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 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. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White.

Travel Plans, New Computer, and the Possibility of a Remote Show

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 climes 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. As I've 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 lights 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 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 I already have Skype installed. And I have you know built-in sound Hawaiian yards, so we've talked about Doing it many times.

So the possibility exists we possibly could do it.

Why Graceless Calvinism Misses the Point of the Doctrines of Grace

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.

Yeah, 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 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 that'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 eat. We are equal opportunity people. We love everybody even if you use Vista, but anyway I Wanted 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 Than 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 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 the 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 them about me.

I mean if if all you knew about me was what you read in 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 uh.

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 um, so I 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. Uh 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. Uh 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 um to want to you know, wish somebody into the fires of perdition than uh, Uh than otherwise, you know um that just seems to be the case and We we need to have a balance and I don't claim to always keep the balance um.

But I know it seems to me you can agree or disagree with me if you want, but it it seems to me That There is more danger. Um here 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 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 in 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 is 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 uh, but if you if you have to take people's names and turn them into isms all the time or uh.

You know there there are times that's appropriate I mean ruckmanism is an is a is a meaningful phrase because you know ruckman's really unique and his whole Stuff ruckmanism. That's pretty good, but you don't have to do that 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, they're verbal hand grenades. And there are just some people that they can't get through a paragraph without throwing one.

They 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 to do with it, you know, so on so forth.

I know there's a balance here because you've got the post-modernists 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 to the hopes within 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 Behaving in a way that just simply isn't appropriate For the christian faith 877 -753 -3341 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 uh jack in london. Hi jack.

Hi, um, can I call you james? Sure. That's fine. Um, we we share the same name except in a different language. Yes, I understand. Um, i'm uh. Good evening to you. Uh, it's seven o 'clock over here. Yes, indeed um, you i'm glad you shared about unnecessary offense and uh, I I uh.

Compliment you in your courage in in apologizing for for your your own failings. I I would share the same I would want to do that either um. It's for that very reason that I I wrote a comment to your friend lane chaplin's Uh video he put on youtube Uh to which he then challenged me to bring you up.

Was that uh the canner stuff? Yes, it was. Okay. Uh-huh.

And and and I thought uh, you know that it was kind of devious and dishonest, you know to suggest. Uh, some of the things said on the video such as what? Uh, well, first of all possibly the category error that you mentioned um because effectively, uh, ergon canna was very clear that you know, you've.

You cannot say there's absolutely only two Uh positions he said, you know that there's that there is another option.

Jack, let me ask you something. Have you read the about 95 to 100 pages of Correspondence between myself and eric and canner that preceded that program. No. Okay, so you don't have. 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 uh any uh objective observer. Who watched the video which was uh posted by lane? Uh should be in doubt that there wasn't sufficient on that video to to show that really. Ergon. Was not referring to a theological position when he called himself a baptist.

You know, so wait a minute. I'm i'm confused. Are are you not are you aware or not aware of the fact that there had been extensive correspondence Between eric and canner and myself in the months prior to this that addressed all these issues including category errors, uh.

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

You're not aware of any of that. I am aware of it in that sense. Uh the interchange with lane that there was correspondence. Right what i'm referring to is the video itself, which uh.

Is complete in itself? No, it has a context. Nothing is complete in itself. Okay I mean it was we can argue that no, no, we can't. No no jack. We can't argue that because if you're familiar with the video was uh lane took This program the dividing line which takes place in space and time.

And uh, 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 uh dividing line Existed in a vacuum.

Um. Is not rational, uh, it existed in a very clear Uh 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.

Uh 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? Uh that when Ergen stated 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 uh 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 uh challenge 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 uh, because of uh, I Have had a week to in a sense prepare for for bringing you up if I may bring another topic because effectively um.

You know, we probably make better use of time. Um in another debate, uh, which this was the one in anaheim I it was another video which I happened to notice on the youtube. Uh, you mentioned that you've heard no response to john six.

To ephesians 1 romans 8 and 9 first 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. 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 six. Because it is Amazing to me the facility of man's mind in attempting to get around uh the plain meaning of words, uh.

And the same thing is true of any text of scripture. You can find interpretations of any text of scripture whether they Uh past muster whether they have anything to do with the original language original context and things like that.

Is a yeah.

Completely different issue and um, I have to agree with you on a number of points on that video, by the way. You know and and and heartily agree, you know that In many places all means all kinds uh, for example, uh, and and uh, although I wouldn't say that for you know, all have sinned for example, I would have said that was everyone um, but um.

