Special Announcement Regarding the Dividing Line!

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:07

Desert Metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is

00:17

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.

00:27

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

00:34

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

00:43

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

00:50

James White. Good morning, welcome to The Dividing Line. I quickly take you back to the summer and a discussion that took place between Dr.

01:00

Al Moeller and Dr. Paige Patterson on the subject of election and these comments from Dr.

01:08

Patterson. As I've often said, there are basically two rivers or two smaller rivers that run into the larger river of Southern Baptist life.

01:18

One of them is the Charleston tradition, which was more Calvinistic, and one of them is the

01:23

Sandy Creek tradition, located right down below us here, and by the way, you should all stay over a day and take a trip down and see the old

01:32

Sandy Creek Church, located just about 30 miles south of us here, and it's well worth the journey down.

01:38

The Sandy Creek tradition was much more revivalistic, was less

01:45

Calvinistic, though to be perfectly fair about the whole matter, it was certainly a long way from being

01:53

Arminian, because the Sandy Creek Statement of Faith has a very

02:01

Calvinistic strain to it also. So these two streams, though, one revivalistic and one that was,

02:08

I would say, somewhat more reformed, flowed into the river that made up Southern Baptist.

02:14

Where Southern Baptists were so different than Baptists in England is that we've been able to keep that together without such a falling out that we ruined ourselves.

02:23

Now, please note, Dr. Patterson was fair, he recognized the

02:28

Sandy Creek Confession of Faith, had within it a reformed element to it, which you will not hear coming from, for example, the

02:37

Cantor Brothers, who proudly proclaimed themselves to be Sandy Creekers over against being

02:43

Calvinists. And last week on the program, I promised that we would play a section of the

02:48

MP3 that we will be making available quite soon, I'm sure, for the Liberty students.

02:54

First up will be the Liberty students of the presentation that I and Tom Askell made in reference to what we would like to have said in the debate, but did not get the opportunity of so doing.

03:09

And during Tom's presentation, he addressed this issue of the common accusation is made, the common statement that is made, and that is that you had these two, normally it's presented as opposite streams flowing into this one river, not quite as fairly as Dr.

03:28

Patterson put it. I wanted to play for you his comments because I thought they truly represented what we don't hear very often in this particular debate.

03:38

Baptists began with two streams in England. The earlier stream were General Baptists.

03:43

They were Armenian Baptists. They published a journal called a magazine called The Arminian. These Baptists published a magazine called

03:52

The Arminian from out of that movement. Then years later, from the separatist movement, the particular

03:57

Baptist emerged. They came over to America. And there's a lot of history, obviously, that's very fascinating and how

04:02

General Baptist and particular Baptist populated the colonies in the north and the middle colonies in the southern colonies in the middle and in the south.

04:09

Particularly, it was the regular Baptist, as they came to be known. The particular Baptist that gained the preeminence.

04:17

What I would have done in this debate, given the opportunity, is to try to show how the early

04:22

Baptists in the middle colonies in the south and then even up into New England as well were strengthened through the understanding of the gospel that is

04:32

Calvinistic. The three earliest Baptist associations in America, in this continent, were

04:40

Calvinistic. The Philadelphia Association began in 1707. The Charleston Association began in 1755,

04:49

I think it was. And then the 1751 and then 1755, the

04:55

Sandy Creek Association. Now, if you've kept up with any of the historical arguments, you've probably heard this huge separation between the

05:04

Charleston stream of Baptist heritage and the Sandy Creek stream of Baptist heritage.

05:09

Indeed, our opponents in this debate have loudly proclaimed their pride in being full blown

05:16

Sandy Creekers. Would to God that they were full blown Sandy Creekers, because the implication is from their side that the

05:27

Sandy Creek tradition was somehow anti -Calvinistic. Well, let me give you the historiography that operates in bringing that false conclusion out as a point of argument.

05:38

It goes like this. The Sandy Creek Church and the Sandy Creek Association were incredibly evangelistic and they were.

05:46

And within 17 years or I think maybe 42, 45 churches out of Sandy Creek with 125 ministers have been called out of that church.

05:54

It was an incredible church planting, evangelistic, mission minded church that emerged out of that South Carolina congregation.

06:03

So it was evangelistic. We know Calvinism is not evangelistic. Therefore, Sandy Creek couldn't have been evangelistic.

06:09

That's the historiography that operates by those who claim that Sandy Creek was anti -Calvinistic.

06:15

But there is overwhelming documentation for anybody who wants to take the time to read the records themselves to see that that kind of assertion that Sandy Creek was opposed to Calvinism is simply false.

06:31

I've got some of the documentation with me tonight. I'm just going to quickly cite a few things.

06:37

You know, the separate the Sandy Creek Church epitomized the separate Baptist stream or the separate

06:43

Baptist tradition. The separate Baptist came out of the Great Awakening in the mid 18th century.

06:49

The Great Awakening affected Baptist churches already existed, but it also affected congregational churches tremendously.

06:55

And so the congregational churches that came to life and those who were converted in them were known as the new lights.

07:00

And those that resisted the awakening were known as the old lights. Well, many of those new lights went on into full blown

07:07

Baptist convictions. In fact, George Whitefield was instrumental in preaching much in North America during that time.

07:13

And so it was many of his converts in the congregational churches that went on to become Baptist. He said one time, it looks like my chickens are becoming ducks, you know, because they were going under.

07:24

And many churches were started, these separate Baptist churches, they were called, having come out of a dead orthodoxy of congregationalism.

