July 28, 2005

The Need for a Defense of the Faith and Today’s Program Setup

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

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

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602. Or toll free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

And good afternoon, welcome to the Thursday afternoon edition of The Dividing Line. Good to be with you. We were wondering a little bit whether we were going to make it or not because we were having some server hiccups there, but we got everything fixed.

Many thanks again to Pete. You're going to hear a little noise in the background. That's because a member of the folks from Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is sweating it out in our work room, getting the insulation put back up.

Man, I'll tell you, insulation makes a big difference. You take the insulation out of a room in Phoenix and it gets a little bit toasty in there. And so this morning, Big George was out there and got all the tile up.

And I think the tile just jumped off the floor and ran away when it saw George coming personally. You may have seen a picture of George on the blog, on the Dividing Line page. He's a big boy. And he is also the official keeper of notes in the Sunday school class I teach, the adult Bible study class.

You're not supposed to say Sunday school anymore. It's very retro, I guess. But anyway, and so we've got more folks coming over to continue trying to put that room back together again after our little disaster last week.

And so if you hear some pounding and tapping and so on and so forth, that's what it is. And you know what? It really doesn't matter because there could be all sorts of other noises that would be considerably more distracting than that.

I have two things. And then we will be taking your phone calls today. Two items. The first is, well, I have some more clips to play from Dr. Davis, but we're not doing the Radio Free Geneva, no commercials to go ten minutes later, no phone calls type situation.

But I may go ahead and throw in some more of that. But I also have something that's very, I think, educational. And I was going to blog it, and I thought, you know what? It would be a whole lot easier just simply to address this on the Dividing Line and not do all the typing it would take and so on and so forth.

It is very, very educational, though. It's educational on two levels. I'm referring to the posts that have appeared on the Envoy web forum in the, not in response to my exegetical responses to Art Sippel, because to respond to something means you're actually dealing with what I said.

And if there's anything that the folks on Envoy don't do, it is actually respond accurately, fairly, and honestly with what someone says about them, especially when you take the time to do what I did.

And I sat down with something that Art Sippel has on the Catholic Legate website. And so I'd assume that if it's there and it's linked there and it's on the menus, that it's something that has been put out there for examination and allegedly to present the truth.

And so I took the time over the course of about a week. I wrote seven blog articles that together comprise an exegetical response to Art Sippel. And what I did, starting about, I don't know, halfway through, a little bit more than that, is I would provide a contrast between his comments on the text and my own from a published work, The Potter's Freedom.

I also provided commentary from John Calvin. And I thought that was very educational in the sense of comparing and contrasting the, in my opinion, very shallow, superficial, just over-the-top-of-the-text commentary from Art Sippel.

He shows no willingness or ability to engage the actual text itself. He doesn't seem to be able to do any type of meaningful exegesis. He likes to say that I'm the same boat he's in as an uneducated layman with no graduate degrees.

He doesn't like my doctoral work, even though it was in apologetics and produced books that have been used in Bible colleges all across the United States. And, in fact, my committee is the meanest committee you can get.

It's the people on the other side. They don't tend to like what you have to say. But, for some reason, he also completely dismisses Fuller Theological Seminaries, if Fuller just doesn't exist, as well as ten years of teaching experience on the graduate level at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

So, anyways, he just conveniently forgets these little facts. And the fact that I've taught Greek and Hebrew, Greek exegesis, Hebrew exegesis, for a number of years, and so I engaged him on that level.

And, in fact, it was funny. There's another person that posts on the Envoy web forum called Crimson Catholic, and he just is very practiced at missing the point. He quoted what I said about the fact that Dr. Sipo, to my knowledge, has never studied Greek or Hebrew, has never taught Greek or Hebrew or exegesis or hermeneutics or anything along those lines, any of the relevant courses that would be required.

And, which I have done, and he responds by saying that I'm philosophically ignorant. Well, let's say that's true. Let's say that I haven't taught Christian philosophy of religion on the graduate level at Golden Gate Seminary since 1997.

Let's say I didn't do that. Let's just wipe the record out there and just dismiss that. My responses to Art Sipo in the title says an exegetical response, and it's been fascinating to me to note that, in essence, the Roman Catholics on the Envoy web board have abandoned even the pretext of attempting to engage in exegesis.

