Bob Morey's Debate Challenge, Frank Turek and Michael Brown on Reformed Issues

And greetings welcome to the dividing line it is a beautiful day here in Phoenix, Arizona.

It's supposed to Supposed to start getting a little holiday ish on Friday. It's supposed to supposed to rain all day.

That'll be nice yep, so and then Saturday is supposed to be 58 and That's almost that's almost gonna be how old

I am not quite It'd have to be a little bit colder to match to match things but fairly fairly close

And yes Yeah, it's Saturday. Yep. Saturday is the the big the big day and my wife reminded me today

Well, we were climbing a mountain that my tradition is to what? No, I'm not plugged in yet My tradition is to climb 100 feet for every

Year of my age on my bike and so I'd have to do five thousand four hundred feet of climbing on Saturday And I said why'd you have to remind me that that was my tradition

But but it is so maybe we will have to do that. I don't know there's two ways

I can go down to South South Mountain and do it that way or There's another way, but it's 95 miles riding.

So we'll see anyways lots to get to today Got to start off Yeah, I'm not wearing a coochie day cuz too warm what is it gonna be today 70 70

I don't think today is 76 but It's 70 it's gonna be 74 here today 77 on Wednesday and Thursday and Then Friday 66

Saturday 59. So now they've got up to 59. So But yeah,

I was I wanted to wear This really nice coochie that I did get primarily because of all of the anti coochie nus

That took place last week Beautiful beautiful, but it's way too thick for almost anything inside actually

That's way too thick for for this. I'll wear it I'll wear it on my birthday on Saturday and anyone who's mean to me then just as a meanie head so and they should be

Arrested by the social justice warriors anyway So much to get to today, but I have to start off with something fairly fairly serious and fairly sad really in my opinion

I was getting a Number of notes over the weekend

Concerning dr. Robert Maury and Some challenge to me to debate him

Now in March of 2015. I was just looking on the website In March of 2015 some comments were made that I responded to at that time, but evidently

Dr. Maury is is back in the saddle I've seen some odd things about where he's back in the saddle at and few things like that.

But Anyway, I guess he's getting more active again after a fair amount of time not being really active at all and from what

I've heard From what other people have told me so I'm getting this secondhand He wants to debate his

Allah is moon God the moon God theory Given that all

I've ever said about that is you know, I I Wouldn't want to debate that position. I I'm not gonna take that position.

It would require Utilization of forms of argumentation that I have consistently rejected over the years

I Have often warned my fellow apologists that we always in our thinking have to be recognizing that when we utilize

Argumentation are we being consistent? I realize that the other side is not going to be consistent

No question about I realize That it will not That that's that's not even an issue the reason

Christians Seek consistency is because we're followers of Christ whether we are whether we get it back from the other side is really irrelevant we it is

I do it as worship to my Lord and It's definitional of who

I am and what I do. I I don't understand how to do it any other way, okay? so I've just simply say said that you know,

I went to a seminary at for part of my education where I was exposed regularly to the

The perspective that you can draw parallels between every religion because every religion borrows from every other religion and so every kind of parallel to El Elohim Yahweh to every kind of a

Syrian Babylonian and Canaanite deity on the planet has been thrown out there and I've argued against those things for a long time.

So Why should I then turn around and argue in a situation where there's even less data?

That you know because especially in a debate situation where you're seeking to bring

The gospel and gospel light to Muslim people You have to look at it and go what's what's my best way of doing that and I don't think that trying to make argumentation

Concerning the history of what what might have been Concerned Allah and if for certain people

Allah was a lunar deity or something I don't see that as as a useful approach and that's what

I've said, but he wants now to debate it Why don't you debate the Muslims about that? Oh, I forgot because you constantly misbehave in debates and so they won't debate you anymore.

I forgot about that Let's be really really straightforward here okay, since this is getting all over the place and and other people are

People I thought were friends are jumping on the bandwagon and things like that Let's keep this this really clear

I have criticized dr Mori on three issues and only one of them would be worth discussing In any only one of them would even be debatable and it's not it's not even debatable

To be honest with you, but it's the only one that would could be put into a into a propositional format

First thing is I have criticized. Dr. Mori for his behavior in his debates with Shabir Ali and Jamal Badawi I I stand by those criticisms and Part of that criticism came from the second thing that I've specifically criticized him about and that is his unwillingness to accept

Basic simple correction on basic simple factual issues. What do I mean? In his debate and I played this

I played most of it years ago probably 2005 2006 probably been 10 years now

In his debate with Shabir Ali Dr.

Mori Brought up a hadith Where he

Alleged that What was Said in the hadith is that one of the sahaba one of the companions of Muhammad while riding with him his cloak moved and He saw the whiteness of his thing now

I've never fully understood what Mori's point was By trying to say that one of the sahaba

Okay, even leave that well just with this man who's riding with him good companion Saw the whiteness of his thing and he's talking about his sex organ.

I've never understood what that was about But Shabir responded and played it's it's not thing it's thigh the whiteness of his thigh

Not thing there's there's a perfectly fine Arabic word that would not be thing and One of the first things

I did when I had the opportunity starting in around 2006 2007 to have an

Arabic tutor was I tracked down that exact Hadith in the

Arabic and without telling my tutor what the issue was. I just Gave it to him and said what is could you read this for me?

Sure So he starts reading it and he saw the whiteness of his thigh

And I told him about what had happened in the debate and he's like really it's not even an issue

Then after the debate with Shabir Ali he then debated Jamal Badawi and at least I'm assuming that that was the order of the of The of the debates didn't make much sense.

It wasn't he brought up the same thing again He just he just won't let it go and it's it's there it's not even a question

But he just kept and in the debate with Shabir he went so far as to make a comment

I'm not even gonna respond. I'm not gonna repeat it but it was it was just so beneath what any

Christian should do in a debate that it was just So I've criticized dr.

Maury for his behavior Toward Muslims in Debate and I stand by what

I said I don't think there's any question about it and I think I have standing for making that kind of accusation

I've done more debates and Robert Maury has and I've been in just as many Difficult tough situations as he has and I've never had to had to result to resort.

I'm sorry to that kind of behavior in responding to people and Lord willing never will

But those are not debatable issues that the the fact of the

Arabic in that hadith is not a debatable issue. It would take two minutes to debate that here's the fact here's the lexicon

Okay, let's go home the thing that the only thing that would

Could be put into a proposition Would be the claim that nuking the

Chaba Would destroy Islam is the stupidest thing that anyone has ever said now that could be put into a

Into a debate proposition and And I would defend that and and I don't think that that anyone could possibly defeat that proposition

Because what had happened and once again, you can go back to what was the date on this? March 7th 2015

Here's a quote from Robert Maury, I told you this was coming for over 20 years people called me crazy

Now I am sad to say I told you so as soon as we bomb the Chaba and reduce it to a hole in the ground

Millions of lives and billions of money will be saved without that old pagan temple to pray toward and make a pilgrimage to Islam Will collapse terrorism we cut off the roots end quote and what had happened for those of you who want the whole story?