07:32

And perhaps you've heard the charge made that Baptists have this inherent fear or opposition or hesitancy about creeds and particularly separate

07:43

Baptists did. Well, that's true, but that doesn't mean that they were not confessional. What it means is they were fearful of a dead creedalism because they had had that in their dead congregational churches.

07:55

And so you have the general of the regular Baptist, as they came to be known, the Calvinistic Baptists that came over in America who had generations of history and heritage of confessions of faith, the 1644

08:07

Baptist confession, the 1689 Baptist confession of faith. But you had these separate Baptists that had generations of dead orthodoxy where the standard confession was just used as something you sign off on and you could be a full blown church member and still be dead in your sins, not born of God's spirit.

08:21

And so they were fearful of this use of creeds in a formalistic way, whereas the regular

08:29

Baptist weren't fearful at all. They had a lively confessionalism. But as the separate Baptist and the regular

08:34

Baptist began to work together and come together, what we find is the separate Baptists often example in Virginia in the 19th century, 18th century,

08:45

I think was early 19th century saying, we believe your confession more strongly than you do. And sometimes the separate

08:51

Baptists were hesitant to join with the regular Baptist because the regular Baptist weren't strict enough in what they believed and taught.

08:58

But there are other evidences that bear this out as well, and that is by simply looking at some of the leading teachers among the separate

09:06

Baptist movement, especially those from Sandy Creek. The Sandy Creek Church was started by Schubel Stearns and his brother -in -law,

09:12

Daniel Marshall. Daniel Marshall went on to plant the first churches in Georgia, and one of the churches that Daniel Marshall planted is the oldest continuing

09:21

Baptist church in Georgia today. The Keoki Baptist Church was begun in 1772.

09:27

Let me read you the first article of that church's covenant. It says this, according to God's appointment in his word, we do hereby in his name and strength covenant and promise to keep up and defend all the articles of faith according to God's word, such as the great doctrine of election, effectual calling, particular redemption, justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone, sanctification by the spirit of God, believers, baptism by immersion, the saints, absolute final perseverance and grace, the resurrection of the dead, the future rewards and punishments and so forth, all according to scripture, which we take as the rule of our faith and practice with some other doctrines here and not mentioned as are commanded and supported by that blessed book, denying the

10:12

Aryan, Socinian and Arminian errors and every other principle contrary to the word of God.

10:18

That was the preamble of the first article in the covenant of the church started by Daniel Marshall, who was the co -founder of the

10:26

Sandy Creek Church. When the Sandy Creek Association penned their own articles of faith, the clerk of that association was

10:35

Basil Manley, senior Basil Manley, senior, had argued that no one should be allowed to join your church.

10:43

And indeed, he practiced this if they didn't agree with every point of the 1689 confession.

10:49

He was the clerk of the Sandy Creek Association. And here's the preamble to that Sandy Creek affirmation.

10:57

Holding believers, baptism laying on of hands, particular election of grace by predestination of God in Christ, effectual calling by the

11:05

Holy Ghost, free justification through the imputed righteousness of Christ, progressive sanctification through God's grace and truth, final perseverance, continuance of the saints in grace.

11:15

They also added later when they adopted an article, articles of faith in 1816, an article on total depravity, and then article four, we believe in election for eternity, effectual calling by the spirit of God, justification by imputed righteousness.

11:29

And we believe that all who are elected just and effectually called and justified will by preserving or will persevere through grace.

11:39

To the end, well, there you have even in those articles, four of the five points of Calvinism, when you add it to Daniel Marshall's teachings in Georgia, you have all five points of Calvinism.

11:51

So there you have Tom Askel's, at least a portion of Tom Askel's presentation.

11:57

I couldn't help but once again contrast the repeated assertions that I've heard over and over and over and over again in reference to the

12:09

Sandy Creekers and the Charleston stream and all the rest of the stuff. And never had

12:15

I heard anyone actually go in and read the statement of faith and and actually discuss who was involved and what was there.

12:25

And when you actually go back and read these things, then you recognize that the entire argument that is being made against the reformed faith being consistent with historical

12:39

Baptist expression in regards to the Southern Baptist Convention just simply has no basis whatsoever.

12:44

It's just not there. And the idea that is that is normally presented is, well, these people were actually taking a stance against reformed theology, and that's why they were evangelistic and things like that.

12:57

And again, nothing could be farther from the truth. And I really it does make you sit back and wonder what would we have heard in that debate if and is there not a whole lot more reason now to understand why there was so much concern about having it long enough to allow for both sides to present a full argument.

13:21

When you listen to the sermons that the Cantor brothers have delivered and then compare that with with what you've heard from the other side,

13:30

I think it would have most definitely been a a most interesting, a most interesting experience indeed, had we had the opportunity of doing that.

13:41

And of course, hey, you know, if a phone phone rings off the hook today and it's

13:47

Ergin Cantor begging to have an opportunity to to debate, I'm sure we could find a way of doing it.

13:54

I don't think that's going to be happening anytime soon. Well, I started hearing,

14:00

I think, sometime Saturday about a phone call to the

14:07

Bible Answer Man broadcast that took place on on Friday. Well, it probably actually took place on Thursday because that's normally how it works,

14:14

Hank, those two hours on Thursday. And so this would have been the second hour. And the caller, interestingly enough, describes himself as having been raised as a

14:25

Calvinist. But his description of his of his understanding of the issue makes me wonder what in the world he means.

14:34

It sounds to me like maybe he might mean that he was raised believing in once saved, always saved.

14:43

That's for those who don't know, that's not being raised a Calvinist. OK, that's not really what the issue is at all.