And isn't it interesting that Bill Rutland didn't want to do that either? And remember, Bill Rutland very clearly had been in contact with both Patrick Madrid and Art Sipo prior to our debate. And when I tried to get him to deal with the text of Scripture, remember what happened?

We've played the sections. We have the clips on the website you can look at. He did everything in his power to avoid having to get into that material. A Roman Catholic in channel just said, and I won't identify who it is for his own sake, but you do realize you're arguing with morons, right?

Well, you know, I don't know if that's the case. Let's put it this way. Let me just sort of address the Roman Catholic in channel. When there are Protestants who call themselves apologists who make really lousy arguments, do I point out their really lousy arguments or because they're Protestants do I give them a pass?

May I mention Dave Hunt, for example? You know, Dave Hunt speaks against Roman Catholicism. He says true things, I think, about Roman Catholicism. He also says things that are unbalanced because of the way he does quote unquote research.

If truth is the issue, then shouldn't there be a whole cadre of voices out there condemning the activity of an art sipo and individuals like that? But I don't see that. I don't see those people consistently standing up to those types of individuals.

I don't see that happening. It seems to me that as long as it serves Mother Church, it's OK. That has been my experience with the people in the Catholic answers forums, the people in the envoy forums.

And so unless our Roman Catholic friend in channel is indicating that only quote unquote morons, that was his term, not mine, engage in writing on those forums, then why don't we see the same kind of consistent response and a calling these people to a higher standard that we that we practice amongst our own people?

I mean, that's one of the reasons that we're as small as we are and will always be as small as we are, is that I'm not politically correct. I will say things that I have to say. Give me an example. I'm, you know, as everybody knows right now, up to up to my shoulders in John Dominic Crossett and Marcus Borg books and studying and reading.

And, you know, my wife will tell you, we'll be driving along and I'll be silent for a long, long time because my mind's a million miles away. I'm going through questions in my mind. I'm going through all sorts of things.

And that's what I'm studying. And so one of the things I did is I had ordered a while back the debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossett, which I listened to months ago. But I ordered it from CRI as a part of a series.

And I've totally forgotten that there were two cassette tapes that were supposed to come with it. And they just arrived, I think, last week. And I need to give a shout out to the guys at the do the shipping at CRI.

Those are the types of guys that get everything done, man. You know, the guys down the sweatshop, the guys down in the phone room that answer the phones. And those are the folks that, you know, just like right here, they're the people who get stuff done.

Those are the people that do the real ministry. And so hi, guys. Great to hear from you all again. So I got this stuff from them. And I was listening to, I think it was a 1999 program where Hank Hanegraaff is interviewing William Lane Craig after the debate with John Dominic Crossett.

And everybody knows that I have criticized William Lane Craig rather strongly in the past and continue to do so because of his Molinism. He is really the chief American promoter of Molinism today. Molinism is primarily dead amongst Roman Catholics, amongst the Jesuits who created it initially.

And so I find Molinism to be a philosophy without basis in God's word. It is not authorized by God's word. It came into existence to find a way around God's sovereignty and God's decree. And I find it reprehensible and disgusting and unbiblical and to be just a bad thing.

Okay. And so I have criticized William Lane Craig on that level. And I've also criticized him on the apologetic level. In fact, I use his debate against a man by the name of Frank Zindler as a contrast between his approach and that of Dr. Greg Bonson when I teach classes on apologetics.

And yes, again, that is actually at a seminary on the graduate level. So I compare and contrast them. And I do so because what William Lane Craig says, and this is what came out in his conversation with Hank Hanegraaff, is he was saying, you know, apologists will frequently make far too grand assertions.

I think it's better to make more moderate assertions and be able to establish them to make grand assertions. Well, okay, that's fine. If what we mean by that is, well, anybody with a brain can see the Bible's word of God.

Okay, that's not really the kind of assertion anybody wants to make. But what he was talking about was much more along the lines of his approach when he debated Frank Zindler. His thesis was that the preponderance of the evidence points to the greater probability of the existence of a God than it does toward the atheistic worldview.

Now think about that. The preponderance of the evidence points to the greater probability of the existence of a God. Now, if you ever listened to that classic debate that took place 20 years ago this past, I think, February it was, I marked the date on the blog, between Greg Bonson and Gordon Stein, you know that Dr. Bonson didn't argue that way.