And I guess we do need the whole story here because people are contacting rich and saying what are you gonna do the debate? Oh, this is exciting it

Wow Here's what happened I I went to a church in Houston number of years ago and I gave a presentation on Islam and afterwards a man asked me

He said what do you I was listening to a guy lecturing on and didn't tell me who it was Says I was

I was listening to a guy lecturing on Islam and he said That the best way to deal with Islam would be to nuke the

Kaaba, what do you think about that? I just stared at him and I went that's the dumbest thing. I've ever heard in my life It's funny as we were as we were my wife and I climbed a lot of local mountains here this morning and as we were driving

I was telling her about this situation and I I Told her this is what he said.

And and she said she said Well, that's silly I Can't imagine anything that would unite the world's

Muslims more than than something like that. And I'm like Common -sense coming from the wife.

Yes, you're exactly right and You know most people just just recognize

I'm not even I'm not even addressing The abjectly

Anti -christian attitude of doing such a thing. I mean if you're a

Christian and think you should nuke The religious sites of other people as a way of promoting the gospel.

You are nuts Okay, you are crazy Okay, that is not

Christian. You you don't know what Christianity is You need to go back to 101 if you think that's

Christianity That's not how you promote the gospel not with weapons of mass destruction, but weapons of mass instruction hello

So when this guy asked me this question in the Sunday school class, I'm just I normally don't respond by saying

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life, but that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life and so that's how I responded well,

I Went back to the same church a second time years later and For some reason the guy asked me the same question again, and so when

I came back on the air I Pointed out while we're doing the dividing line live.

I said Does does anybody know who this is who is saying this and if I recall correctly

I could be wrong But I thought it was Turretin fan and channel that pulled up the

URL to Bob Maury's website Where Bob Maury was the one saying nukes

Cabo, and I was like Because look

I had interactions with Bob Maury long ago That just made me stay at arm's length stay at arm's length

And It's funny before I debated Shabir Ali in 2006 at Biola He said to some friends of mine.

I'm not coming to debate because all James does just repeat my arguments against Islam. Anyways, I Didn't know his arguments against Islam because I didn't consider him a worthwhile enough source to even look at him

I've not read his books on Islam. I I just I I heard his moon

God presentation What year was that? Oh It was way way back

What year was that was that 90 It was a long time ago. It was in Phillip.

I members in Philadelphia because I went from Philadelphia. I Drove down drove up to Harrisburg where I used to live and did some stuff there

While I was going somewhere else. Oh, I was going either I was going From New England down to Philadelphia and stop there or the other direction

I forget which one it was. But anyways, it was it was long time ago. So I did hear His presentation but it was long before I had any interest in in Islam and doing anything along those lines

But as far as you know, just saying I just repeats my arguments. No, I he's not been an influence upon me at all in In my studies of Islam at all

Maybe that's why I didn't recognize the Vitriol of the nuke the

Kaaba comment and make the connection. I just didn't So I said on the air once it was once we brought it up and I'm sitting there looking at says, yep

They're there there it is There's there's the quote and I said, you know

Bob Maury's written some good stuff But that is just the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. I mean, I'm just on a political basic level

It is so plainly obvious to anyone who has their eyes open That if do you want to erase the distinctions?

Between Sunni and Shia between all the infighting and everything else amongst the

Muslims and Unite them into one huge angry army then do that Guess it's like where what's more is just just simply on a real basic level

The fact the matter is the fifth pillar can't be fulfilled any longer Anyways, if you just run the numbers

There are too many Muslims in the world given how many people are allowed in to do

Hajj You can't you can't really fulfill the fifth pillar any longer anyways, and so it's just so obvious anyone who's not rabidly lost it on this subject that That the result is going to be the creation of a

Hajj of desire type concept that You may not be able to do Hajj But as long as you really want to desire to do

Hajj and you would do it if you could That's still fulfilling the fifth pillar. I Mean, that's all it's already where they pretty much are

This idea of using weapons of mass destruction on other religious sites

Um Wow, and so as I said even once I discovered that who who was

Responsible for it. It didn't change the fact. I just never heard anything that completely erroneous that completely unsupportable something that every believing

Christian should condemn as abject foolishness Then what

Maury had said, so what's his response his response to say that I've said Everything that he says about Islam is stupid.

That's funny because he would know how many Categories of logical errors.

He just he just created and just committed in such a statement But one of the things that I said,

I think in that very first Program where we realized who it was it was saying this

Was it the thing what really concerns me here is That Robert Maury has said true things he has

Defended the deity of Christ. He has defended the New Testament, etc, etc when you combine

Speaking the truth with speaking abject lunacy You damage the truth.

That's that's the problem here is Combining these things together

Actually damages the truth and So I have never said I have never suggested that everything

Bob Maury has ever said about Islam is untrue now he if I recall correctly, he did put out a series of comic books making fun of the

Hadith and Pulling things out of the Hadith and though this is absurd And look

I've read all I've read all Bukhari and Muslim there's some really strange stuff in there

But I've also seen atheists do the same thing in comic book form toward the Old Testament So once again, it's that consistency issue

It's that what will actually allow me to communicate in love to the other side issue and That's where we obviously part ways

Not only with he but evidently his students as well in our

In in our someone just texted me and I have no idea what they're talking about and it threw me off there So we we differ completely in our motivations for Why we do the things that we do and so when

Maury now comes out and saying well, I challenge James White to debate me on Look, if you want to debate, the only thing to debate is

Have you yet repented of? Your nuke the Kaaba position that's that's all there is

In fact, as long as Bob Maury holds that position, no Muslims should ever debate him. No Christians ever have anything to do with him

Because it's foolishness It is reprehensible for any person

Who proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ to be suggesting to the rest of the world?

That a political governmental entity should drop nuclear bombs on a civilian religious target

That is not what Christians say you should do There's no there's no world war going on.

There's no comparison here with with what was going on in 1945 There was all sorts of differences there.

This is this is saying well if we destroy this element of this religion, are you?