14:51

And so he describes himself as being raised Calvinist. Romans nine comes up. And once again, since I just finished a series in response to Frank Page and his book

15:04

Trouble with the Tulip, it ended up being a 14 part series. I linked to it on the blog.

15:10

It's at PRBC .org and had spent three or four weeks at least, as I recall, on Romans chapter nine spread out over a period of time before and after the cruising conference, things like that.

15:23

I was especially interested in the comments made in regards to Romans nine. Now, it's not like the doomed from the womb stuff and foreknowledge doesn't mean decree and all that.

15:34

It's not like any of that's new because we've we've heard that all before. We've we've demonstrated that it can't stand up to examination before.

15:42

But there is, I think, an even more hardening of the position now to the point where you have accusations being made against Calvinism that is pushing it farther and farther to the fringes, the very edge of the pale of orthodoxy.

16:02

And eventually something tells me that that that pale is going to slop over and Calvinism is going to fall right out the edge of the of the pale of orthodoxy.

16:17

Eventually, it does seem to be an almost inexorable direction going on there.

16:22

And so before I get back to the Jerry Vines sermon, I wanted to address some of the assertions were made here, mainly because, again, we have the same audience and it does illustrate,

16:36

I think, the different approaches that in regards to consistency and apologetics.

16:44

And so when you have assertions being made that Calvinism, you know, is getting it does not represent the full panoply of scripture, which, of course, is our claim.

16:57

Our claim is that it is and that, in fact, it is only ignoring and not engaging in consistent exegesis of the text that leads the other conclusions.

17:06

You know, I just once again direct people to the discussion that took place on the Bible and some broadcaster two years ago, three years ago.

17:14

Now, this December, that was the last time that I was on. And I knew it was going to be the last time that I was on when

17:21

I was on. But I just direct you to that conversation and just ask honestly, if you feel that the reformed position was refuted in that in that context or whether the claim read my book actually ended up, you know, substantiating anything.

17:41

So let's let's listen to the phone call and respond to some issues as we go along. Listen, I really appreciate your taking on a subject.

17:48

And it's a theological issue. I hope you don't mind me bringing you to I was doing

17:54

I was doing a very in -depth study in church history. And I have become very conflicted over the issue of Arminianism versus Calvinism.

18:04

I was raised as a Calvinist. I'm now a member of an evangelical church.

18:10

I happen to think that responding to an altar call is not a form of works, but I am very conflicted, having listened to one of your counterparts on this subject and scripture that he quotes references from Moses or God's comments to Moses about God will have mercy upon those whom he chooses.

18:34

And forgive me, I'm not I'm not quoting this. I don't have a Bible in front of me, but also from from Romans about election and predestination.

18:43

And I have become very conflicted and it's very troubling. And I value your opinion and I would like to know what your opinion is on the subject.

18:51

I would be I would personally be very interested in knowing who this counterpart is, especially when

18:58

I don't think an altar call is a what was that a were a form of works and that that immediately caught my attention.

19:08

I'm sort of like, hmm, this is there. There might be enough there to figure out exactly who's referring to.

19:14

I don't know. But anyway, well, I think with respect to the book of Romans, a lot of people will bring up Romans chapter nine and you have the

19:23

Calvinist who thinks the question being answered is, why do some believe? In other words, the

19:28

Gentiles and why do some like the Jews not believe? Now, let me just stop right there and just once again, point out what

19:39

John Piper pointed out a long time ago. And, you know, say what you will, you have to deal with these things.

19:46

What is Romans nine about? And only one side tends to really be concerned about answering that question in a in a fair manner.

19:57

And that is Romans nine. You go back to verse five. You've got all these blessings being given to the

20:04

Jewish people. But Paul is answering an apologetic objection to his proclamation of the gospel that goes along these lines.

20:12

Paul, if you're right, then the word of God has failed because look around you,

20:18

Apostle Paul, the vast majority of the people embracing us are not the Jews. In fact, the

20:24

Jewish leadership is your primary opposition. They're chasing you all over the place.

20:29

Paul, how can you not see that there's a real problem here? And the accusation being the word of God has failed you.

20:39

If you're right, then the word of God and its promises are not right. And Paul is answering that objection.

20:46

And he does so. Verse six. But it is not as though the word of God has failed, for they are not all

20:52

Israel who are descended from Israel, nor are they all children because they're Abraham's descendants. But through Isaac, your descendants will be named.

21:00

God has been free in the matter of the promise of the gospel from the beginning. Even the

21:05

Jewish scriptures make this to be plain and clear. And so if you don't see that, if you don't see the apologetic context of Paul's response, you're not going to understand the text.

21:18

And this flows right from the golden chain of redemption in Romans chapter eight, which then prompts this objection.

21:25

And if you just look at the objections that are raised against Paul's position from there in Romans eight and then in Romans nine, what should we say?

21:32

These things you will say to me, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It is a almost word for word exactly the opposition that is raised to reform theology.

21:42

And if you're the one raising the objections to reform theology in the words that the apostle refutes, that might indicate to you that maybe you're on the wrong side of this particular argument.

21:55

You read Romans nine this way and you come up with hard determinism. But the real question that is being asked is, why are some experiencing judgment and damnation while others, the

22:07

Gentiles in this case, are experiencing salvation and blessing? Now, where does that come from?

22:13

Where does that come from from Romans nine? I mean, it's it is very common.

22:19

And when we had this discussion, even when we would have this discussion going on in the studio between calls, for example, we would have these these incredible conversations where I would ask,

22:34

OK, if you're going to if you're going to do the Sonny and Cher thing, for example. And say that while God has complete knowledge of future events, that does not mean it's as a result of his decree, then how do you understand that?

