretend that that that dividing line

Existed in a vacuum Is not rational it existed in a very clear

Historical context and the people listening to that were aware of that and and I would argue

That to say that I'm a Baptist and that that somehow isn't relevant to the issue

Is a category error because there have always been General Baptists and there have been particular

Baptists, and that's a split that's existed for a long time and so simply ignoring the use of historical terminology

Brings confusion it doesn't actually answer anything and it does introduce. What's called a category error

Unless we're just going to ignore all the history of theology and and Think we can sort of do better than everyone before us has ever done

Right, so you you would suggest then that when? Ergun stated that Calvinism nominees are not the absolute two and then he just quipped

I'm a Baptist You're suggesting that him Saying that is a category error

Since he had already been faced with the problem of his Terminology and he refuses to deal with that Yes since he won't acknowledge the very categories of what a

Baptist is and Since he was frequently Redefining the very terms of the discussion ripping it out of its historical context

That results in great confusion on the part of anyone who maybe is just now coming to discussion and Is looking to him for guidance?

I think when you are in his position that you are under some obligation to be accurate in your utilization of language

I think it's amazing when people decide that the the conventional Terminology that has been used for a long period of time

They can just throw it out on their own authority as if no one else has had a clue, but them and As a result start redefining terms right and left resulting in tremendous confusion

I've seen the result of that confusion and it takes quite some time to try to get over it I don't think I have the right to do that.

Do you think we have the right to just simply, you know, redefine everything? well, in a sense you're redefining my challenge because You are talking of correspondence, which

I have not read and The one and a half hour long video by Lane was sufficient in itself to show to me that he

Ergun wasn't referring to Baptism as a theological alternative so because of that Context which you've just added to that.

I don't think we have much more fruit talking on that. But let me because of I Had a week to in a sense prepare for ringing you up if I may bring another topic because effectively

You know, we probably make better use of time in another debate Which this was the one in Anaheim.

I do is another video which I have to notice on the YouTube You mentioned that you've heard no response to John 6 to Ephesians 1

Romans 8 and 9 1st Timothy 2 You've heard no replies. You've heard no excuses that says no, it doesn't exactly say that God elects

Unconditionally in the debate with George Bryson. Yes. Yes indeed Have you heard a response to those passages since I've heard all sorts of Interpretations in fact,

I've spent quite some time over the past number of years collecting interpretations, especially of John 6 because it is

Amazing to me the facility of man's mind in attempting to get around the plain meaning of words

And the same thing is true of any text of Scripture you can find interpretations of any text of Scripture whether they

Pass muster whether they have anything to do with the original language original context and things like that is a yeah

Completely different issue and I have to agree with you on a number of points on that video, by the way

You know and and the heartily agree, you know that In many places all means all kinds

For example and and although I wouldn't say that for you know, all have sinned for example,

I would have said that was everyone but The John 6 issue,

I mean, I'm I'm comfortable with that in a non Calvinist Interpretation and how do you how does how do you drive a non reformed interpretation of well?

When it expands on what he says in verse 45 of John 6 He says it's written in the prophets and they shall all be taught by God.

Mm -hmm Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the father Comes to me now that tells me

I Mean, I would interpret that not as all as all kinds I would interpret that as all everyone because in John 1 9 we're told is the light that gives light to every man who comes into the world and But if we put tonight everybody responds now everybody

Learns from that Relation well, let me that would be my that would be my interpretation.

So you you go to the end of the text and Read that one verse and then that changes what came before where Jesus says that the father gives to the son a specific people and that that specific people

All come to Christ in faith that he raises them all up to eternal life that no man has the ability to come to Christ apart from this drawing and see,

I I start at the beginning of John and John 6 and and go through the entire discourse and define terms as they are presented by the

Lord in his own teaching and So after he has just made the statement in verse 44

No one is able to come to me unless the father Who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day

That's then that drawing is then defined for us in verse 45

When it says it is written the prophets they shall all be Taught by God.