What person? seriously thinks That a truly dedicated

ISIS fighter is gonna go. Ah, the Kaaba's gone. I guess I might as well just go get a good job now

It's just it's just so dumb I can't even I can't show respect for it. I cannot show respect for it

Okay, I I just can't I'm sorry. There's there's gotta be a line so The only the only thing to discuss that there is no reason to be talking about moon gods or anything else if Robert Murray will come out and say

What I have said and what I have suggested in regards to the utilization of Nuclear weapons

Was Unchristian foolish inane. I repent of it

Congratulations to you at least that puts you back You know that would be the first necessary thing to do

Only then would anything else be relevant and then all your theories about moon gods and stuff

Debate the Muslims about that. I just don't go that direction. I don't use that kind of argumentation

There's a lot of argumentation other people are quite comfortable in using right? It's very popular for some people to go after the the

Quran right now based upon particular Theories of its origination and its history

Just as it's very popular to attack the New Testament based upon certain theories about its origination history, too

Um Yeah, I I don't I don't Get to utilize a bunch of arguments because I seek to be consistent that's that's all there is to it and So, there you go,

I I haven't seen these these challenges, but Until there is until someone provides to me

A link to Robert Morris saying I have been wrong from the beginning in ever having suggested and I ask forgiveness of The Christian people and the

Muslim people for ever having suggest this there's nothing else to talk about Nothing else to talk about there really isn't

So There you go All right, so that is taken care of there

Which one are we gonna do first here? Hmm. Hmm You mean the video

Well, okay. All right. All right. That's what we'll do Move the taskbar over here

Got some reformed issues to deal with today The second of which will be

I mentioned this on on Twitter Dr. Michael Brown had a call from a

Synergist Who's arguing with his brother who's a monergist for some help with John chapter 6 now

Michael and I did we've done a number of debates now and On the dividing line we did

Oh Book can I do reformed issues? I need I need to get permission from book and channel because he's truly reformed and I'm really not because I'm just a reformed

Baptist and so You know, I have to have to get permission from my

Presbyterian overlords before I talk about things like this but No, anyway

On on the dividing line Was it three I think it was I asked him

We did three texts that I wanted to exegete and discuss and then we did three texts that he wanted to exegete and discuss

I think that's how it worked out and So we have

Discussed John 6 and maybe we did some more even on line of fire at some point But be it as it may we have discussed it but not as Deeply as maybe it needs to be needs to be pursued and I did appreciate the fact that in his answer

Dr. Dr. Brown did make reference to what I at least have said about it

Um So we do need to look at that, but I only have audio of that But before we get to that, we will be looking at an answer to a question audience question that dr.

Frank Turek offered and again, I really wonder honestly when synergists especially synergistic apologists

Um Answer questions about Predestination by referring to mullin ism

When they don't explain what mullin ism is How useful is that to the listening audience because I know

One of the few things I can do. Well is I can explain really complex things

So that all sorts of people can understand those complex things. I can explain the

Trinity I can explain textual criticism You know stuff like that and and and people go.

Oh, wow You know, I've had people go to me after debates man. I've heard so many people I never understood it till now

Okay. All right one of the few things I can do and I know that in trying to explain mullin ism to people

That's still hard to do It takes a long time. You cannot just simply assume Mullin ism in answering your question

But that's what dr. Dr. Turek does here in answer. This this fellow's question is

You'll well, I'll be interesting to see if you see Or hear if you're just listening

Where the mullin ism comes in because it is there But let's take a listen to this

This question and then the the answer that is that is offered and I think

I'm plugged in and full power on the audio So, uh, here we go

So my question has to pertain more to the theological aspects on I guess the problem evil sometimes atheists will

Question the Christians on and those like who prescribed away a Calvinistic type of idea of how

God preordains and predestined is not only Who we are but also our will and our thoughts and everything

So I guess how as Christians do we answer that if they were to and like I guess was Scriptural support and evidence to answer that.

Okay predestination free will is a good that's a good question Unfortunately, we're not predestined to talk about that here

I just been told that we can't talk about that tonight. No, I think wherever God says believe or trust in me that implies you can do it

And of course the scriptures say that God wants all to be saved Well, if he wants all to be saved and God is completely in control in the sense that we don't have free will he can

Zap all of us and just make us believe then why isn't everybody saved? If he wants all to believe and all to be saved, but not all are saved

It must be that we have some say in the matter, too And I think it's true that none of us would seek

God unless he sought us first, right? God's Holy Spirit goes to all people, but only some

Respond to it. Now you say how can we be free and God's sovereign at the same time?

Let me give you an illustration. Let's say you love football what you do and You love NFL football so you have

NFL Sunday ticket But you're away one Sunday, and you can't watch any of the games and so You decide that you're gonna record them all and when you get home that night, you're gonna watch your favorite team

But on your way home your friend texts you the scores and you go And I know

I know the scores But you go home and you elect to watch the game anyway Now you already know what's gonna happen, right?

But does that mean that because you know, what's gonna happen the players on the field don't have free will Now they still have free will right even though you know, what's gonna happen.

Well, the same is true with God God's outside of time. He can see the end from the beginning He knows what we're gonna do before we do it, but that doesn't mean we don't have free will we still we're still freely doing what we're doing and When God elected to create this universe as opposed to any other universe, he elected the outcome

He knew how we would that you would believe and maybe Richard Dawkins wouldn't But you're believing and Richard Dawkins is not trusting in Christ Based on your own free will his

Holy Spirit went to you and Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins said no and you said yes so We're chosen, but we're also free

In fact, my co -author Norman Geisler wrote a book called chosen but free and if you really want to get into it I recommend you get that book.

So make sense Alright, thanks so much Okay, so there you go

Hopefully you caught the possible worlds Reference there

Which you know requires all the Molinistic Presuppositions that come with it and things like that, but that's a very that's a very common kind of answer

You'll notice that the only biblical content Was to say well

We know the Bible says these things and the problem is the very things you said We know the Bible says we don't know the

Bible says we know God wants to save everyone. Well, where's the say that? well, and then you start going into the big three, which we've covered so many times before and You discover that there is

Clear exegetical foundation for rejecting a universalistic reading of 2nd

Peter 3 9 or math 23 37 or verse Timothy 2 4 and you ask

Do you have you really thought through the idea of Jesus being the mediator? The intercessor for all people.

Do you really being consistent and look how many times have we seen?

People utilizing these texts how many times that we this is this is part and parcel of Roman Catholic Argumentation as well

You got to understand that From a reform from a Reformation perspective that answer was just given is on the other side the

Tiber. That's not Luther Okay, that's Erasmus now, do you know what that means?

It's Important that people have some idea, you know, this is we're coming up on 2017 and when we talk about the

Reformation We're not just talking about reformed theology we talk about the

Reformation the first written debate of The Reformation is between Luther and Erasmus on the issue of the will

And the Reformation is on one side and Rome's on the other side that's no longer the case today

The majority of people who from an external perspective you would go

These are the children of the Reformation have gone away from the Reformation on this issue.

They're on Rome's side They are synergists they believe in the autonomous human will and and they believe in Prevenient grace you heard you heard him saying

God's grace has come to Richard Dawkins and you but you chose because your free will and Richard Dawkins didn't right?