22:46

Where does that come from? How is that possible? Well, Molinism, middle knowledge. And I'm like, whoa, we're embracing

22:54

Molinism here. And this is actually talking with not with Hank, but with his assistants. And and I just never got the kind of exegetical responses that it's clearly coming from external sources.

23:06

Then you throw some some verses in. But it's not exegesis that is driving this particular kind of assertion.

23:13

So where do we get what we just heard? I just read Romans nine, five and six. That gives us the context that explains to us

23:19

God's freedom in this matter. It's going to be illustrated over and over and over again. You're going to have the fact that God needs to be free to demonstrate his wrath and to make his name known.

23:30

He is going to be free to have mercy on whom he has mercy, to harden whom he hardens. It is not of it is

23:36

God's purpose and election that must stand. It's not the man running or the man willing, but God's purpose and election that stands firm.

23:42

These are the assertions made over and over and over again. And if you will just allow the whole text to speak, the cumulative testimony is overwhelming.

23:52

That's why I said on the blog yesterday, what you've got to do is you can never, never let the whole thing speak.

23:59

Focus in on a particular section, isolate it from the rest so that you don't have this constant drumbeat that is right there in front of you when you actually read the text for what it is itself saying.

24:11

And the answer given by the apostle Paul is that the saved pursued salvation by faith and not by works.

24:21

So the same stone that caused Zion or Israel to stumble is the source of security or sanctuary for those who believe.

24:30

Now, actually, that's chapter 10. And that's a perfectly valid thing to say, that those who find salvation do so by faith and not seeking it by works.

24:41

But what does that have to do with Romans 9 and the assertions that it makes? Well, the answer is absolutely nothing unless you're going to assert that.

24:51

And that means that since they pursued it by faith, that has to be faith that comes from an autonomous will. And therefore, I'm going to read chapter 10 back into chapter 9 to, in essence, undo the exegetical conclusions of following the argument of chapter 9, which is interpreting the

25:05

Bible backwards and is not actually interpretation at all. But that's again what this this kind of argument would never be used on any other subject on the resurrection of the deity of Christ, the

25:17

Trinity, any of these other subjects. You wouldn't have that. But here, especially in Romans 9, where you have such clear assertion that God's a potter, we are the clay.

25:27

If you have made as the central portion of your apologetic and your theology, a libertarian concept of an autonomous free will, then you've just got to do what you've got to do to maintain the central portion of your theology.

25:40

And then Paul is blending a number of texts from the Old Testament, and the point is that the

25:46

Lord is either the cornerstone of our life or the capstone over which we fall.

25:52

Again, that sounds wonderful. But if you go back to Exodus 9, if you go back to Exodus 33, that's not what either of those texts are about.

26:00

Both of them are about God's freedom to enter into gracious relationship with those he chooses to do so and to use sinful men, in the case of a

26:11

Pharaoh, so as to proclaim his name and to make his wrath and power known. That's what

26:17

Romans 9 is about. That's what Exodus 33 is about, entering into personal relationship with Moses and revealing himself to Moses.

26:24

Again, these sound good, but what's the basis of them? When you say, well, where are you getting that?

26:31

Could you show me in scripture where that comes from? That's where the wheels fall off the proverbial cart here.

26:37

Now, if you go back to some of the actual things that are oftentimes quoted with respect to God showing his power and his patience through the objects of his wrath prepared for destruction, you have to recognize that Paul is quoting

26:58

Old Testament passages. So when he talks about the potter and the clay as an illustration, he is presuming that you are familiar with the

27:08

Old Testament citations which give the balance of the text and show beyond the peradventure of a doubt that God is not capricious, but he creates vessels for destruction because they rebel in disobedience.

27:25

Now, immediately, what the assertion is being made is, is if you'll just read the

27:31

Old Testament text, there will be nothing there about about God's freedom in the exercise of his mercy and that, in fact,

27:40

God is simply reacting to man who takes the lead. And because man has prepared himself for destruction, then

27:49

God uses him in that way. That's that's the assertion was just made that if you just knew the Old Testament well enough, you know that's the case.

27:56

And immediately you think of Isaiah chapter 10, you think of think of all these passages, think of Jacob's brothers and you go, wait a minute, where did that come from?

28:03

Where is that in the text? There is no question about God's righteousness and using evil men.

28:10

But where how do you then jump from that to the idea that God is under some constraint and some limitation so he can only do what man allows him to do?

28:22

That is the the the autonomous will assumption jumping into the to the middle without any kind of exegetical basis upon which to actually be found if we were actually looking for it in that way.

28:35

And he prepares other vessels because they respond in faith and obedience.

28:41

So now listen carefully. It was just said when what was just said is we skipped all the stuff about hardening and mercy and it's not man who runs and all the rest of it, all that stuff right out the window, jumped to the conclusion.

28:57

And what we've just been told is it's not the potter from the same lump who creates one vessel for honor and one vessel for dishonor.

29:05

It's the lump that creates pots for honor and those for dishonor.

29:11

That's what else could you hear was just said other than the reason he has vessels of mercy prepared for for for glory is because they respond.

29:23

And the reason that any is for dishonor is because they they don't and they and they rebel. So the entire concept of the potter and the clay is turned on its head to where the clay determines what the potter will do.

29:37

It is the nature of the clay. The one lump idea gone. Gone. This is in the in the the parallelism that goes all the way back to follow it through the answer that Paul is giving to the concept of arguing that there's injustice with God, that why who resists his will.