It's God who's doing the teaching the active agent in Pontus to dr. Toye say you is

God God is the one who's doing the teaching Therefore when it says everyone hearing from the father and again

Hearing is passive it is it is taking in something from outside and Learning that's passive as well.

Teachings being done by someone else is coming to me So who's coming to Jesus that that term?

Eric a tie is used throughout this text and is those that are given by the father of the Son those who are drawn by the father of the

Son and here's the definition of that drawing that it involves hearing from the father and Learning from him and they come to Christ all of them come to Christ not just some but all who hear and learn because that hearing and learning is supernatural it is a further definition of what it means to be drawn and All who are drawn by the father to the son are raised up on the last day.

So I don't see where man's free will Enters into this particular if we define that as an autonomous will outside of God's sovereignty.

Where does that come in here? That's your Version reading that I mean

I have it in front of me as well Akusa and My thorns, so you've got has heard and has learned so And it says therefore that has heard from the father and has learned comes to me.

So I would Have a different view of that And in fact, you said you need to read what's read before what

John 1 9 Because he gives not every man who comes to the world John 1 12 tells me to receive him

He gave the right to become children of God. Mm -hmm, you know and that is after they've received him

I I disagree with that. But why did we jump out of John 6 to get to John 1?

Because of your usage you said to me just now that you know, you read what's beforehand

In this sermon, that's what I meant was in the sermon I don't start at John 6 45 and then read 45 back into 37 37 comes first, obviously and so Jesus defines who it is.

That's coming to him who comes to him those who are given to him by the father Who are these these are the ones who don't have that capacity in of themselves

But the father draws them and then you just said added to the text there where?

Those who have got the capacity John 6. Oh, yeah, John 6 44. What is who dice do not

I mean? No one comes. Well No, no one is able Who dice do not

I means no one is able alfine pross may is able to come to me eon may and last there

Is a film it of a condition and that is the father the one who sent me draws out on Then cargo on a stay so out on I will raise him in the last day

You cannot introduce a distinction the Alton's here So if you're you know, would you agree that all who are drawn?

By the father to the son are those that are raised up on the last day Would I agree that all who are drawn to the father?

Yes Sorry No one no one is able to come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise

Him up on the last day Yeah, I everyone unless you've been drawn by the father you you you you know, unless you've been taught by him you can't

Learn about Jesus and come to him. Who does the father draw? Well, the father draws everyone.

So all people will be raised up on the last day. Oh Those who've responded Overheard and learnt as Jesus went on to explain.

Okay, so you just you introduce a distinction now Between Introduced this is part of the text.

You're reading out of context by cutting out 44 from 45 I'm doing nothing of the kind the term the term

Alton In verse 44, I will draw him out on that's different than the

Alton only two words later according to your interpretation Because you're telling me everyone's drawn but only those who do something are the ones raised up in the last day

And I'm saying to you there is no reason in the text whatsoever

There is that this is this is where human tradition comes in where you come up with a distinction between he who is drawn by the father and He who is raised up by the

Son in one sentence in only a total span of four words You have the same word out on and I say to you they are identical which part of verse 44 you reading here

And I will hop hemp sauce may LQ say out on I will raise

Him Okay, sorry. Yeah, you're you're you're pronouncing it. I wasn't understanding.

I apologize and then I will raise Oh Tom, I read that out on him on the last day

So you say those are different out on's I say to you why? Because you say that the one the first one is everybody the second one is only those who believe you make a distinction

There is no distinction whatsoever in the language It makes no sense to insert the distinction and to go to verse 45 where the nature of the drawing which and in each one

Of those words that we looked at it is you're making the assumption there that For example, okay, and I am adding in into here because you know

My perspective is 45 is Jesus explaining what he's just said

You're you're making the assumption here for example, you know For one of a better phrase one saved or we saved that somebody who's drawn can never

Go back and that kind of thing. Well that came from verse 39 Where it's the

Father's will of the Son that he lose none of those that have been given to him But he raised him up on the last day. So yes,

I do believe Jesus the perfect Savior He will not fail to save any of those that are given to him by the Father There's no question about that.