So it's prevenient grace. So God tried to save Richard Dawkins just as strongly as he did anybody else He just failed

You know the father tried the son tried the spirit tried but it's all Richard Dawkins is more powerful than the father son spirit

And he tried just as hard to save Richard Dawkins as as he did

Peter or Paul or any other follower of Jesus Christ just as hard and failed just as badly in that intention

But that's what you just heard and so this idea of synergism of the autonomy of the human will it goes back to the

Reformation and As I've pointed out many times before Luther said to Erasmus you of all my opponents

Have placed your finger upon the heart of the issue the hinge upon which it all turns

And what was that? either the autonomy or the bondage of the human will and So this is the synergistic response.

This is not the response that To be honest with you The the people that answer like dr.

Turek just did should not be celebrating October 31st 2017 because on the most fundamental level they reject

What that Reformation actually taught they may appreciate that it gave them eventually religious freedoms and things like that But the reality is the substance of what was being taught.

Mm. No, no and that also means that you need to think through the

Relationship between that subject and the subject of justification because there are many

Who on the one side was all justification by faith alone you bet you bet but then they'll hold to a synergistic view of the of the will on the other side and the vitally important cement that biblically holds together

The doctrine of justification and The the rest of biblical revelation is the grace of God and In a synergistic system you always end up having to introduce this fake grace called prevenient grace

There's no there's no such thing as prevenient grace in Scripture. It's just it's just a myth You know,

I picked up a book a couple years ago a guy defending prevenient grace and I listened the first few chapters and after That's where he tried to make his biblical defense and then after that it wandered off into all sorts of irrelevant things

And I was just I was just stunned There was there was nothing there. It was it was just so shallow and so non -existent.

There's no such thing as Prevenient grace as grace that tries and fails.

Oh That says in Acts chapter 7 there that you hardened your hearts and harden your hearts against what? Well, God was trying is that what it says no, it's not what it says you're reading into it so That's what that's what's being presented.

And then you throw in a little bit of Molinism and You throw in a little bit of well, you know, let me give you an illustration.

Why not? one that one of the reasons that Reformed theology speaks to the real

Heart desire of so many young people today is that if someone asks me a question

Well on a subject like that, you know That I'm going to respond with biblical

Answers not just answers that are consistent with an overarching Concept of the

Bible. I'm going to respond With answers that come straight from Scripture itself and We're going to look at what?

Nebuchadnezzar a pagan king Properly said about the relationship of human beings to God We're gonna look at what the psalmist said in Psalm 33 and we're gonna see it

The Bible plainly teaches man has his plans man has his purposes. God has his plans and God has his purposes and It's God's that win

It's not the other way around It's not this this Oh God wants to do all these things

But you know, he's just disappointed right left and center because we just won't allow him to do things. I Heard somebody

I forget. I Think I think you were I think it was a conversation in channel or somewhere about somebody

Abusing what is that text in Psalm 78 and the King James they they limited

God Yeah, I remember that someone was misusing the the King James that point they limited

God somehow we have the ability to limit God and and I point out that years and years and years ago a

Southern Baptist pastor who was attempting to Preach a sermon during tithing week or month, whatever it was.

Yeah, it's quarter. Yeah Even though this pastor

Always preached in New American Standard always preached in New American Standard for that one Sunday night he

Preached from the King James why so he could preach that text They limited the God of Israel and he made the connection that by our not

Cooperating with God we limit what God can do and it was all in reference to giving And I remember I had gone home that night and I looked new

Mary's there is tempted and I looked it up in Kohler Baumgartner and it was the the

King James translators had missed it was Real easy error in root and and probably wasn't really even that they had missed anything.

It's just that we've learned a lot about cognate languages and roots and things like that sense of 1604 and 1611 and That's why all the modern translations had proper translation the point being there's always this desire on man's part

To find a way of limiting God If someone's gonna ask me I'm going to go into the scriptures and I'm gonna give the positive

Testimony that God works all things after the counsel of his will that God causes all

Things to work together for good then the love God then they're called according to those who are the call the called

According to his purpose. There is no the called according to his purpose in a synergistic system

You can you can try to find a way to rescue it you it's just not gonna happen you can't do it and so I Think the synergists need to understand that that kind of an answer to that question

Because it was not rooted in the word is Only going to suffice for a brief period of time

It's not going to have Long term effect one of the things that that is so exciting to me is

I will meet people and They read a book

They heard a debate 20 years ago and It was the presentation of the scriptures the exegesis of the scriptures

That changed their life changed the course of their life They're in ministry now or churches have been found or whatever.

Was it me? No, it was the unleashing of the power of the

Word of God an answer That is not derived from exegesis

May suffice for a moment, but it will not suffice for the redeemed of God in the long run

They need to hear the voice of the shepherd on Those matters and on these issues and when you actually

Go to the scriptures the scriptures teaching on this subject is Overwhelming the scriptures teaching is clear and That's what

I think people need to need to understand you'll also need to notice that the answer that was given about the

NFL ticket and Scores and stuff once again, the only way to make that work is

To have a view of God who learns things Now that's not even Mullen ism It is a all

Well in a sense, it's Mullen ism in the sense that it goes back to the car dealer But that wasn't that's not even a really a consistent a consistent perspective from from that that viewpoint either

But that's not how God's knowledge works, that's not that's not the

God of the Bible So why why go that direction why why give an answer like that well because If you if you are are an apologist and Your apologetics are the primary focus and the theology isn't really there to substantiate it

Well, those those inconsistencies will be demonstrated over time they will be demonstrated over time

And I think that's what you have in a situation in a situation like that So I could hope that the young man asking the question

Maybe will be at Ohio State University. In fact will be directed to a fuller response to his question as we just Just provided to him there

All right Now let's go to audio only now

And as I said dr. Brown I Don't know when this was 12 10.

So just last week Well, that's what I created this doesn't mean it was that's when it was so sometime last week,

I think this call came into the line of fire and I'm not sure

I'm gonna play all of it because it's 8 minutes and 44 seconds long but What we will see if I played all of it is the same thing that we saw in our discussion on the dividing line and that is

Dr. Brown will not spend a lot of time in John 6 he'll mention it and then he'll go to John 1 and he'll try to sort of create a narrative there and John 17 and and Doesn't spend as much time in the text itself

Which we will try to do which we've done of course, obviously many many times before because you know

But let's let's let's point something out here. Let me do point something out For all of my

Michael Brown haters and there are a lot of you there are a lot of you

I mean It is it is good it is good that my

My security and my foundation is found in a in a true faith in the truthfulness of the gospel and the fact that It transcends all of us

If any one of us are all of us together We're wiped off the face of the earth right now the kingdom of God God's gonna accomplish his purposes.

It's gonna go on. I Just I just can't get into the you know

There's so many people just are so obsessed with their own little kingdom and stuff and I don't want kingdoms

I don't want followers and When I when

I when I See how many people are just just sitting around just waiting to find some reason

Cuz by the way, did y 'all notice something in my response? Did I attack Frank Turrett?

Did I say no one should ever have that man come speaking of that? Did I ever say anything like that at all? No All I said about dr.