29:56

Who are you? Oh, man, who answers back in rebellion against God, God, man,

30:03

God, man, God is the potter, man is the clay. That is the answer to the question.

30:08

And as long as you want to maintain that it's man who has autonomous will and in essence, that autonomous will rules over God, say that he can freely choose to do that whatever, whatever you want to do.

30:18

The fact is that God has chosen to subjugate his will to the autonomous will of man. That parallel no longer exists because now

30:26

God and man are on the same level with one another. But that's not the biblical perspective. God is the potter.

30:32

Man is the clay. And until you embrace that concept, you will never understand what Paul is saying.

30:37

One is rebellion and rejection, and the other is the reception, not the rejection.

30:45

So I think you have to always, in context, go back to what

30:50

Paul is quoting, because Paul is a master with the Old Testament and he is presuming something, that his readers know the context.

31:01

Therefore, when he quotes in part a passage, you and your mind immediately hear the background music of Isaiah 29 or Jeremiah chapter 18, which provides the context.

31:15

And then again, as I said just earlier, I think it's important that you ask what question is

31:22

Paul answering here? Without asking that question, you can quickly be confused and buy into determinism.

31:30

Please notice, determinism, that is, that God has a sovereign will that he's accomplishing in time, is the result of confusion and you buy into it.

31:42

Now, again, at the end of the call, Hanks is going to say, now we have resources to give you both sides. But he's not giving both sides anymore.

31:50

He's very clearly taken one side against the other and is saying that if you believe that in determinism, in the sense that whatsoever happens and, you know,

32:01

Ephesians 1 .11, God works all things at the counsel of his will, or any of the many other texts we could go to that very plainly make these statements, and I don't know of any that say otherwise, then that's the result of confusion.

32:15

And that you don't want to be confused and you don't want to buy into something that is what? False. So that's where, you know, at least certainly

32:26

I and others are hearing more and more of a movement toward, I think, the eventual identification of Reformed theology as a full -blown error on that level.

32:37

Right. And hard determinism seems like such a form of exclusivity that it troubles me.

32:46

I mean, it goes against evangelicalism completely.

32:53

Now, I have, again, why this man ever thought himself to have been a

32:58

Calvinist, I have no I have no idea, because even if he had been at one point, he would not speak in this fashion.

33:06

He would at least explain why he has rejected the very distinctions that he had once embraced.

33:12

It's very clear to me that he has no concept of what the what the actual meaning of the term is.

33:19

And so that, again, makes me wonder who is it he was he was talking to. I would love to be able to get a chance to talk to some of these people and clarify some facts as we go along.

33:28

And at least in my mind, it does. And it's a caste system and you can't get out of the caste.

33:33

It's not. Now, did you catch that? I want to replay that. It is a caste system and you can't get out of the caste.

33:42

What what does what does that mean? Evidently, if if again, it's if God has a if God has determined the date of one's death, one's identity, the details of one's life in eternity, then we're all just a bunch of robots.

34:00

The idea of compatibilism has just will not even be allowed to be considered because of the overriding absolute necessity of having libertarian free will.

34:12

Just it just won't even be considered. So here it is. And it's a caste system and you can't get out of the caste. It's not even a class system where you can move from one class to another.

34:20

But yeah, I mean, there's a sense in which it becomes fatalistic.

34:26

Paul teaches us that the ruin of the wicked is not only foreseen, but the

34:32

Lord, but also ordained by his counsel and his will.

34:38

If you interpret Paul through the lens of Calvin, why in the world would you have to?

34:46

So it was Augustine interpreting Paul through the lens of Calvin. Was Gottschalk where all those people was

34:52

Luther before Calvin interpreting Paul through the lens of Calvin? I'm sorry, but that kind of statement is just is is historically naive at best.

35:03

That just makes no sense whatsoever. Not only, by the way, the destruction of the wicked, according to Calvin, which is foreknown, but that the wicked themselves may have been created for this very end, that they may perish.

35:16

So here comes, can we all hit the hit the hit the drum roll here? Here comes doomed from the womb.

35:24

There are people who are doomed from the womb to certain death.

35:30

I mean, these are direct paraphrases of what Calvin taught. Now, let's just stop and let's address once again, doomed from the womb.

35:41

What does that mean? Well, it seems that for some people, what that means is we have innocent, wonderful people.

35:50

People like your your grandma and your grandpa and little Miss Smith, Mrs. Smith next door with her little doggie and her inner kitty.

35:59

And they're and they're wonderfully nice people. But but God hates them.

36:04

And God's got a big bad Calvin gun up to their head. And he says, be bad because I'm going to I'm doomed you from the womb.

36:12

And that's exactly how it's presented, isn't it? Isn't that exactly what people want you to think? Never do

36:20

I hear these folks going now, I recognize that what the Calvinist is saying. Is that God in his infinite knowledge based upon his creative decree, that's how he knows all things is because he's created all things and that God has full knowledge of those to whom he is going to give undeserved mercy.

36:43

And even despite that, he is going to give common grace and mercy to all or he'd just simply wipe us all out to begin with.

36:50

And in fact, he's going to restrain the evil of many men and women.

36:56

In fact, all men and women he restrains to some point and some to a great degree. He's going to restrain them.

37:02

Their judgment is not going to be as great, but he is under no obligation to give to them undeserved mercy.

37:10

The only way that he can demonstrate his wrath and make his power known in one aspect and his mercy and grace in another is to have the freedom to choose his elect people in and of himself without us determining who that is.

37:23

And so we recognize that the Calvinist is saying that. And so that when we say that someone is doomed from the womb, all we're saying is

37:31

God has exhaustive knowledge of future events. But that's not what they say, is it?