He argued the way that the apostles did. The apostles did not say that the greater preponderance of the evidence points to the higher probability that Jesus might have been raised from the dead. That's not how they argued.

They didn't even argue that. It was a fact. It was the way that it is. It was the foundation of everything else. And Bonson argued that not only would he not even debate the existence of a God, he said, I'm here to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God and not anybody else.

And that contrast, I think, is very, very important. And I then go into Romans chapter 1 and I discuss issues regarding things from there. And so I have been critical of William Lane Craig on those levels for quite some time.

Why don't I hear that same kind of, I don't know, consistency from Roman Catholic apologists? Where is the person standing up and saying, you know what, Art Sippo is a blight on Catholic apologists and apologetics as a whole.

His behavior is reprehensible. His information is shallow. And, you know, why doesn't Patrick Madrid say that? Why doesn't Carl Keating say that? Why don't these people clean house is what I'm saying.

And so all of that to just address the questions, those of you who maybe don't listen to the program, it's the first time you've listened to it regularly. We have a live chat channel and people are in the channel listening as I am doing this and I'm reading some of what they're saying.

I can't follow all of it. And we have a Roman Catholic channel made that comment. He was saying, yeah, but, you know, the other people. I'm responding to Sippo. I'm only going to read one quote from anybody else.

Well, the Crimson Catholic, I made reference to him, but the explosion, and it really is that, the explosion of hatred toward Reformed theology that has resulted from my series. Again, I have not seen anything I said other than one quote about the fact that Sippo is a medical doctor.

He's not a theologian. He's not trained in that area at all. That's the only quote I've seen from what I said. You would think, especially, you know, in my position, if I had made the kind of mistake that he made regarding the Greek grammar, I would at least have to try to explain what I was saying or if I think I was misunderstood, try to clarify it or just admit, okay, you're right.

I was wrong. There's not even an acknowledgment of the error exists anywhere in what is going on, on the envoy boards. And you know that Sippo started off by saying, referring to the blog articles, but saying ignorant ravings by an uneducated pundit really require no response.

And so, you know, even my undergraduate work, double major and minor in Greek, just doesn't matter in that kind of situation. Anyways, I continue on. These propundits claim that these verses prove that God has the right to do anything he wants with men and that we have no right to question his motives in their system.

If God wants to make certain men do evil, that is his divine prerogative and his sovereignty is above question. Again, I, in the past, may have, and I'm not thinking of anything in particular here, I don't have any examples of this, but since I am not infallible, there are times in my life where I may have misunderstood what someone said to me or the position of a particular religious group or a person I was debating.

But I always try. I mean, I am investing hours and hours of study, my eyesight is bothering me right now, in how hard I'm working to understand, to truly understand what John Dominic Crossand believes and why.

I'm really trying to do that. And I do that because the fact, well, let's be honest, I do it because I love truth. And if you love the truth, then you cannot treat it in a cavalier fashion and you cannot enter into a debate just assuming you know what the other guy believes.

You have to take the time to read what he's saying. I never said anything about Karl Keating until I read his book. And then I quoted Karl Keating and demonstrated that Karl Keating really continues, even to this day, to operate on a very shallow level in regards to very shallow fundamentalist apologetics.

And you know what? Karl Keating doesn't even pretend to address anything beyond that. He doesn't pretend to address what we come up with, in essence. And I think Karl would recognize the difference between myself and a lot of people that he deals with.

I think he probably would recognize that and say, you know what, I'm not addressing you. I'm addressing a very different genre of individuals. So I take the time to find out what somebody is talking about and I try to do so accurately.

Art Sipo doesn't do that. A Calvinist, and I don't know who it is. It may be somebody I know. If it is, they haven't told me that they've done this, that they're the ones doing this. But using the Nick Wakun, W-O-K-O-U-N, as I recall.

I cut and paste these things, so I don't have it up at the moment, but started responding to Sipo. And he's done a pretty decent job from what I've seen and has kept a pretty level head, despite all the stuff being thrown his direction.

And at one point he asked him, he basically said, you don't really know what you're talking about. You don't understand Calvinism. You're misrepresenting it over and over again. If you just come to understand it, you might be able to argue more intelligently.