Turrett and that response was he's a synergist He made that very clear and I addressed the substance of what he said.

The man's a very nice man He's a brother in Christ. I Didn't have to attack him. I didn't have to to do the fundamentalist separation thing and The sad thing is there are

Calvinists to do the fundamentalist separation thing too and they'll do it to me. I Heard you spoke at an axe 29 church down in New Zealand.

Yeah, I did folks were great. I'd do it again a heartbeat Ha ha ha so much for your bona fides,

I don't want your bona fides. I don't care what you think it's irrelevant to me Well, you've been on Michael Brown's program and and you like Michael Yeah, and we disagree about a bunch of stuff and you know what there are

I cannot tell you how many people Who have said man, I am so thankful That you and Michael Brown are friends and you disagree with one another and you explain it all the time

So great to see that there are actually Christians that can do that Disagreement in love thing we talked about all the time, but who actually does it?

Yeah. Well anyway Yeah, you try to But one thing that should be

Pointed out immediately here What we're gonna hear From Michael Brown, he doesn't try

To turn John chapter 6 into something that's irrelevant to us today Like Leighton flowers and the alleged traditionalists do he doesn't come up with some hyper

Dispensational reading he doesn't say well This was just about why the Jews of Jesus's day were hardened and now everything since then's changed

Even though this was written long after that and wouldn't be relevant anymore. He doesn't do any of that stuff He won't give he won't be given any credit for that Because people just still gonna say and I'm going to say he's still missing the point of John 6 and I believe that he is.

I believe that he is but He doesn't He doesn't go about it in the way

Well, there are a lot of people Who would be more They would they would be less offended

By the abuse of Scripture that we've seen From the traditionalists and John 6 and John 10

Then they are by Michael Brown's being a charismatic They're more offended by the charismatic aspect than they are about the abuse of Scripture aspect

I'm not sure I follow that part. I don't get that. I Mean when you will go so far is to look at John chapter 10 and Your whole the whole purpose you bring to looking at John chapter 10 is we need to find some way of making

Judas One of the sheep so that Jesus we can find evidence that Jesus died for people that will end up in hell

We need to find some place where Jesus death doesn't actually save. Whoa You're more you're less offended by that Then by someone who believes in the continuation of spiritual gifts of certain spiritual gifts

I would call them apostolic scientists, but whatever We've even disagreed about that and discussed it and again fairly

That's all scary to me So what you're gonna hear is not Woo -woo stuff with you know, what you're gonna hear is this idea again

What's what's the issue in John 6 we'll look at here in a moment. What's the issue in John 6? what comes first the giving the father or the coming of the individual and Where I think

Michael completely misses this is he will say well who's given by the father to the son? Why can't it be those who've humbled themselves?

He's gonna go to earlier parts in John try to establish that and that's why I think he's completely missing the point

And we'll point that out But at least he's not trying to say that what's in John 6 isn't relevant to us today or this only has to do with with Jews that were hardened in the days of Jesus or some weird odd thing like that At least you can interact with this in a meaningful fashion, which you really can't some of this other stuff that's out there, so let's

Take a listen. And yeah, I'm gonna speed up just a little bit I always do we go to Jared in Blue Springs, Missouri.

Welcome to the line of fire Thank you. How are you doing today? Doing very well. Thanks I'm real quick question for you.

I mean my brother for a few years now has been kind of going back and forth on a Calvinist stance and I don't believe that that is a biblical error that that's a scripturally sound

Philosophy the one thing that I'm having trouble with with him though is John 6 44 and and exegeting that into a

Into something that's more than surface value Yes, sir No, this is a very important text in my

Calvinist colleague, dr James White has written extensively on John 6 37 to 44 saying it's impossible to exegete that in a fair way.

That is non -calvinistic and we actually Devoted some radio time on his show years back to debating that very passage

So let me give you my understanding of it, but I want to start in verse 37

Okay, and read up to verse 44. So I have full respect for how dr. White understands the passage.

I don't think he is Grossly mishandling it and reading things into it that aren't there I would simply say there is another way to read it.

That's even more consistent with John's theology and biblical theology So let me lay that out.

So now let me just just stop right there for a moment When when

I deal with John 6 You'll notice I I don't start at verse 37 because I think you end up missing something extremely important Rich is just placed.

That's an that a new cover. It is a new cover and it's also on Kindle now really

Well Then why don't we just simply I've been busy. Why don't we just simply direct everyone to that?

and I think that's what I just did and then just Well here you have to give it to me because no one can no one can see that Thank you disembodied hand

Look at that. That's I like that cover. I like that cover. So here is the new cover

There we go John by the Father Exploring the truth

John 6 35 through 45, which is what I was about to tell you And You know, this is a little book and I guess that you said it's now available in Kindle as well and the companion book

Sovereign grace of God of God It was God's sovereign grace when I first wrote it and then when it got reprinted became the publisher decided that it read better I don't know.

Yeah, nice little book. This isn't this isn't a theological tome So it's the good stocking stuffer

But wrote it years ago because I've just I've just seen John 6 Help so many people

But when I do that, I always go back before verse 37 the reason for that is

Notice Jesus said to them. I Am the bread of life the one coming to me

Will never hunger and the one believing in me will never thirst

But I said to you that you have seen me and you are not believing it is so vitally important To point out

That what is being said here is an explanation of the unbelief of The individuals if you don't start there if you don't start with The fact that these are actually the guys who rode across the lake.

These are the people that are seeking after Jesus they've eaten the of the bread the feeding of the 5 ,000 and all the rest that kind of stuff

So These the people and the explanation is

It looks like they're coming because I mean

They're they're the ones that have gotten into boats They've come searching after Jesus, but Jesus saying you're not look at look at verse 36.

You are not believing Now notice in verse 35 once again

Christians down through the ages have all recognized I Am the bread of life is true at all times

He who comes to me will not hunger. Why say this if well, let's see John 6 was just about that This is this is just this isn't relevant now

Now it's it's all you know, free will and synergism and all the rest of stuff but back then you had the hardening of these

Jews and Christians have always understood what Jesus was saying in that context.

It's been inscripturated for us. So we might understand The promises the gospel to us now and Verse 35 extremely important because it

You know a lot of a lot of folks It's interesting for many evangelicals.

The only thing they know about John 6 is not its testimony here to the sovereignty of God and salvation it's to the discussion of The body and blood of Jesus later on and eating and drinking his flesh and eating drinking his blood and Hence, it's the

Roman Catholic context. Well What establishes what is being said later, but right here?

I am the bread of life he who the one coming to me not the one not the one

Going to a Eucharistic sacrifice and an ordained priest and all the rest that stuff the one coming to me and what's going to be

Described as coming to me believing in him The one coming to me will not hunger or what kind of hunger then is in view in all of John chapter 6 but the first time that hunger and thirst are

Presented these physical things that will then become eating and drinking later on What is the context coming to him?