The john six issue, uh, I mean i'm i'm comfortable with that in a non-calvinist, uh interpretation.

And and how do you. How does how do you derive a non-reformed interpretation of well when jesus 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. Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the father comes to me. Now that tells me. Uh, 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 He's the light that gives light to every man who comes into the world.

And uh, but everybody everybody responds now everybody.

Learns from that Revelation. Well, let me 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 uh that that uh, the father gives to the son a a specific people.

And that that specific people, uh 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 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 deducto 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, uh, 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 ericotai is used throughout this text. And it 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 uh enters into this particular if we define that as an autonomous will outside of god's sovereignty.

Where does that come in here?

Well, uh, that's your Uh version reading that. I mean I have it in front of me as well. Accusas and um. My thorns so you've got has heard and has learned um therefore. That has heard from the father and has learned comes to me.

So um, I I would uh, have a different view of that. Um and in fact. You said you need to read what's read before. What john 1 9 because he gives night to every man who comes to the world. John 1 12 tells me to receive him.

He gave the right to become children of god. You know. And that is after they've received him.

Uh, I I disagree with that. But why did we jump out of john 6?

Uh to to get to john 1 are you because of. Because of your usage. You said to me just now that uh,. You know you read what's beforehand.

So yeah in the in 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 add it to the text there. Where?

And those who have got the capacity.

John, six. Yeah, john 6 44. What is udice dunatai mean? No one comes. Well. No, no one is able. Udice dunatai means no one is able. Alfine prasme is able to come to me eon may unless there is a fulfillment of a condition.

And that is the father the one who sent me draws out on. Then kago on a stay so out on I will raise him. In the last day, you cannot introduce a distinction in the altans here. Uh, 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. Okay, I 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 uh. 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 learned as jesus went on to explain. Okay, so you just you introduce a distinction.

Now hang on between. When you say I introduce this is part of the text you're reading out of context by cutting out.

44 from 45, uh, i'm i'm doing nothing of the kind the term the term out on. In verse 44 I will draw him out on. That's different than the out on 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 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 are you reading here. Uh, and I will ha pimp sauce may lq say out on I will raise.

Him. Okay. Sorry. You're you're you're you're pronouncing it. I wasn't understanding. I apologize and then I will raise.

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 you're making the assumption there that For example, okay, and I am adding in into here because you know, uh, I my perspective is uh 45 It's just explaining what he's just said um. You're you're making the assumption here.

For example, you know, uh for want of a better phrase once saved always saved that somebody who's drawn Can never uh, and that kind of thing well that that came from verse 39.

Uh 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 is a 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 save them perfectly and I raise 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.

Uh, yeah, that yeah, uh, that's the. You know psalm 135 six god does what 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 or when I cause offense, uh.

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. Uh was joseph. Were joseph's brothers doing what god decreed to take place when they uh, Threw him into a pit and sold him into slavery in egypt.

Yeah, he made use of that that. It doesn't say he made use of that it says. In 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 one.

That's not the term I can take that you see. 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, uh, whether we can really say that god is the one who Determines all things, uh, whether all things happen according to his will or not.

Ephesians 1 11. So that's you know.

You know, i'm sorry. I mean sin is not in god's will.

Uh, well, it's sort of hard, uh to understand. Uh, what are you an open theist by the way? Um, 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 Uh that evil would exist and what each and every act of evil would entail and would be.

I wouldn't. No, I would not agree from my reading my bible that god knows everything about the future.

No, okay, then we're we're coming from completely different, uh places.

That's very very plain in scripture love. Well two 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 going to happen in the future. But he can tell you what happened in the past and why it happened.

Uh 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 uh, picturing what i'm saying. I mean, um. For example when he says, uh in isaiah, you know, he knows the end from the beginning. The immediate context is about prophecy.

And uh, he decides. And yes, he predetermines. Uh what happens and he makes it happen. This is why jesus said, uh where it was written. Uh, you know so that the scripture might be fulfilled. He says I thirst and and he was given.

To drink from the 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.

I I don't know that particular but definitely there are a range of things. Yes. He does not know. Okay, as far as I read my bible God knows all that is knowable.

I I again, uh, I would direct folks to the debate that I did with uh, John sanders on this very issue at reform theological seminary in 2001, uh for a a full discussion of this, but I I at least uh, and I I would just suggest that um.

The differences that we had in going right into the text itself. I think the reasons for those differences have now been uh. Explained because we're coming at the text from a very uh, very different perspective it's and I I don't think that that necessarily changed the fact that um I'm being consistent in saying that in john 644 the one who is raised is 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.