37:37

Of course not. That's not what they say. Because that wouldn't accomplish anything, because unless they're a consistent

37:44

Arminian, which means they're an open theist. They have to say the same thing.

37:52

Now, I know that Hank Hanegraaff says God has exhaustive knowledge of future events.

37:58

He knows exactly who is going to end up under his judgment in eternity.

38:04

And therefore, from that perspective. Any person, when they are born, did

38:11

God know the day before they were born where they were or would not be saved in eternity? If you're not an open theist, you have to say, yes.

38:20

Did he know a year before, 10 years before, a thousand years before?

38:25

Did he know before creation? The answer has to be yes in each instance.

38:31

Therefore, at the time they were conceived, at the time they were born, were they doomed from the womb?

38:44

Were they a fallen son or daughter of Adam? Were they under the curse of God?

38:52

Yes or no? And if you say yes, then why in the world pretend that that is a objection against the

39:01

Reformed perspective? The only way you can get around that is to say, well, because of free will.

39:09

That's where even the open theist joins with the Calvinist is that doesn't accomplish anything. You haven't answered anything by stating that.

39:19

Where does that get you? It gets you absolutely nowhere. There's no response to that.

39:25

So doomed from the womb is just as valid objection against Hank Hanegraaff's position as it is against mine.

39:34

In fact, I would say it's much more so. This was the point I was trying to make in the radio program. We both believe that God knows.

39:41

I simply believe he has a purpose. That for all evil that exists in this world, there is a purpose.

39:48

There is a reason. There's a meaning. There's no meaningless evil. If you throw away God's decree, then all you've got is

39:54

God. When he created through the cosmic dice, he ends up winning at the end. Yee -haw. God rolled snake eyes.

40:02

Big deal. Why? Why glorify him for that? And how is that a meaningful response?

40:07

How is that a meaningful answer? I don't know, but we can't seem to get folks to think about it.

40:13

Calvin said God not only foresees the fall of the first man and in him the ruin of his posterity, but also at his own pleasure, arranged it.

40:22

Okay. Do you say otherwise? Do you join John Sanders and say that God was surprised when

40:29

Adam fell? Again, it all comes back. Why is this an objection? This is an objection against classical

40:35

Christian theism, not against Calvinism. Did God know? Yes or no.

40:42

If he did know, how did he know? If you say he just brought in, took in passive knowledge of, of this, then you would have to agree that it could have been otherwise, and if it could have been otherwise, then how is

41:02

Jesus Christ, for example, the lamb slain from the foundation world, there's, there is no stopping place on the slippery slide down the slope into open theism.

41:12

And even though it shocks us to hear people like John Sanders or Clark Pinnock or Gregory Boyd saying,

41:17

God didn't know that I was going to exist. He did not know from eternity that I, as an individual exists, he does not know when

41:24

I will die. He does not know what tomorrow will hold for me or whether I'll get home today or not.

41:31

That shocks most of us because we don't want to worship a God who is basically just a, a supercharged version of us, a human with more

41:41

Ram, you know? I mean, what's, what, what's, what's really the purpose there of prayer or anything else, but really that's the only way out of these objections, unless you're going to accept the biblical reality of God's decree.

41:57

So, so, I mean, I think that again, this is a debate on whether you believe in a libertarian freedom or circumstantial slash compatibilistic freedom.

42:10

Exactly. I mean, I finally came to the conclusion. I was so conflicted that I finally came to the conclusion in my comparison of the first Adam and the second

42:19

Adam and whether they had free will. And if, if Adam had free will to make the choice that he made in the garden, then in my opinion,

42:29

Christ had free will as well when he was tempted by Satan. Otherwise it was rigged. And when

42:35

I came to the conclusion that it, that it, that in one instance it had to be rigged or in the other instance it was rigged, then

42:41

I really had a problem with this hard determinism and felt very much more comfortable with, with the position that I'm in, that I do have free will.

42:51

I feel very much more comfortable. Well, congratulations. I feel so warm and fuzzy with my new position.

42:59

Uh, what does that do with Romans 9, 19 through 20? Uh, how do you even begin to understand the objection that's been raised?

43:06

Nothing has been said about that. There has been no exegetical attempt to even begin to deal with those issues whatsoever.

43:12

And that making a choice to accept Christ as my savior is not a form of works. Uh, and, and not,

43:19

I'm not saving myself. I'm just simply, um, well, for lack of a better way of saying it, buying into, to, uh, salvation.

43:28

Wow. Pure synergism. Yeah. I would like to say to this caller, you might want to go back and look at the

43:35

Reformation and see what it is you just traded in for the older model of, of synergism where man controls the outcome of salvation.

43:46

I know it's going to make you feel much warmer, uh, to go that direction. You just can't figure this thing called being dead in sin out.

43:53

With respect to, to the opinion that I have as to, as to what's required of me. Yeah. I think faith is not a work.

43:59

Paul makes a distinction between the two in Romans chapter four. So I think you're correct about that. But you know, if you, if you look at the danger in saying

44:07

God decrees that Adam would sin or he ordains that Adam would sin, you have a couple of problems. How does that preserve

44:13

God from being the author of evil? Well, uh, again, since, uh,

44:19

Hank was raised as he frequently says in a Calvinistic home, uh, then there would have been this thing called a catechism.

44:25

And that catechism would have explained the difference between primary and secondary causes and would have likewise explained the fact that God utilizes those secondary causes and that his will is always pure and just and holy.

44:42

Whereas the secondary causes their will is the reason for their guilt because they desire to do their sin.