Believing in him. They're the same thing. They're both present tense participles They are ongoing actions.

There is nothing in John about a one -time faith an heiress faith

That simply says well, you know tip the hat The the anti lordship non lordship false gospel stuff that's out there, but having made that promise

He says these men who have rode across the lake But I said to you that you have seen me

They have seen the miracles they have he's right there in front of him and You are not believing you are unbelievers and It is the context of saying you are not believers

The very next words are all that the father gives to me will come to me.

No, not just Stop for a second and recognize The will come to me.

Well, wait, wait a minute. Was there something about coming before? Yeah, it's up in verse 35 The one coming to me will never hunger

So all that the father gives me will come to me Has there been a break in discussion?

Has there been it should we say that? Well, this is only true This is only relevant to the disciples all the disciples that come to me and then later on Well, the father gives you or not becomes irrelevant.

So you do this You know that silliness that's again out there

No, all that the father gives me will come to me

So that's you have the one coming to me will not hunger all the father gives me will come to me and the one coming

To me, I will never cast out Was that only relevant at that time?

No, it remains relevant today This is one of the greatest promises to the people of God, but it's important to see that starting at verse 35 you miss

Some of the key context and flow of thought that will inform the rest of the interpretation of the text

So let's listen to what Michael does with that text Starting verse 37

Jesus says everyone whom the father gives me will come to me and the one who comes to me I will never send away now you might say well that sounds thoroughly

Calvinistic in that it's only those that the father gives that come to Jesus Yes, that is exactly what we say and of course the key issue the key issue is this

All that the father gives me will come to me Grammatically and exegetically

What action comes first? Because I would argue what Michael's gonna try to say is well

Those who humble themselves Those who do that spiritual good thing because humbling is a spiritual good thing

Even though the Bible says that the lost man's not able to do that We'll just Just gonna assume that he can't because God commands it then we must be able to do it be perfect We must

Pelagianism must be true well, we recognize the error in that though many people repeat it over and over again, especially in Texas, but In this context all that the father gives me will come to which comes first Is it the giving of the father that results in the coming to the

Son or is there something else in there? It is without question.

I've never had anyone successfully argue this it is without question the giving of the father is on any level grammatically syntactically logically

Semantically, what other terms can we come up with is The grounds for the coming to the

Sun so in light of that the synergist recognizes that there

This text can't be allowed to stand on its own because if this text is

Allowed to stand on its own. The result is going to be That the giving of the father is primary to everything else and that may means the sovereignty of God that means election

That's it. There's nothing else to argue about So what you have to do is say well, but there's a there's a that that's just too narrow Yes, Jesus is explaining the unbelief of these men and yes, they have seen him and they've seen his miracles

They saw the feeding of the five thousand. He says they're not believers But Verse 37 isn't saying that they're not believers because God doesn't draw them

God hasn't given them the Sun or verse 44 is gonna say doesn't draw them to the Sun Because we don't actually believe that because we're synergists.

So What we're gonna do is we're going to try to insert something into the text and yeah, the text doesn't say it

But we're just gonna say that it just needs to be understood It's important to see that it's understood

And what is that thing that you're that you're supposed to? insert well

There's a reason why God gives the ones that he gives To the

Sun and it's because they do something and It's not because they come because see the normal the normal thing is, you know the old for knowledge idea is

God looks down the corridors of time sees who's gonna believe in him and Takes those individuals and gives them to the

Sun based upon what they were themselves were gonna do but that reverses the order All who will come to me the father will give to me

That's that's what that would be saying But that's not what Jesus says in John 6 37 and that wouldn't explain the unbelief of the individuals either would it so?

What you do is you separate? Humbling of yourself From believing and You make it maybe something that Every individual is capable of doing because God commands it does it so everyone's capable of doing it again, skip over Romans 8 it's not really there

Yes, God's law commands you to humble yourself and in this one instance even though scriptures directly say

That those who according to flesh can not Submit to the law of God they can't do it

What we'll do is we'll Make humbling yourself. Yeah, it's part of law of God, but but but it's something different and so Everyone can do it and if you'll do that one thing

Then the father will give you to the Son and the result will be that you will come

To the Sun so you humble yourself before God, but you don't come to Christ, but as long as you humble yourself

Then the humble ones Will then be given by the Father to the

Son and maybe there's a special revelation I don't know how you this fits really with prevenient grace

Exactly, but prevenient grace is gonna end up in there somewhere But evidently that's the idea

That's that's that's how you how you come up with this Oops wrong wrong program

Question is who are those whom the father gives to the Son it could be those who humble themselves

It could be those who respond to the message. It could be those who receive his grace now

So respond the message humble yourself receive his grace None of these can be come to Christ Because no matter what the coming is the result of being given

So coming to Christ is now has to be separated somehow From receiving

God's grace receiving the message humbling yourself. It's that these are all now What are they?

Preparatory Non -spiritual acts That then somehow

Okay, what term do I use? Because if this is the basis of God's choosing Then what term do we use here?

Did it's not we can't use earn or merit because you'll get all upset If we use earn or merit, but they're they're the things that you do

That what allow God To give you to the Sun so you will then come to the

Sun I hope most people can see just how far outside of the realm of John 6 all this speculation is but it's necessary.

I mean look It's tough being a synergist in the Gospel of John. It really

It's a bummer It's it's still on the painful side and what we see if we we start reading in John chapter 1 so this is what happened in the conversation that we had on the dividing line is you you leave

John chapter 6 and You attempt to create a category of Individuals who humble themselves and Then just hope that people will go.

Yeah, that must be What the pawn ha did

Osinmoy is of verse 37 all that the father gives me Where does the text say that how would?

Let's put this way. I think this is a fair a fair thing to point out How could

Put yourself in the position of the men to whom these words were originally addressed You have

Listened to Jesus speaking You have rode across a lake You have sought him out and yet.

He's looked you in the eye and He has said ooh

Pestilence a you are not believing You're unbelievers now.

You're gonna want to have an answer. Well, what do you mean? But what would I what would I have to do to believe?

What do you mean? I'm not believing What what do you what do you mean by that? And so it's in that context

That Jesus starts speaking about the father Giving a particular people because it says all that the father gives me now

I just have to point out Michael will later on in his statement also affirm that there can be people who truly come to Christ, but who are lost and so humbling yourself isn't enough and that causes a real problem here because so if you've humbled yourself and You're given by the father to the son.

You can still leave and so verse 37 when all the father gives me will come to me and The one coming to me.

I'll never cast out. Oh, but you can cast yourself out well Notice what the rest of the text says

Because I have come down from heaven not in order to do not in order that I do

My own will but the will of the one who sent me This is the will of the one who sent me in order that of all that he has given to me.

I Lose none of it, but I raise it up in the last day.