And that's why the passage is so consistent because Jesus is explaining the unbelief of the

Jews. He says you're unbelievers Why are you unbelievers because the Father gives me a certain people they're the ones that come to me

I saved them perfectly and I raised them up on the last day But then again, you see you you've added to that text in the way

I read it in the sense that The will of the Father is always done Yeah, that yeah, that's the you know, someone 356

God does it pleases him in the heavens We're not doing the Father's will are we I'm sorry when you sin and when

I sin, you know when when you cause offense So when I cause offense We're not doing the

Father's will are we that depends on how you're using the term in God's eternal decree. Yes Was Joseph were

Joseph's brothers doing what God decreed to take place when they Threw him into a pit and sold him into slavery in Egypt Yeah, he made use of that It doesn't say he made use of that.

It says then Joseph's own words you Intended this for evil

God Intended this for good didn't say made use of it. God intended it can't can't get away with that Okay, that's that's not

I can take that I mean we're going on to the issue now of hardening of hearts and that kind of thing

Well, actually just the sovereignty of God whether there's a sovereign decree whether we can really say that God is the one who?

Determines all things whether all things happen according to his will or not Ephesians 111. So that's you know, you know

I'm sorry. I mean sin is not in God's will Well, it's sort of hard to understand.

What are you an open theist by the way? Well, you'd have to define the term do you believe when

God created the heavens and the earth did he know in his creative act That evil would exist and what each and every act of evil would entail and would be

I Wouldn't know I would not agree from my reading my Bible that God knows everything about the future.

No Okay, then we're coming from completely different place. That's very very plain in Scripture Love well to Chronicles 32 31 makes it very clear to me you know that God wanted to know and So he tested

Hezekiah and so when God in Isaiah Specifically defines himself as the one who not only can tell you what's gonna happen the future

But you can tell you what happened in the past and why it happened that that clear

Plain statement that is supposed to be used by the people of God as the means of recognizing the true God from the false gods is

To be subsumed to a hypothetical case in a historical situation in the historical books.

Is that is that how we understand that? No, I don't think you're quite quite Picturing what

I'm saying. I mean for example when he says in Isaiah, you know, he knows the end from the beginning the immediate context is about prophecy and He decides and yes, he predetermines

What happens and he makes it happen. This is why Jesus said where it was written You know so that the scripture might be fulfilled.

He says I thirst and and he was given To drink from from the

Spanish, but that's only for special things. That's not for all things Correct. Okay That's how

I read the scripture. So so so when God created the heavens and the earth He didn't he never he did not have any way of knowing you would exist

Well, I I don't know that particular but definitely there are a range of things yes, he does not know

Yes, as far as I read my Bible. God knows all that is knowable. I Again, I would direct folks to the debate that I did with John Sanders on this very issue at Reform Theological Seminary in 2001 for a full discussion of this but I I at least and I I would just suggest

That The differences that we had in going right into the text itself.

I think the reasons for those differences have now been Explained because we're coming at the text from a very a very different perspective it's and I I don't think that that necessarily changed the fact that I'm being consistent in saying that in John 6 44 the one who is raised as the one who's raised

Is then raised up by I'm sorry. The one who's drawn is the one who's raised up by Jesus But fundamentally,

I think there is a overarching theological paradigm that is in play here

Which would also explain why you go to? 645 and then read the text in essence backwards rather than starting at the beginning and moving to the end.

So but again If you don't believe God knows the future exhaustively

There are things that he doesn't know and that's the freewill actions of men because you said God knows what's knowable so I'm assuming you're using that in the same in the same context as Open theists who say that the freewill actions of men are not knowable, right?

Within the range of things that God gives freedom. Yes. Okay. Yeah, so so if that's the case then there there's

Certainly no no reason whatsoever to believe in anything like predestination election the idea of Conditional kind I've got the conditional kind I would but not the unconditional kind the kind that the early church fathers taught for about four centuries before Augustine came and well except except for dying the epistle of Agnesius, but um, so the the idea then is that you you have

So when God created those same people that you're following said that God did not know that any one of us would exist

So something tells me your view of the Atonement then would not be substitutionary, right? No, I disagree.