And he says, why should I care? Why in the world should I learn what in the world you believe? In fact, I have. Let me scroll down here and see if I put that. Yeah, here it is. This is his response to Wakun saying to him, you should learn what Calvinists believe.

He says, why should I bother? The Catholic Church is excommunicated. And by the way, Dr. Sipo, it's called spellcheck. I mean, some of this stuff is only barely in English. Okay? Now maybe that's because he's a doctor and they figured they don't have to write anyway, but you can understand him, so he doesn't have to type anyway.

But this stuff, if I stumble over it, it's mainly because, you know, like excommunicated. And it's just apostatized and it's just wild. I don't know if he just types so fast he just doesn't care enough to prove it or what.

I don't know. But anyway, why should I bother? The Catholic Church has excommunicated Calvin and anathematized his heresies. He was judged by competent ecclesiastical authorities under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit and condemned.

He furthermore willfully apostatized from, it's form, the Catholic faith and created his own ape of the Christian religion in dialectical, it probably should be opposition to the church founded by Jesus.

He has nothing of value to contribute to my Catholic faith. My only need to know anything about his, that should be this man, is to condemn him and to prevent people from being seduced into his false religion.

So I don't know what he believed. I've not read him. But I know because the church tells me. The church condemns him, therefore I do. Art Sippo is a wonderful example of sola ecclesia inaction. I don't have to know what you ought to believe.

I don't have to accurately represent you. You've been condemned anyway. So why should I bother? Why should I care? That's exactly what he said. That's a direct quote there. So anyway, going back to the citation.

The odd thing is there will be times when Sippo is forced to say true things just simply by getting around to actually addressing the issue being raised. For example, he uses the term compatibilism at some point, but then he says Calvinists don't have a workable form of it.

How does he know? How does he know? He does finally try to, for example, at least he didn't do what happened on a certain radio program I was on a while back. I brought up Isaiah chapter 10 and the clear example of compatibilism that is found in Isaiah chapter 10.

In God's using Assyria as the instrument of his punishment against a wicked people. And he brings that up, and at least he tried to deal with it. I don't think he did overly well, but at least he tried.

It's unlike many others. If you're not familiar with the passage, woe to Assyria, this is Isaiah 10 .5, woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger and the staff in whose hands is my indignation. I send it against a godless nation, that's Israel by the way, Judah, and commission it against the people of my fury to capture booty and to seize plunder and to trample them down like mud in the streets.

Israel, actually. Yet it does not so intend. Now notice that. God's bringing Assyria against Israel to destroy Israel, and we know the Assyrians did this. And God knows what's going to happen. They're going to capture booty, seize plunder, to trample them down like mud in the streets.

Folks, let's realize, when the Assyrians came into a nation in full war mode, the results were ugly. The results were bad. They were bloody. They were brutal. And a lot of folks today want to draw back from any idea of a god that would do that.

There are, sadly, very few people today who claim to believe the Bible, who actually, if pressed, would say, yes, I believe that God brought the Assyrians against Israel, and the resultant things that happened were a part of his purpose.

They were a part of his punishment. The vast majority of them will run off, and they will deal, they'll try to do the libertarian thing, and God isn't really to blame for all this, and so on and so forth.

That's what they will do. But notice what verse 7 says,. Yet it, Assyria, does not so intend, nor does it plan so in its heart, but rather is its purpose to destroy and to cut off many nations. So we have one action, Assyria coming against Israel, trampling them in the streets like mud in the streets, but you have two intentions.

God's intention is perfect and holy. Did not his law, did not his covenant say that this is what would happen when you break his law? When you love your sin, and when you continue in that sin, and you ignore the people, the prophets that he sends to you, and their call of condemnation.

What happens? He brings other nations to bear, and he brings punishment to bear. So, God's intention is perfect. However, what's the intention of the heart of the king of Assyria? Well, to cut off many nations.

Destroy and cut off many nations. That's what they did. They were a bloodthirsty people. And then you have a citation of Assyria, for it says, Are not my princes all kings? Is not Cano like Carchemish?

Or Harmoth like Arpad? Or Samaria like Damascus? As my hand has reached into the kingdoms of the idols, whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?