So Again the synergistic interpretation runs into a brick wall here because if the idea is

That well, everyone has this natural capacity and ability To humble themselves to see the message receive some type of provenient grace not necessarily salvific grace but some kind of provenient grass with grace, which is nowhere in the

New Testament certain nowhere in John 6, but Everyone has this capacity But if there's anyone who does that who is then given by the father of the son

Isn't it really clearly the message of John 6? That all of those thusly given

The son promises to raise up on the last day not just try But in fact for the son to be able to fulfill the will of the father

Everyone that I lose none of it Not just do a really good job and get a majority, but I lose none of it

These are exclusive categories. This isn't just an argument about all and every

You know did when when all of Jerusalem went out to be baptized by John You mean there was nobody left even the kitties and the doggies went out, you know, it's we're not talking about a situation like that his whole point is

I'm doing the will the one who sent me. I will never cast one of these people out who comes to me.

Why? Because it's the father's will for me that of all that he's given me. I Lose none of it

But raised up on the last day That's eternal life So whatever else you say

Once you're given by the father of the son How can you even begin to argue

The issue of the permanence of that relationship, the only way you can do that is to say well Jesus will try

He will do his best But that's not what John 639 says

It's not what it says and you have to ask yourself the question How important is it?

And I think this is part of I think this is really a central aspect

Of where you can end up finding peace Contentment in your understanding of Soteriological issues issues relating to the gospel.

My my experience is that that people who focus

Upon the central things and specifically God's Self -glorification the gospel the perfection of Christ is

Savior and The fact that the Son will always do the will of the Father are pretty much immune to the

Siren call of synergism and a man -centered understanding of the gospel if it's far more important to you that the

Son Always accomplishes the will of the Father see

I'll just be honest with you Almost no one almost no synergist

I've ever spoken with has ever shown any evidence of either even giving consideration to the importance of the perfection of the

Son's relationship to the Father and his obedience to the Father's will it's like it does It's not even a part of their soteriology.

Don't even think about it Because and this is one of the detrimental Elements of synergism, it's not that important in the synergistic system.

Jesus provides salvation. He tries but the whole thing's based on the idea that yeah, he can try but You know, it's it's not

You know, it's up to man. But if you recognize that what's most important is

That the Son succeeds in doing the will of the Father that there be perfect harmony in the

Godhead If you recognize why that's important all of the synergistic

Man -centeredness just just falls away. So I really wonder

How Michael would respond to the pointing out that if you're gonna say that everyone has the ability to humble themselves and Hence, they can be given by the

Father the Son. How can you then also affirm? That those who've been given by the Father the Son would then be lost

Because I think that's what you end up affirming from your perspective but notice

That's pretty much all you're gonna end up with in John 6 from Michael at this point because he's gonna go back to other things

But I want to make sure that you see the rest of the story I know for some of you who've watched the program for many years

You've heard this many times before but got a lot of new people in the audience I can't just assume these things can't assume that you've all read drawn by the

Father Huh available also on Kindle. Yes So fairly briefly

Notice Verse 39 says this is the willed one who sent me Then verse 40 says this is the will of my father

And are that all the ones gazing upon present tense participle gazing upon the

Sun looking upon the Sun and Believing in him will have eternal life and I will raise him up in the last day

Dr. Turek mentioned Norman Geisler Well, one of the things that one of the ways that Norman Geisler gets around John 6

He never did offer any exegesis of John 6 in that book But one of the ways tries to get around is he goes to verse 40

And then taking it out of the flow Says see everyone has the ability to look everyone has the ability to believe and That's what determines the who it is.

It's given by the Father the Son But if you leave it in the flow in which it was written

This is an explanation In verse 39 that we don't do anything There's not even a description of what the all that the

Father gives me looks like But here's the description What does it look like to be given by the

Father the Son you are looking to the Son and believing the Son it is a present tense thing none of this tip of the hat non lordship stuff and It's the

Father's will That everyone who does look and everyone who does believe now again

If you're if you're if you're in a man -centered soteriology, you go. Oh, I better keep looking.

I better work up this believing in myself Really stands what Jesus was talking about in light of verse 39 and I will raise him up on the last day

So there's the description of what the believers look like then there's grumbling gungus mooing by the the

Jews about the identity of Jesus And Jesus answers and says in verse 43 do not grumble amongst yourselves

No one is able to come to me unless the father the one who sent me

Draws him and I will raise him up on the last day For it stands written in the prophets and they shall all be taught of God the one hearing

From my father and learning is coming to me So Jesus rebukes the grumbling of the

Jews Why because he says no one is able to come to me now,

I I'm sorry, I don't Understand how anyone who is a synergist understands these words

Everyone has the ability to come to him. Oh But that's only because of prevenient grace So prevenient grace just does what

Bring you back to a moral neutral point somehow. So everyone's in a moral neutral point So if there's prevenient grace and everyone has the ability to come there's nothing about prevenient grace here

No one has the ability to come to me Well, this is just because the

Jews were grumbling and these these particular Jews because they were grumbling had not humbled themselves Again trying to come up with some way around this

Unless thankfully you have unless the father the one who sent me Draws him.

So the only one who possesses the ability to Come and and who is it that gets eternal life who is it gets raised up last day the one coming to Christ No one has this ability

Unless the father who sent me draws him now Michael will go to John 12 32 in his response

We'll go there in a second This term is used elsewhere in the gospel of John but once again and You know

Michael knows Michael knows these things He knows these things

You do not take something from chapter 12 and Make it determinative reading back into chapter 6

Chapter 6 needs to define terms before chapter 12, right?

That's sort of how it works You wouldn't Michael wouldn't allow someone to read his books by going to a chapter 12 and Taking something and reading it back to change the clear intention of the original context in chapter 6 that would be a misrepresentation of his intention and I know he's not trying to do that.

But that's what you do When you go to John 12 32 and try to read the concepts back into John 6 44.

Let's look at John 6 first What does it mean for the father who sent me to draw him well, please notice something

The same him that is drawn is the same him who is raised up so if you're gonna say all men if you could say every single human being is

Drawn by the Father to the Son you're gonna have to believe that Jesus is going to raise

Every single human being on the last day. There is no way to separate

There's no way to introduce the the Grand Canyon size Chasm that people have to try to introduce to make the him that Jesus raises up Different from the him that the father draws there is no way to separate them

They are the same ones those that are raised up are drawn by the Father so Being given by the

Father the Son is saying the same thing as the Son the Father will draw you to the Son It's exact same thing. They're the ones who receive eternal life

Okay, and then the description verse 45 where it stands written in the prophets they shall all be taught of God everyone

Hearing from my father and learning is coming to me so What marks just as we had in verse 40?

You have an identification of what it looks like to be given by the Father to the Son Here in the same way.