Oh, yeah, you believe in a substitutionary Atonement. Absolutely. How? Well, why not

Jesus, you know, God makes his reign to shine on the just and the unjust but not all benefit

Okay, and and the blood of Jesus pays for all substitution a complete But not all benefit.

How can it be substitutionary if God doesn't know that we're going to exist How could we have been united with Christ or do we just unite ourselves to Christ?

I don't know I don't quite follow your thinking. Well, there's substitution. I recognize that in a lot of evangelicalism, there's a really

Shallow understanding of what substitution is that we basically it's not truly substitutionary Atonement It's if you choose to take

To get a benefit from what Jesus did. That's cool. The idea of substitution. However is much deeper than that and That is that you know,

Paul says that he was crucified with Christ now

The only way that for that to make any sense is that God not only knows I'm going to exist but that just as I'm already seated in the heavenly places

Ephesians 2 That I was united with Christ in his death that the the elect of God were united with Christ in his death

So his death becomes their death his resurrection becomes their resurrection. This being in Christ is a vitally important element

But if God doesn't know the free will choices of many doesn't know I'm going to exist

So there is no substitution of specific individuals union with them with Christ It's more of an amorphous mass of if you choose to be in it

If you don't that means everybody in hell can also say what Paul said and that is I was crucified with Christ Yes, but I want none of it

Yeah, so that's what they would say. Oh, well, there's no question. They want none of it I just say that they will also never be able to say that the idea that Sovereignty of God is against man's free will it's kind of Confusing because I think it's more the self -control of God against God's sovereignty

The self -control of God versus God's sovereignty. Yes, I See, so it's a self -limitation is what you're talking about.

Well, you know, he does not impose his will On those who are not willing.

Yeah, tell that to Paul on the road to Damascus, but anyway And I advocated completely.

I've had a whole chapter of that on my book Uh -huh. All right. Well, I think we've certainly gotten to the grounds of what the difference between us is

It is a fundamental difference in regards to the nature of God and and how he's active in this world

And I think that has definitely Illustrated the propriety of a number of the debates

We've done in the past because we've touched on a number of these issues including dealing with open theism By the way, I would say

I've said many times. I think the only consistent Arminian is an open theist Yeah Arminian Theology so -called would agree with that because one of the tenets is the foreknowledge of God, you know

Well, that's that's what I mean. I think there's a consistency in open theism that the historical Arminian You know,

I mean obviously at the time of the beginning of these this terminology after the Reformation Someone would be considered a rank heretic for being an open theist

Socinians and things like that, but so the Arminians continue to hold to Orthodox theology of God But their view of God's relationship to mankind at the time really isn't consistent with that So yes,

I would tend to agree with that. Yeah, I can I can tell so, you know well, I mean, I might my my source of truth is is the

Word of God and and Whatever people have written over the ages, but it does interest me that you know

When I did some research and read history of Christian doctrine, but dr. Fisher if I professor Fisher You know, he was quite clear that he the early church fathers taught conditional predestination

Well, the other church fathers taught almost everything In fact, the only thing I can I can think of that your church fathers were even semi -consistent.

I was monotheism So I look at that and I go well You know

I can find references to the elect and so on so forth and Clement and the epistle of Ignatius and so on so but I don't find them to be

Religious authorities that can overthrow the plain meaning of the text of Scripture and so the interpretation is given by Augusta in as a

Augusta wasn't sitting next to me here when I demonstrated to you that Alton is out on Now, but you you when you you

I've never pronounced it that way. So it threw me off I wasn't talking about I wasn't talking about the pronunciation issue

The the fact remains anyone looking at the Greek text You your understanding and I I submit to you

It is an understanding that comes from outside the text not inside the text Your understanding is is that the he who is drawn is a different Individual than the he who is raised up and I say to you doesn't work that way.