And so, here's the boast of the king of Assyria. And then notice what Isaiah says in verse 12. So, it will be that when the Lord has completed all his work on Mount Zion, and on Jerusalem, he will say, I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the pomp of his haughtiness.

Now, someone might say, Well, wait a minute. God was using that haughtiness. Yes, he has the right to do that. God had the right as soon as that first haughty thought entered into the heart of the king of Assyria to destroy him.

Did he not? Could not God bring his wrath instantly against any act of sin and cut that person off? Every time I ask someone that, they go, Well, of course. So, when God withholds that wrath, but uses the action for his own purposes in greater glory, everybody's like,.

I can't do that. And all the objections start.

Why? If God has withheld his rightful wrath in the destruction of the king of Assyria, even one time, what does it matter what he does with that condemned individual after that? Think about that. So many of the objections just fall by the wayside when you consider that.

I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria. One action, the arrogance of the king of Assyria was a part of that. Now, are these non-reformed folks, are these Roman Catholics going to say, Well, you know, the king of Assyria could have done differently and then God would have found another way of punishing Israel.

Is that what they're going to say? I don't know, because I can never, ever, ever get anybody to actually answer these questions. Have you noticed that? They end up, Well, John 3, 16 says, The world! Let's run off someplace else.

Let's not deal with what the text says here. Verse 13, He said, By the power of my hand and by my wisdom, I did this, for I have understanding, and I removed the boundaries of the peoples and plundered their treasures like a mighty man.

I brought down their inhabitants. My hand reaches to the riches of the people like a nest. As one gathers abandoned eggs, I gathered all the earth, and there was not one that flapped its wing or opened its beak or chirped.

And so there is the arrogance. The king of Assyria did not see that he was but the instrument in the hand of God. And so in verse 15, Is the axe to boast itself or the one who chops with it? That's what the king of Assyria is.

He's an axe in the hand of God, being used of God for his purpose, but he doesn't see it. And folks, that's what we all are. Art Sippo doesn't like that. You can tell Art Sippo hates that truth. Hates it with a passion.

Is the axe to boast itself or the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself or the one who wields it? That would be like a club wielding those who lift it, or like a rod lifting him who is not wood.

Therefore the Lord, the God of hosts, will send a wasting disease among his stout warriors, and under his glory a fire will be kindled like a burning flame. And so you have the destruction of the king of Assyria and his armies.

But we need to see the compatibilism here. The king of Assyria was rightfully judged for the arrogance of his heart. That's what he was. That's who he is. But God used it. And in fact, outside of the extension of grace to the king of Assyria, he cannot change his own spots.

Can a leopard change his spots? Can an Ethiopian change his skin? Is that not what scripture says? Indeed it is. We'll continue looking. I just barely started these commentaries. Just barely started. We'll continue after this break.

We'll be right back here on the Dividing Line.

Church Announcements and Ministry Promotions

Such a remedy today. So many stars, strong and true, quickly fall away.

This portion of the Dividing Line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26-GRACE.

If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Crossan Debate Promotion and the Authority of Scripture

Is the Bible true? Never before in history has the authority and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures been so viciously attacked by those outside the pale of orthodoxy and within the walls of traditional evangelicalism itself.

Join us August 27, 2005 at the Sea-Tac Marriott for an historic debate between evangelical Christian apologist Dr. James R. White and world-renowned Jesus Seminar co-founder and Bible skeptic Dr. John Dominic Crossan as they debate a topic which every Christian should be concerned about.

Is the Bible true? Seating and tickets are limited so call today 877 -753 -3341 or visit AOMIN .org to reserve your seat today. That's 877 -753 -3341 to be a part of this historic event that will illuminate the fault lines of faith between conservative and liberal Christians alike.

The Same-Sex Controversy and the Biblical Teaching on Homosexuality

Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same-Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law. In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people.

The Same-Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at AOMIN .org.

The Pilgrim's Progress is not an easy way. It's a journey to the sun day by day.

Calvinism, Molinism, and the Critique of Roman Catholic Apologetics

And welcome back to the program. We'll spend just a few more minutes here. The calls are coming in and not all on the same topics. We'll just try to come to some stopping point here and figure it out from there.