44:52

And so you have the brothers, and this is why I brought it up on the program. And there was never an answer given that stands as a documented fact.

45:00

The brothers of Joseph are judged for an action that God says he intended to keep people alive with that very same action.

45:10

And it doesn't that then become the foundation of the objection of Romans nine 19 that is then answered by the apostle.

45:18

Yes, indeed. As opposed to creating the potential for evil and man actualizing that evil, which is basically something that even a

45:27

Calvinist could say, as long as that potential does not become a potential that vitiates the knowledge and decree of God, that is, yes,

45:35

God created the potential for evil and man actuates it. But it was not that that was God sitting there going, well,

45:41

I wonder what's going to happen, or, you know, one way or the other. I don't know. I don't have a plan down the road.

45:47

This isn't all to my glory. It's I'm going to do this synergistically. How does this none of this actually answers any of the questions and any of the objections, or how does that make

45:57

Adam genuinely culpable for a sin? How does that make Joseph's brothers generally culpable of their sin?

46:02

How does it make the king of Assyria generally culpable for his sin? How does it make Herod and the Jewish leaders and Pontius Pilate and the

46:08

Romans culpable for their sin? Acts chapter four, verses 27 to 28. As long as these texts stay there and are not addressed and are not exegetically and directly addressed, none of these are actually answers.

46:21

They are just sayings that you just repeat and hope everybody will accept them. Exactly. And if Christ is the second

46:29

Adam and his temptation is a reenactment, then in my opinion, it wasn't rigged.

46:36

And so therefore, anyway, you know where I'm going with that. Yeah, I do. And I think what you have to do is ultimately do what you're doing.

46:44

Check this out in the light of scripture. I mean, this is an in -house debate. Yeah, I'm glad it's still an in -house debate.

46:49

I'm not sure how far in the house it is anymore, sort of on the front porch, but I haven't seen the scripture here.

46:55

And I'm sure Hank thinks that that what's been explained to him from other people, and I know who the other people are, must be true.

47:03

It must be biblical because they're smart people. I'm sorry. I don't. If that were the case, then that would be coming out in sound exegetical statements about these texts.

47:12

But it doesn't come out that way. I'm sure that Hank is absolutely convinced that if you go back to to Isaiah 29, you go back to Jeremiah 18, you go back to Exodus nine, you go back to Exodus 33, to the text that I found in Romans nine, that somehow that's going to substantiate the concept of libertarian free will.

47:29

I say it does not. And I've heard no evidence that this is anything but accepting that someone else has already done that.

47:36

And yet when you actually examine it, it doesn't work that way. Look, what does the Bible say?

47:41

I think immediately of Matthew 23, where Jesus says of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you.

47:48

How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.

47:55

But you were not willing. Is that. Yeah, there you go. How many times we addressed Matthew 23, 37.

48:00

The Jewish leaders were not willing that those under their authority would hear the ministry of Jesus.

48:06

And exactly how much does that have to do with some concept of libertarian free will or salvation? Absolutely.

48:12

Positively. Nothing whatsoever. But we keep hearing it repeated over and over again.

48:18

Just rhetoric. Or did they have a will? Oh, did they have a will? Who said they didn't have a will?

48:26

They have a will that's enslaved to evil. And that evil will continuously stands opposed to God so much so that God's judgment comes upon Jerusalem in AD 70.

48:38

Right. Is that not what's there? So the relevance is there is no relevance.

48:43

In the process or in Acts chapter seven, you stiff neck people with uncircumcised hearts and ears.

48:50

You're just like your fathers who always resist the Holy Spirit. Can the Holy Spirit be resisted or can't he?

48:57

Is this again a rhetoric or is there a way of explaining this? And how many times has it been explained?

49:04

And does Hank show any willingness to hear the explanation? I've not seen it. And I've tried, believe me, since 1997, coming up on a decade,

49:14

I have tried. And I gave Hank books that addressed Acts seven and its non -satirological context and the fact that none of us is saying the

49:25

Holy Spirit is not resisted. The Holy Spirit is resisted every single day. But does that mean that when the

49:30

Holy Spirit moves to bring regeneration, the hearts of God's elect that he can be resisted?

49:36

That's a completely different issue, which is not under discussion in Acts chapter seven, is it? No, it's not.

49:42

I gave books to Hank on that in 1997. In fact, I just dug pictures out of the of the of the trip to have a picture of my son standing behind our old 90 some odd 80, no, 89, 89

49:55

Ford Escort, whatever it was. So we drove over to California for that particular trip. It's not like this information isn't there.

50:02

It is there. It's just not being dealt with. Obviously, there are answers that are given by the

50:07

Calvinist. But again, is this a satisfactory answer in light of the panoply of scripture in the immediate context of the passage?

50:16

And it sounds to me like Hank is saying no, but doesn't that require a demonstration of the fact that it's no.

50:25

And when I know and see this is this is what bothers me when I know what the objections to my position are, as I present the positive aspect of my position,

50:34

I will express it in such a way as to answer those objections and to make it known that I know what those answers are.

50:42

And that's not what I'm hearing in these kinds of comments. Again, these are questions that we have to debate vigorously, ultimately not divide over.

50:49

We have great resources on both sides of the issue so that you can make your own determination.

50:55

I, like you, grew up in a strictly Calvinist home and had a great deal of difficulty recognizing how you can in the system preserve the sovereignty of God, the justice of God and genuine human culpability.