What does it mean to be drawn by the Father to the Son? everyone hearing

From the Father and Learning from the Father is coming to me the

Father Reveals the Son and The Father gives to the

Son and the result is Well that that word

Akua to hear The dead here and they have eternal life the reason you do not hear me is why you do not belong to God John 8 43

Not the other way around But the reason you're not here, you know long ago, oh no, but if I if I choose to hear then

I'll want it's backwards That's your tradition. I know it's really hard to step out of it.

But there it is. So here you have Quoting from the from the Old Testament you have this fulfillment

Describing what it is to be Amongst those given by the Father the Son the result is hearing from the

Father learning from him And that one is coming to Christ That's the result of the work of the

Father None of the elect end up going to some other false source for eternal life.

They come to the Son That's their nature That's a nature has been given to them.

Hence all the glory goes to God. None of it goes to man Whatsoever now I mentioned that what

Michael does he goes to John 12 32 and the problem with that It helps you put the right one and doesn't confuse the program

And if I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself and it's Helcuso.

It's the same same root and the idea is see if I am crucified my crucifixion will draw all men every single human being

To me and so you don't have to worry about the specificity Yeah I know John 6 was explaining the unbelief of some people

Saying that they're not a part of those have been given by the Father to the Son. I get I get that but John 12

Says that all that the Father gives me I'm sorry that if I am lifted up from the earth,

I will draw all men to myself. Well again

There's hopefully just an immediate Problem because you go what if this is the key to interpreting

John 6, why is it in John 12? So the men to whom these words are spoken could not have understood this because this is this is later on This is actually in a private setting member that the

Greeks have come seeking Jesus So they couldn't have known this they couldn't have interpreted this way

But what's more? It's a real misunderstanding of John 12 32 because as I said Notice that what has happened here is

Jesus You've got the Greeks coming seeking after Jesus They came to verse 21 these men came to Philip Who is from the state of Galilee and began to ask him saying sir, we wish to see

Jesus Philip came and told Andrew and when Philip came and told Jesus Jesus answered him saying the hours come for the

Son of Man to Be glorified Notice that even at that point When he talks about being lifted up he's talking about the crucifixion

Because it says verse 33 he was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which he was died I've actually heard entire sermons of people's talking about lifting up Jesus.

That's to crucify him. Hello And talking about the

Son of Man he is the Son of Man But then look at verse 36 these things

Jesus spoke and he went away and hid himself from them. He doesn't meet with them

When the Greeks begin to seek him He speaks of his crucifixion and then ends his public ministry

Chapter 13 onward is the private ministry to the disciples. Keep that in mind

Because when Jesus said if I am lifted up from the earth, I'll draw all men myself Simple question here simple question and we'll we'll wrap up here pretty quickly simple question

Does the cross attract or Repel does the cross attract or repel?

Well There is no question on this. We have clear biblical teaching

The Logos to staru the message of the cross is what to them?

they're perishing foolishness, but as we are being saved as power of God and When Paul then explains how it is some people are perishing and some people are being saved

What's the terminology he uses? But to those who are the called

Christ the power of God Christ the wisdom of God If you're being saved it's because you are of the elect if you're perishing it's because you're not so To those who are not of the elect to those who are perishing

The message of the cross is what the stench of death It's repulsive.

It's what's the other terminology he uses? Scandal on to the Jews not not not attractive scandal on and to the

Gentiles Maria foolishness It's foolishness

It's repulsive Ever listened to an atheist talk about the cross the bloodthirsty

God Has to has to bring about salvation by child sacrifice

Doesn't sound like it's Drawing every single individual does it know?

Once you realize the context of John 12 and the Greeks coming Then it's really easy to understand what all men means

There will come a time when he is lifted up. What is this? This is again John This is this is

John chapter 12 We've already had the prophecy of this in John chapter 10 unless you're such a sinner Just that you'll pervert

John chapter 10 and get rid of this but in John chapter 10 was Jesus say I have sheep that are Not this fold.

What's the fold Jews? Where are the other sheep Gentiles? What's the prophecy

Jews and Gentiles one church one Shepherd? That's what John 12 32 is if I am lifted up from the earth.

I will draw all men Jews and yes, these Greeks that are coming Jews and Gentiles I'll draw all men to myself because the elect is made up of All men

Jews Greeks men from every tribe tongue people a nation It does not mean that it is a nameless faceless group.

It's never nameless and faceless It's never nameless and faceless So John 12 32 in no way

Undercuts what is said in John chapter 6 and it is not exegetically sound it takes to take a way overblown interpretation of John 12 32

Which ignores that and then reads it back in John chapter 6 That's that's not that's not handling gospel of John.

All right, there was one other thing and again I don't have time to play all of it, but It was

I've lost John set chapter 17. I've lost none of them except the son of perdition and clearly one needs to recognize the difference between the calling to apostleship and The issue of Judas who is clearly identified as what in that very text as the son of perdition there was a

Prophetic role that the son of perdition had to play in fact in John chapter 13

Remember one of the evidences of the deity of Christ Was that he prophesied of what

Judas was going to do and Jesus says and when these things come to pass you may know that I am he

Quoting from Isaiah 43 10 remember the debate we had with the open theist and he was going Yeah, Jews could have been wrong about that and blah blah blah and all the rest that weird type of stuff.

Well This is the role of the son of perdition And so it's not like well, yes father.

I know you you gave me Judas to save him Even though in eternity past we had chosen him to be the son of perdition

Not clearly very clearly not a soteriological giving of the son of perdition the son of perdition is

Specifically marked out for the role that he must have in bringing about the crucifixion of Christ so I really think that when you allow

The text to stand on its own When people have to start importing stuff

Well, you know We have to come up with this group of people that can humble themselves and and we got to do this that nothing

It becomes pretty obvious to Pete. Well, it becomes too obvious to those who want to know and Who are those who want to know the ones in whom the

Holy Spirit is active and they want to have that firm foundation? no longer in the traditions of men, but they really want to have a firm foundation in the scriptures and And That's why

I can have absolute confidence and approaching these texts and Recognizing that Sheep of Christ will hear the voice of Christ and I can leave it up to him at that point leave up to him at that point

So there's a quick risk. Well relatively quick You know as quick as you can expect from me response to some of the comments that were made but again

We we've covered this before People keep trying to raise more issues with dr.

Brown myself It's not that we couldn't have done. I forget what the timeframes were. They weren't very long.

It's like Nine minutes or and then like a three minutes. That's only 12 minutes So you had to be pretty quick, but it's not like we've dodged him and you got to give

Michael credit It's not like you said well, I won't discuss that or I won't just get no we we've gone at these texts and I still firmly believe that John 6 says what

John 6 says And there you go. All right. Well, thank you for joining us.

I think I hear music in the background You can just keep rolling it anyways, right? Okay, you never know what

I'm gonna get done. Anyhow, I might have another topic Hey, let's talk about this and you can just fade the music Thanks for joining us.