As I mentioned, looking at Art Sippo's explosion against Calvinism on the Envoy web board, which contains no substantive interaction with any of the arguments that were presented against him, of course, we notice that he makes the assertion that if God wants to make certain men do evil, that is His D-I-V-N-E prerogative and His sovereignty is above question.

And, of course, we recognize that he's not dealing with the actual position of Reformed folks. He even at times will talk about compatibilism between God's sovereign decree and the responsibility of men.

He just doesn't seem to know enough about Calvinism to know that we talk much about that. And we just simply affirm what Scripture says concerning God's decree and His elect. Another fascinating element of his argument, which I did address in the blog, quote, in fact, St. Paul was a Pharisaic Jew trained to be a rabbi.

His concern was not to defend God's power, but rather man's free will. It's not the first time that we have seen someone take a passage of Scripture, here specifically Romans chapter 9, where you have the objector saying, well, how can God still find fault for who resists His will?

And Paul's response is, who are you, O man, to answer back to God? You have the thing formed, let's say, the one who formed it. Why did you make me like this, will it? Talk about it, Romans 9, this clear passage, it's not of the man who wills, and so on and so forth.

And what does our disciple come up with? That's about free will. Paul's defending free will. And remember, Norman Geisler did the same thing with John 6, 44. No man has the ability to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day.

See? Jesus is teaching free will. And you look at that, and you just want to run headlong into a wall. It would feel better than dealing with this incredible, massive chunk of tradition that these people are looking through.

You just don't know what to do when someone's calling black white and white black. How much more clearly does the text have to speak? Absolutely incredible. Then, Art Sippo really does take the role of the objector in Romans 9.

He really takes the exact role of the position of the person who is objecting to Paul's teaching. Listen to this. First of all, we must remember that man is not just a thing like a piece of clay. We are persons made in the image and likeness of God.

Consequently, it would not be moral for God to merely use us to make a point or to show his power. Now, think about that. Think about that. God could never merely use us. Well, first of all, how about God using condemned sinners?

And in the demonstration of their condemnation and their punishment and their wrath, because remember, he destroyed Pharaoh and the waters. In the way that he brings his condemnation and his wrath to bear, he glorifies himself and makes his name known.

How about that? I don't see that fitting into Sippo's theology here. The God who would use human beings, probably should be plural, beings, like a potter uses clay, could not claim any moral justification for it and would not be the God of the Bible.

Really? That kind of God would be more like the pagan gods of Greece and Rome. The analogy, listen to this, the analogy of the potter and the clay, therefore, limps badly and can only be taken so far.

Well, please excuse the Holy Spirit for having inspired it. We are indeed creatures and God can plan a destiny for us, but we are not mere objects to be disposed of with impunity. The fact that Christ died for us proves this.

Now, again, completely and totally ignoring the sinfulness of man, completely and totally ignoring the wrath of God, ignoring all of that which is endemic in Roman Catholic theology, unfortunately. That's what happens when you have a system of libertarianism and sacramentalism and put the two together.

You have this kind of rhetoric that completely misses the point, but that's what's being produced. How can God blame us for sinful acts that he has inexorably ordained that we do? If I cannot do otherwise, then I am not responsible for them.

This is not a challenge to God's sovereignty. It is an offense of God's goodness. Okay, how about Acts 4 .28? How about Isaiah chapter 10? How about Genesis 50 .20? How about Romans chapter 9? How about dealing with these texts?

Are you saying, you know, that sounds to me like a bald argumentation for libertarianism. If there is any divine decree that determines man's actions in time, throw it out. There can be no responsibility.

And are you all noticing something here? I mean, aside from just the inherent nastiness of the syphilisms, which is just the way he speaks, that's just his nature. But have you noticed something else about the arguments?

Yeah, a bunch of you have. If I hadn't told you this is Art Sipo, could this have been Dave Hunt? Of course it could. Could this have been Dr. Davis? Herb Rivas? Adrian Rogers? You bet. Could have been any one of them.

Could have been any one of them. And people get angry with me when I point out the fact that the Reformation was about a view of man's will and a view of God's grace, and a whole bunch of people today agree with Rome against the Reformers who call themselves Protestants.

And they get all upset. Oh, you're throwing us all together. I make careful distinction between an Arminian and a Roman Catholic on many issues, on the issue of sacraments and things like that. I know the differences.