There's absolutely no reason in that I think you're misunderstanding me, you know, you cannot be raised up at last down if she's already been drawn

I know that is every person drawn by the father raised up to eternal life by Jesus Christ, but but but you see

That's implying Because you're you're accusing me of throwing into this text, you know

When in fact you're throwing in the elect in there Well, I'm sorry, but there's this group that Jesus has been talking about those that are given by the

Father to the Son He loses none of it you neuter pronoun there to refer to an entire group

It's right there in the context, but I'm not but I'm sure But but sir,

I'm I'm not inserting that word in verse 44 You're telling me that I that unless the father who sent me draws him

Yes, and some of those hymns I will raise up on the last day and some of them will end up in the pit of hell

So what you're telling me is that the two autons have different?

Audiences and I say to you that is your human tradition being read in show me where that's not the very next first Qualified the very next verse explains the nature of the drawing by using terms that as I said immediately all

Refer to the action of God you have read into those terms the idea that I choose to hear or I choose to learn

That's not what the prophetic text was talking about and that's not the application Jesus makes in verse 45 verse 45 is an expansion and Clarification of verse 44 one of us one of us is reading linearly one of us is reading backwards

Well, yeah, I would agree with that. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for your phone call today, sir

I hope it didn't cost you too much if we get you off here in the next Few seconds, it'll be less than half an hour

So maybe that'll cost you just a little bit less for for your phone call today, but thanks for calling Jack You take care.

All right, maybe we'll see you in London in November. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye All righty. Well, that was that was quite interesting

Very interesting indeed. I think that was really helpful and I really hope that people will you know, open the text and look at it and say hey,

I There it is, let's let's get our other caller in real quick And then we'll see if we can start looking at this

Jimmy Akin call here. Let's talk with John John Sorry that your New Jersey call didn't quite trump out the

London call, but that's okay What's up Yes First hello.

My name is John. I have some discrepancies. I'm reading the text. I found some some

I'd say major flaws In the text of the Bible, especially, you know,

Old Testament with a couple of false prophecies and Okay, it's equal Okay, let me let me back you up here a second

John once you you're using some pretty strong terms false prophecies and and things like that, so Were these things you went looking for or what?

This is some some things I found in text when I was reading on I made a kind of like a footnote to reference back to so you just see you're just reading through the

Bible and You're reading through the Old Testament and your knowledge of the history of the

Old Testament is so extensive that you Recognized false prophecies. You didn't run into lists of these things on the

Internet or anything like that, right? No, I mean, I'm not gonna say they're both my knowledge of the

Old Testament It's just it's coming out I mean if you read the text and it says something and then it doesn't come true then it has to be well

Well, John my point is this and that is the the person who's looking for answers

Says I have found texts and I don't know what the answers to these are

The person who says this is a false prophecy has come to his conclusion and now wants to argue about that's that's the difference as I see

You know, so, you know There are entire websites like Biblical errancy and things like that dedicated to trying to collect every kind of a possible argument that can be put together against the text of Scripture and I would assume if these are troubling to you that you have already taken the time to obtain resources like Gleason Archer's encyclopedia of Bible difficulties, right

No, I have not but oh That would be something you'd want to do then, right? Yes, I want to do but I understand you're just just trying to refute my own

My question before I even ask it. No, I'm just putting it in its proper context. That's all when you

You know, I will make a reference to that and look into that claim but like I said,

I found I said I read the text and it clearly states that it is a prophecy and I looked through history to find out if this has come true and it's equal on chapter 26 with the city of Tyre and then later on to the city of Egypt and It hasn't come true.