51:10

Be right back with more of the show. Well, and that difficulty evidently continued in our program because the fact that I kept bringing up the scriptural text for that very issue is addressed and I never got any answers whatsoever other than from Hank's assistant, who promoted

51:29

Molinism as the response to that and which sort of surprised me more than just a little bit.

51:36

Let's quick grab one phone call on the subject that we've gotten. And let's talk with Paul.

51:41

Hi, Paul. Hello, Paul. Hi, Dr. White. How are you doing? Good. I called

51:47

Hank's show a year ago when Greg Koukl was on because I had heard Greg Koukl describe compatibilism very clearly and I knew that he would present the truth, even if Hank tried to mischaracterize what it was.

52:04

And the screener talked to me for a long time and wouldn't let me go through with that call. Oh, really? And yeah, so I called

52:09

Greg Koukl's show a couple of weeks later. And in fact, they just they just rebroadcast that show on Sunday and he talked he explained it very clearly.

52:20

And well, it's not that it can't be explained clearly. It's not that difficult a thing to do.

52:28

The exegesis of Genesis 50 or Isaiah 10 or Acts four is not overly complex.

52:34

It's just simply in the vast majority of situations you have individuals. Norman Geisler is an excellent example.

52:40

Norman, the central aspect of Norman Geisler's Christian philosophy is an autonomous human will. His answers to everything are locked up in the training he got in a

52:50

Jesuit school for his Ph .D. And central to Romanism and to its perspective is the autonomous human will has to be because the sacramental system.

52:59

So it doesn't matter what you say. I mean, it's so it's become so thick a lens upon his vision that he can look at texts like John 644 or he can look at texts like Romans 916 and say, here, we see free will.

53:15

You are left somewhat amazed that someone can make these statements.

53:21

But that is the level to which tradition can function as a filter through which the scriptures are seen so that even plain meanings that are are on the surface do not require any specialized techniques to obtain are filtered out.

53:40

And the actual opposite conclusion of the text is arrived at. It's tragic that Hank's audience has been cheated on this perspective because I think it's just dishonest.

53:50

Well, there was once a time when the audience got both and there was there was once a time back about ninety six or so.

53:59

No, no. Ninety after. No, actually, it's around ninety nine. Think about it. When there was there was open discussion over at CRI about synergism versus monergism and and the whole nine yards.

54:11

That discussion has ended and the monergistic position has been rejected.

54:16

And now you're now you're hearing that you used to, you know, R .C. Sproul's around the program, the past and and things like that.

54:23

But you're seeing a movement away from having those kinds of folks. And and, you know, quite honestly, the the the primary push in the late 90s against any type of reformed theology in that context was by Bob and Gretchen Passantino.

54:39

And they they detest they detested Calvinism. Bob Passantino's passed away, but Gretchen is still there, still has a very large portion of influence.

54:50

And their website still continues to host. I've always wanted to do this. And I just every time I save the file and put it on my palm or my laptop or whatever,

54:59

I run out of time to get it done. But there are these questions on the truth.

55:06

It was something in action, answers and action, truth and action, whatever it is, their website is these questions about Calvinism.

55:13

And they're just amazingly bad. I mean, there's like two that have any meaning whatsoever.

55:18

The rest are pure strawmen. I mean, just just Dave Hunt level bad questions.

55:25

But this is this is where they're coming from. And I think they put the full court press on. And that's that's the reason you're only getting that that part.

55:34

And what this illustrates is when you do apologetics, you have to be consistent all the way through.

55:41

And you simply can't given when you have to start relying on things like Molinism and stuff like that to to answer the big questions, your apologetic position is going to be very badly compromised in the process.

55:54

There's just no other way about it. So, you know, when you start saying, well, you know, both sides are are in the family, but you don't want to be you don't want to be confused into accepting one side and one side, the caste system and and one side does give answers.

56:14

But we'll never tell you what those answers are. And and we won't respond with those answers. That's when you really start getting concerned that eventually, you know, you know, there was a day when

56:23

Dave Hunt didn't make a big deal about Calvinism either. But then, you know, one day he decided to do so.

56:30

And the rest is history. So I certainly hope that's not what what we're headed for here. But you never know.

56:37

All right, thanks, Colin. God bless. Bye bye. Yes, indeed. Well, again, when when, you know,

56:46

I appreciate that Hank doesn't say these folks are heretics yet, but there continues to be movement.

56:53

And each time I do take the time to listen to one of these calls and they're fairly regular. I mean, I think the last time it's over a year ago now that we even reviewed one of these calls because, you know, you get the same stuff, the

57:06

Sonny and Cher thing and and issues along those lines. But it does there does seem to be movement and it's not in the good direction.

57:16

It seems to be a negative movement toward more and more caricaturizing the reform position and not seriously interacting with it and really directing people away from a consistent response to the questions that they that they actually are asking.

57:35

And so that is quite troubling to me because I know that many people are calling and they have really honest questions and they they they deserve,

57:44

I think, a fair answer in that in that context. And that's that's a shame.

57:50

So anyway, for those of you who've been listening to a live, we have utilized a new feed today.

57:58

We still have the old feed going, but we also have a new feed going, which allows you to listen in in iTunes, in Windows Media Player, in Music Match, Jukebox, whatever it might be.

58:10

We've hit the big time, folks, and seems to be working quite well. So we're very thankful to all those who work so hard at making that kind of thing take place.

58:19

And that means, I think, finally, unless something weird happens between now and Thursday, we'll finally get back to the

58:25

Jerry Vine sermon that was delivered a few weeks ago here on The Dividing Line and your phone calls. We'll see you

58:31

Thursday. God bless. Or write us at P .O.

59:38

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

59:44

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