So obviously it's a false prophecy Yeah, so you uh, you know everything you know that time period extensive documentation about everything that took place, right

Like I said, I know my ignorance until the time frame But I know that I've not come up yet with any information on the prophecies that it has clean

That would take place. Okay. My point is this John when you are talking about a judgment

Oracle in reference to say a particular city or a particular ruler or things like that you do realize that the in many situations the amount of information is actually available about everything that took place in that period is well, quite simply non -existent and that while we may have

A vague reference here or a vague reference there to an event here or an event there that in reality

Especially during those periods of times where you have tremendous warfare between major empires

Assyrian Assyria Babylonia That whole very transitional period the

Greeks come in and the Romans come in and so on so forth in your testamental period that's the idea of having the kind of documentable evidence

That we would require to come to the very firm conclusions. You've already come to Is next to impossible to obtain you do you do realize that I mean you're

Really when you when you look at That tire would be

Destroyed and it wouldn't be I didn't have it inhabited and and you and you and you know beyond any shadow of a doubt

Exactly what part of the city of Tyre is being referred to right because you do know there is more than one part

Right doesn't specify on what part it just says the city of Tyre. So, okay

So so we can't we can't we can't allow that there's distinctions in where the city is, right? We just have to forget that part

Like I said, it doesn't clearly state in the text that this certain part of the city would be other destroyed

It says the whole city in itself. Oh the whole city in itself. I see.

Okay, so Even if people in that day could have understood as being said since we live thousands of years later and Don't even know anything about that area really that much then we we can accuse the people in the past of having made errors

Because we're far enough away from them, but they couldn't have been that specific in their day. I mean

No, no, no, sir, that's that's a problem it isn't very simple you've made it very simple to make your case

But that's the problem It isn't very simple because the fact the matter is sir that as we have learned more and more about history

It was very common for people like yourself 150 years ago to laugh at the

Old Testament because it talked about the Hittites and Said and they said there's no evidence. They ever exist. It's clearly a false prophet prophecy

Now we know about the Hittites now We've discovered where they live now We know something about their language and their culture and the people who were very confident saying it's very simple very easy are no longer around to to be corrected in their statements and And I'm simply saying to you that most of the time when you make this kind of argumentation

You're arguing from silence rather than from Documentable fact and you have to recognize that I do

In a New Testament that uses himself Traveled to the city of Tyre. So if it was supposed to be other be destroyed and then he himself travels to it

How is that not a contradiction? How's that saying that? Maybe a certain part or it clearly states he traveled himself to this city so Yeah, I mean it's concrete.

There's no Fans or butts about it.

So you we have all these references to cities who were destroyed Jericho Jericho was completely destroyed by the

Israelites and yet Jesus visited Jericho therefore must be a problem, right? No way recognize that for example ancient cities

Frequently were destroyed and a new city would be built Next to it or across a river from it or all sorts of things like that and since Tyre itself is

A port city and in fact, there was a island portion of it

Then it grows over time and it is rebuilt over time and it's not the same thing in the days of Jesus that it was in the days of Ezekiel and We know there was a siege of a portion of it the outer portions of that were destroyed during the siege

But they did not actually get into the city. It was sieged. I don't know how many times over through history

I mean its history is very long and rich, but the point is that you want to force a modernistic concept of nuclear bomb being dropped on someplace and Refuse to acknowledge that a city's destruction at one point in time can be a fulfillment of a prophecy if there is

Rebuilding there at any time in the future, which would mean the whole thing about Jericho was wrong, too, right? like I said the text says that this city will never be built again and And you you're gonna allow the text to have its own context, right?

Yes, um, it clearly states it wouldn't it would be a really destroyed and it clearly states to further my

Argument basically on that never because ever did attack the city of Tyre and he did not succeed

And he did not plunder the city. He did not destroy the city and then Egypt was was basically

Was given to him by the Lord and saying that Egypt would be dried up and destroyed by never never because ever now

So So since since this is very plain and clear to you, then how do you respond to dr.

Archer's explanation of this? Like I said your argumentation is to not to state but it's clear no

No, my point is sir. You haven't even taken the time to find out what Christian scholars say in response. I have it

No, you have not. I'm talking to you. You're so this is the first time. This is the first time

No, I didn't think it was let's let's be straight up John let's let's let's not let's not Hide behind anything here you're you're making an argument, but you haven't done your homework

So what I'm gonna do is I hope you can listen I'm gonna I'm gonna in fact, I'll just go ahead and put you on hold

We'll go a little bit long and for those who do not have the resource. Let me just read This is not the first time

I've heard this one. I remember, you know, the irony is here Is that one of the first times

I looked into this was when an open theist Used the same text as argument against God's having exhausted knowledge of the future that there was false prophecy in the

Bible Real quickly because people are gonna want to know let me Let me read here.

I don't know how long it's gonna take me, but we'll go just a few minutes longer This is from Gleason Archer Ezekiel 26 3 through 14 contains a striking series of prophecies that foretell the complete downfall the proud merchant city of Tyre to be brought

About by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar yet from 29 18 It is clear that Nebuchadnezzar had not succeeded in capturing the island city offshore from the main mainland port of Tyre Undoubtedly inhabitants had removed their most valuable possessions from the old city when they saw that its defenses could not hold out against the

Chaldean siege engines they had conveyed these possessions by ship of their island fortress Which was securely protected by Tyre's formidable

Navy against the landings attempted by Nebuchadnezzar's sea forces Thus he had experienced years of frustration the vain attempt to capture that prize by way of compensation

The Lord promised the king a successful venture against Egypt a careful examination of 26 3 through 14 indicates a two -stage level of punishment for Tyre Verses 3 through 4 predicted that many nations would come up against it would break down its towers and walls

This fits in well with the Chaldean campaign It's and it's thorough destruction in the mainland city verses 5 through 6 want to speak of the removal of all the bricks and rocks and everything movable from the site of that ruined

City a most unusual procedure in dealing with a city taken by storm generally such locations would be left a chaos of rubble rather than swept

Verses 7 through 11 specified in Nebuchadnezzar will capture plunder and thoroughly destroy the parent city on the shore

But verse 12 seems to usher in the later phase using an unspecific day as the subject of shall make a spoil of their riches

Continuing through verses 13 through 14 the specifics point very strikingly toward the later attack on the island city of Tyre that was successfully carried

Through by Alexander the Great circa 332 BC History tells us that after Alexander's naval forces proved incapable of storming the island due to the determined resistance of the superior

Tyrian fleet He resorted to an ambitious engineering effort consisting of a mile -long mole built from the shore to the east wall the island in order to get material for this causeway the

Greek invaders used every movable piece of Rock or stone to cast in the sea until after several months of strenuous endeavor

The wall was reached broken through in the city sacked exasperated by the long delay in his invasion schedule Alexander resolved to make a fearsome example of Tyre so he had the island city

Totally destroyed so that should never be rebuilt verse 14 in point of fact the mainland city of Tyre Later was rebuilt and assumed some of its former importance among the

Hellenic during the Hellenistic period But as for the island city to parent it apparently sank below the surface of the

Mediterranean in in the same Subsidence that submerged the port of Caesarea that Herod had built up with such expense and care

All that remains of it is a series of black roofs offshore from Tyre which surely could not have been there in the first and second millennia

BC Since they pose such a threat to navigation The promontory that now juts out from the coastline probably has what was washed up along the barrier of Alexander's causeway

But the island itself broke off and sank away when the subsidence took place and we have no evidence at all that it ever was

Built up again after Alexander's terrible act of vengeance in the light of these data Then the predictions of chapter 26 improbable though They must have seemed in Ezekiel's time were duly fulfilled to the letter first by Nebuchadnezzar in the 6th century and then by Alexander in The fourth and you can read more on that in Gleason Archer's book

Encyclopedia of Bible difficulties interesting phone calls today Indeed here on the dividing line, but that's what we do here

I don't know if we'll do something Thursday if I've got good internet and I've got the time it might be worth trying it out

We've got Skype installed. It's about time to try so we'll see I'll let you know on the blog one way or another

Lord willing, but definitely not the week after that And so we'll be coming back in on the 26th.

So Lord willing. We'll see you then. Thanks for listening The dividing line has been 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 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks