Steve Ray's Inconsistency

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 Dividing Line. On a Thursday afternoon, it is the 13th of September, 2012.

Currently, if you're listening, of course, on the Wayback Machine, it could be whatever time, 3 a .m.

in the morning in December of 2014, if we're still around then. If we're still allowed to say the things we're saying these days in 2014,

I cannot be guaranteed of any of that, actually. But anyway, welcome to the program.

This will be the last program. This will be the last program of the

Dividing Line until the 27th of September. That's barring any travel issues.

Lord willing, we'll return on the 26th. I'll be leaving on Saturday. And just a reminder, on the 17th,

Monday, East London Mosque, a debate on whether Muhammad is prophesied in the

Bible. On the 19th, a debate at Trinity Road Chapel on the subject of Surah 4, 157 and the cross.

On the 21st of September, I will be in Germany, in Berlin, for a discussion, the topic that has been assigned to me is,

Wieso benötigen wir Apologetik in einer postmodernen und nachchristlichen

Welt? Thankfully, I will not be delivering that in German.

I will throw a few in. I'll throw a few phrases in. And I think my German friends would say that I did pronounce that correctly, generally anyways.

But that is, why do we need apologetics in a postmodern and post -Christian world?

And I think the answer to that is fairly straightforward. But obviously, there's much that we can say about that.

And certainly in Germany, that is one of the primary issues that you are dealing with.

A Turretin fan just insulted me in channel by saying, for those wondering, that was German with a Scottish accent. No, it was not.

Das ist nicht richtig, mein Herr. No. So, someone asking, is it possible to stream the

DL on an iPad? Well, of course it is. Phones, iPads, iPods, as long as they have connectivity, you can.

So anyways, that is the 21st of September, 1900 Uhr, at EBTC Berlin, Havellender Ring 40, 12629

Berlin, and translation will be provided, including translation into Scottish.

Just kidding. But that will be on the 21st of September, that's

Friday. On Sunday, I'll be back in London and we'll be preaching at Trinity Road Chapel, which is near Wandsworth Common, if you're familiar with the area.

That's the same location as the debate on the 19th. On Monday, the 24th, the double debate, two debates with Adnan Rashid on the transmission of the

New Testament and the transmission of the Koran in comparison to one another. And that will be at Twin Holm Baptist Church.

All of this is on the website in our banner ads, the very pretty banner ads that Hasim, son of Ramallah, king of graphics, has provided to us.

And then I have a little trip to make on the 25th, which actually is quite important, but I really can't talk about it yet.

But if you're a supporter of the ministry and things like that, you might want to pray about the 25th and the trip

I will be taking at that time and the possibility of a major future project that I think is very important.

And then home on the 26th. So unless I have become uber ill or something, then the next program will be on Thursday, the 27th of September.

By the way, Rich, I would like to request that the humidity be gone by the time

I get back, please. I would appreciate that. That is the last week of September. I don't ever remember it lasting that long.

Oh, no. The second week of September is, yeah. Actually looking at the weather forecast over the weekend, it looks like that big blue blob of dry air finally comes back where it belongs, here in the desert southwest.

And it'll be nice, which means it'll probably warm up again, but a dry warm up again, which is not unusual.

Anyhow, that's what's coming up. And I'm looking forward to meeting all of you. It's just amazing to me that our good friend,

London Truth, is going to be flying all the way from Milwaukee to London just to provide me with security while I'm there.

I think that's just great. It's wonderful of him to have such a deep dedication to the ministry and things like that.

I'm looking forward to that. OK, that's what's coming up this weekend. Obviously, a couple of things we need to talk about.

Let me just read it again. You've probably read it, you've heard about it, but it's just one of the most amazing examples of dimitude.

Dimitude is D -H -I -M -M -I -T -U -D -E. Dimitude is the attitude of the subjugated peoples under the

Islamic State. And evidently, it is also the attitude of the regime of Barack Hussein Obama.

Because we read, Well, except Christianity.

We're honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.

We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Are you talking about the people that stormed into the embassy? Are you talking about the folks in Libya that killed the ambassador and two

Navy SEALs and people like that? Is that what you're talking about? No, that's not what they're talking about.

No, no, no. They're talking about a stupid movie. A stupid movie.

I've never even seen it. I'd never even heard of it. I had to go online and watch some trailers and it looked like,

I mean, I'm sorry. I do a much better job with my little still camera in my library than this thing.

You've got people with glued on beards doing dumb stuff to mock

Mohammed. OK, wow, that's great. Don't tell me that's why a well -planned attack happened in Libya on September 11th.

Don't don't even give me that. It was clear that the movie is clearly just a pretext for everything else.

But let's put that aside. What rational adult human being thinks that a stupid movie made halfway around the world is sound reason for murder, pillage, invasion and everything else?

It's just it's beyond absurd. And for the government, I mean, let me guarantee you just one little thing.

I'm old enough now. I can remember back to sort of, in my opinion, the last great

American president. And when Reynaldus Magnus was president of the

United States, nobody would have put out a press release like that. Let me tell you, the response would have been with F -111 fighter bombers, not with a statement of utter dimitude.

I mean, this is ridiculous. And again, you know why? Because the people in charge of the government of the

United States do not understand what's going on over there. They don't understand it. I mean,

I saw, unfortunately, and I saw very little discussion of this, but I saw, unfortunately, a still from a movie.

Well, I'm sorry, movie video of one of the murderers in Libya carrying off the almost totally naked body of the ambassador.

Now, why would they do that? Why would they strip him? Folks, you just need to understand what was going on here.

This was an attack upon the United States. It was a it was a religiously motivated attack.

And if you just grasp the fact that Islam is a political, religious system or a or a religio -political system, depending on whether it's in the minority or majority, then you'd understand it.

The man represented the dominion of the coffers over the state of Islam.

His death and then his his humiliation in death was a political statement.

It was a statement that says the enemies of Islam will be destroyed. Now, I know that there are

Muslims who thankfully look at that and they go, that's horrific.

That's not how our faith should be spread. That's not how it should be. I fully understand that. But those people that did it are the violent extremist wing that follows material that is.

It's all over the Hadith. And there are people in every religious movement in the world that will choose what portions of religious dogma and doctrine they're going to believe, and they will not seek balance.

They're not concerned about balance. This radical, religious, political system gives them the right to live out their fantasies, to be the evil men that they are from a from a

Christian perspective. These are unregenerate men involved in false religion, using false religion as the basis for allowing them to be as violent as they want to be.

That's what they're doing. And that's what they were saying, and that's what their actions are. And let me guarantee you something.

If they read something like this, which I'm sure they have, I'm sure this has been translated into Arabic and spread all around the

Arabic street. This is the United States saying, come do it again. Do it again.

And why? Because secularists who are in charge of the government states don't get it and they can't get it.

This can't. It's not a part of their worldview. They don't get it. It's amazing.

It's amazing. And when I say this stuff's all through the materials, I'm putting a big push on right now to finish

Sahih al -Bukhari. It's huge. Man, I can tell you something. I really wish that there was an electronic version of Sahih al -Bukhari where they took out all the repeated hadith.

I am so tired of hearing the hadith about, well, let me just throw a few off the top of my head for my ride this morning, about how people in Medina thought they heard something at night that frightened everybody.

And Muhammad went out to go see what it was. And while he was out there, he found a horse. And when he came back, he was riding the horse and said, there's nothing to be fearful.

But boy, this horse is fast. I have heard that hadith a minimum, a minimum over the past two days of a dozen times, easily, easily 12 times.

That's the nature of the hadith, is the same thing with a slight difference narrated by a different chain is repeated over and over and over again.

And let me tell you something. Some of the stuff about how to sell a sheep is just exciting.

Did you know? Did you know that you should not sell a sheep that has not recently been milked?

Let me tell you something. This is important stuff. Of course, I've already gotten through the part about personal cleansing.

And I'm going to tell you something. You read all the hadith. You're going to know everything to know, everything there is to know about Aisha's menstrual cycle and numerous descriptions of the

Prophet relieving himself and the ways that he did so. Oh, it's great. I like I said, I read this stuff, so you don't have to.

That's I guess that's my job. But wow, thousands of these hadith.

But I've set a goal and I'm going to get through all of them by the end of the year, even though that's many, many, many, many, many, many, many hours of writing and and other things that I do to try to stay in shape.

So anyways, but I have heard numerous, numerous hadith over the past a couple of weeks.

That once again, if you start with certain presuppositions and you put certain hadith as controlling authorities over other hadith.

Would substantiate everything these people have been doing, but then you could take others and if you elevate them an authority, then it would put a different context and others.

This has been my problem all along. I understand that there are

Muslims who condemn these actions more power to you, but the problem is the sources from which you have to argue to make your arguments against these people simply aren't sufficient.

They're not sufficient. They're not sufficiently consistent. They're not sufficient to answer the questions. That's the problem.

That is the problem. So if you're as frustrated as I am looking at this stuff, oh, it's just but let's get let's get more frustrated while we're at it.

I had this one up for the last program, but I didn't get to it. This is from actually from September 11th.

This is from the Christian Institute over in the UK. A couple who objected to their grandchildren being adopted by two gay men have been blocked from seeing their grandchildren for three years.

The elderly couple from Edinburgh have spoken out in response to Scottish government plans to give grandparents more rights.

The saga began in 2009 when social workers told the couple to drop their objection to gay adoption or never see their grandchildren again.

The grandparents had previously cared for the children because their mother was a drug addict. But social workers decided children would be better looked after by a gay couple.

The grandparents objected because they wanted the children to be cared for by a heterosexual couple so that they would have a mom and a dad.

Oh, wow. The council has since apologized for the way the matter was handled, but is still blocking the grandparents from seeing the children.

A council spokesman said that at the time of the adoption, it was made very clear to the family that there would be no direct contact.

They are only allowed to send birthday and Christmas cards. The council says it is acting in the best interests of the children.

The grandfather, 64, has angina and the grandmother, 49, has diabetes. The grandmother is worried that her husband may never see the children again before he dies.

There you have secular totalitarianism. You have people, social workers, who think that they have been endowed with the very powers of God himself.

And when they then embrace an ugly anti -Christian worldview, the results, well, are obvious.

The fact is, once again, a society must have clearly defined ethical and moral values.

When that society abandons those values or radically alters those values, we know what the values were.

They have been abandoned in Scotland for hundreds of years. But now they have been abandoned.

They have been changed radically. One side must predominate over the other.

One side must predominate over the other. This idea of peaceful coexistence with utterly contradictory worldviews doesn't work.

It doesn't work, and we're seeing it. We're seeing it. It's truly amazing.

I am thankful that TurretinFan took the time to post something.

And by the way, oh, okay, yeah, I'll be taking calls, 877 -753 -3341.

I've got two more items to cover, so it'll probably take me just a few minutes to do that. The great

TurretinFan, and I hope the other bloggers will realize I'm going to be a tad bit on the busy side. Well, of course,

I've been a tad bit on the busy side. But simply not even going to be posting links to the

Dividing Line, even though we've done Dividing Lines from London before. But I just don't see this happening.

Not this time around. I mean, every single day, I'm either flying or speaking or debating or something.

And I just don't, I hardly see a day in there when I would have any shot whatsoever at doing something.

So we'll see. I mean, if something really major happens, you know, I mean, y 'all do remember, it was February of 2010, as I was going to London that time, that staying in the same hotel,

I'm going to be staying in again, that the Ergon Kanner thing exploded or started to explode.

It was the fuse was lit with the recognition, the sending to me of documentation that Kanner had claimed to have debated

Shabir Ali twice, including in Nebraska. And I'm pretty certain Shabir's never been to Nebraska either.

Anyway, so who knows? Something could happen. Maybe I could get something on my droid, like I got something on my

BlackBerry back then that would require changing of plans and doing of a

Dividing Line from London. We will see. But the Great Turretin fan has posted an article about Steve Ray.

I love this. Steve Ray versus Thomas Aquinas on the Protevangelium of James.

In a recent post, Steve Ray describes the Protevangelium of James in this way. This document was written in the early second century and known and loved by the first Christians.

Of course, I would immediately say, excuse me, but those weren't the first Christians. It's a little late there. But, you know, when we talk about Steve Ray, when it comes to facts and history and stuff, it's just so fluid.

It's just, yeah, just do what you want with it. On the other hand,

Thomas Aquinas described the same work as apocryphal ravings. And of course, you also have the decree attributed to Pope Galatius that likewise condemned this particular material as well, which is just so convenient when they forget that one of their infallible popes condemned this stuff.

Sure, it's the source of most of the Marian wackiness that they now celebrate. But hey, it's the infallible church.

Just because an infallible pope condemned the source of what eventually became infallible dogma, don't sweat the details.

It's okay. You know, just go over and read a few articles that called the confusion and you'll be right back in the middle of things.

It's okay. You know, just embrace the tension. It's good. Even the famous Mariologist Luigi Gambero.

Luigi Gambero. I have been to Italy too. Except I ate at McDonald's right across the

Milvian Bridge. I actually ate in it. It was horrible. I'm sorry. I hate to tell you that. Oh, man.

No, did not taste. Every place else I had been, McDonald's tastes like McDonald's.

Not in Italy. But anyways, Luigi Gambero, who has never eaten at McDonald's, I would imagine if he's still alive.

I don't even know. Admits that, quote, its author must have been a non -Jew or at most, a Jew who lived outside of Palestine, since he seems to possess a limited knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs.

I like a Turgeon fan's summary. In short, it is a work of lies. Whether those are pious lies or just apocryphal ravings, as Aquinas judged, one wonders what motivates

Rome's apologists to try to prop up Rome's dogma with such works. Because that's where Rome's dogma came from.

Of course, is the problem. Once again, just one of the many illustrations of what happens when you really start pressing the

Roman Catholic apologists and their sources. And you discover that, yeah, once again, truth, not a big thing.

Not a big thing. Now, we get fun stuff in the mail.

We really do. And today, Rich even got ahold of me and said, there is something for you in the

PO box. And it was sent from a friend to Churches Ministries, www .samgip

.com. Oh, yes. Dr. Samuel C. Gip, THD, from Ohio.

Ohio. And Dr. Gip sent me a gift. And I think it'd be very proper for me to acknowledge this gift and Dr.

Gip's clear kindness in forwarding it to me. He sent me one of his coloring books.

I'm not saying that he uses coloring books, but he's actually published a coloring book called The Time When There Was No Bible.

And it's a nice coloring book. Now, it's a fictional coloring book.

It is interesting. Sam Gip has information that no one else has. For example, he says the first books in God's New Testament are called the

Gospels. Matthew was written in 37 AD. Wow, he even knows the exact date. That's great.

Mark was written in 57 AD. So Mark didn't... Wow, Mark writes 20 years after Matthew.

That's weird. And Luke was written in 63 AD. And John was written in 90 AD. So we know exactly when all this stuff happened.

And then, of course, then it starts talking about, you know, God had placed his New Testament church in Antioch and was once again speaking to his people.

But down in Alexandria, Egypt, some very bad men by the name of Philo and Origen didn't believe the

Bible. So they were cutting parts out of it as fast as they could. I said, Philo, it's nothing to do with the New Testament. Um, and Origen, of course, is, you know, a couple centuries.

I just love... Again, Steve Ray, Sam Gipp, they're all in the same mindset.

Okay, Rachmanites, radical Roman Catholics, same thing. And then they tried to get the

Christians to use their Bible instead of the right one from Antioch. But the Christians were too smart and would have no part of it.

And there's someone walking along with the King James Bible there, I guess. Anyways, um, so he sent me a coloring book and a

Crazy Art 16 crayon pack. Brandon, I mean, you know,

I didn't bother to open. Did you check them? Okay, they're brand new. Look at that. Oh, they're pretty. And it has a nice little purple top to it.

So I have crayons and a coloring book from Sam Gipp. And along with it came a letter.

Yes. And just like we posted the letter from Peter Rachman from many years ago to once again illustrate the kindness and the loving attitude and the scholarship of our

King James only friends, our brothers. Yes. September 4th, 2012.

Addressed to me and the post office box. James, you look so lonely down there in your basement talking to your computer.

So I thought I'd send along my newest book to give something more meaningful to occupy your time.

One that is more on your level of understanding. Maybe this will help you leave your error behind and gather up enough faith to actually believe

God has a perfect book somewhere on this planet. Please remember the two most important rules.

Number one, stay within the lines. And number two, don't eat the crayons.

Looking forward to the day when you turn from your error, Dr. Samuel C. Gipp. And it is signed.

Now, go ahead. You pulled the microphone over. There is one other thing that you left out.

I did. Look at the return address on the envelope. You want to talk about error?

Okay. I hadn't looked at that. What about it,

Dr. and Mrs. Samuel? That's a home address. Not something you want to do.

Well, a friend of church's ministry has the same address. So in other words, while he took a shot at my allegedly being in my basement when it's actually my office, which is not in my home.

That's probably his basement. He's actually writing from his basement. That does happen sometimes, doesn't it?

So there you go. Now, Rich was a little offended by this.

I know my wife gets upset when people insult me and stuff like that. And this was meant, obviously, to be very, very insulting.

Just like when Ruckman sent me some of his books and signed it, you know, here,

Jimmy, here's some more evidence of my heresy. And it was his book on Black is Beautiful, a racist book and stuff like that.

Um, but I'm not in the least bit insulted by this. I'm not.

I'm sitting here laughing because I think it's funny. And the reason I think it's funny is not because, you know, get put out another video.

And I've said they're very nicely produced videos. They're just absolutely absent of any meaningful argumentation or factual history, as we have demonstrated.

But I haven't respond last minute because there's almost nothing to respond to it. Now I've got a reason to respond to it.

Now I'll find some time to respond to it. And, you know, also hold up and read this letter and put that out on YouTube land, too, just to give them an idea that Brother Gip is just not quite that nice of a man.

Remember, this is a guy who, even after the video came out from Ankerberg showing the great incident, uh, he lost his voice where, where someone went, um, that's the best that the

King James only guys go. Even after the video came out, Gip's like, no, no, no, no, that's not it.

They're still hiding it. I wasn't it. And, you know, I was sitting there and Dan Wallace was sitting there.

Dan Wallace is sitting very close to Sam Gip, in fact. And Dan has confirmed that that's what it was.

And I've confirmed that's what it was. But, you know, these guys, I am only insulted by people that I feel have any kind of integrity or honesty or ability to think.

And that's why I'm not insulted by Sam Gip. I've never seen Sam Gip utilize, demonstrate the slightest capacity for reflective, for self -reflective thought.

I never have. Uh, we've, we've played some of his anti -Calvinism comments on here and his, his eisegesis is absolutely incredible.

And we, we've, we know that when it comes to the King James only issue, facts are just Play -Doh in his hands.

So the man has absolutely no credibility and has never demonstrated himself to be a person who can think.

So I'm not insulted by people like that. I really don't. I, I, I just how

I, I will be insulted by someone that I credit with the ability to really think through things.

Okay, that, that person, I will, I will give weight to their perspective. And therefore they have the power to insult me.

Sam Gip doesn't have the power to insult me because I just, the man has no credibility.

There's, there's no weight behind what he says. But I do appreciate the crayons. I have a grandchild coming.

And so in a couple of years, uh, you know, I'll be able to provide, uh, Ooh, almost said it.

Almost used a, a, a gendered, uh, pronoun there. Uh, cause

I know what's coming. I almost did it. Oh, that was close. And I think Summer's listening too.

So that would really be bad. Uh, that was close. That was close.

But, uh, my coming grandchild, uh, I'm sure we'll, uh, appreciate these, these crayons at, at some point in the future.

Though I doubt I will introduce my grandchild, uh, to, uh, the, uh, the, well, maybe when my grandchild is very, very, very young and hence doesn't care about what the grandchild is coloring on.

Then we can use it up then and then get rid of it. But, uh, anyway, so thank you,

Dr. Gip for your, your kindness. And, um, I will take it that this is as much of a response as you can provide to the refutation of your previous videos that has already been posted, uh, on the, uh, on YouTube.

It is about that, that, that is about all they, they have to offer. Okay. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

Where are all the calls? Not a single thing. I'm out of stuff to say. I mean,

I thought the Sam Gip thing would get lots of, and we had a caller from London that was going to call back and hasn't called back yet.

So, um, 877 -753 -3341 or 602 -973 -4602.

Cause that's what they're going to have to use over there. Wouldn't they? Yeah, probably. Yeah. Area code 602 -973 -4602.

Summer is saying life tough. Okay. Life is tough. Yes, I realize that, but not much longer.

And I will be able to use appropriate gender distinctives.

Uh, hey, you got a break queued up in there? Yeah, might as well give folks time to get on that phone.

Uh, we had all sorts of calls last time. Maybe we just used them all up. They're starting to ring 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number for you to call.

This is going to be the last shot you're going to have, uh, till the 27th of September.

So we will take a quick break, right? Hello. We take a quick break.

No, no. Queue that up, man. Hey, just start taking the calls.

That means I have to keep talking. Uh, I want to take a break. Take a drink of water.

Give the voice a break a second, you know? And then we'll get to Justin and to others right after this.

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free, A New Cult, Secularism, False Prophecy Scenarios?

No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Pottish Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler. But the Pottish Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself.

In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture. The Pottish Freedom, a defense of the

Reformation, and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at aomin .org.

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.

Mouse all the way up there to Justin. Hi, Justin. Hi, Dr. White.

I really appreciate you taking the phone call. My question, in the past, I've heard you reviewing different debates, different Armenians, people like that.

They use the term, Provenient Grace, and you've explained that quite well. In the last couple of months,

I've heard you use the term a couple times, Common Grace. I was just wondering if you could explain that a little fuller, what you mean by Common Grace and where in the scriptures would

I find that sort of concept? Well, Common Grace is just a commonly used term by Reformed theologians to refer to the kindness that God exhibits to the non -elect.

It is not salvific grace. It is not an attempt to do something that God has not decreed to do and bring about salvation, but it is the source of all goodness.

If you believe in the total depravity of man, then it's God's common grace that prompts men to hear the law of God and to curb their behavior.

It's common grace that drives men to excel in anything in life, really.

It's the kindness of God that's shown in causing His sun to shine and His rain to fall upon the just and the unjust.

And when He's particularly blessing a people, granting to them peace and order in their society, and then when

He begins to withdraw that, the results I think are seen in many nations today. But the difference between Common and Prevenient Grace is that Prevenient Grace is an attempt on God's part to move someone to a place where they then will make some kind of a decision for Christ.

So it is an attempt, while maintaining some kind of autonomy on the part of man, to bring about salvation.

Common Grace is not a salvific grace. It is a grace that is made available, one might argue, that it is made available through the merits of Christ in the sense that God is just and righteous to even be gracious in that sense toward the unregenerate.

But it's all for the sake of His people and His glory as well. But the big difference is the one is an attempt at salvation, the other is not an attempt at salvation.

It is an element of God's bringing glory to Himself and a blessing of His people.

Okay, so then I guess one little thing to wrap it up. So basically you would say, when you talk to different Reformed people,

God's love you would say is only for the elect, or is there some sort of love for the unregenerate non -elect?

Well, in the same way that there is salvific grace, grace specifically intended and powerful to accomplish salvation, in the same way there is redemptive love.

They are intimately connected with one another. God's love brings about God's grace.

And in the same way, Common Grace is a descriptor of God's loving attitude toward all of creation that balances, not balances in the yin and yang, but is what allows

God to continue to pour forth the blessings that He gives to people.

I mean, He gives tremendous blessings. You know, I can't help but, for example, watch athletes on television who have been given tremendous athletic capacity, and yet clearly they do not thank

God, they do not see from whence that comes, and that their abilities are an example of Common Grace.

And that would be attached to that general sense of benevolence and love that is

God's toward all people, because if there wasn't that, then He would bring judgment to bear immediately.

But again, and this is what I like about Robert Raymond's discussion of these things, in light of the fact that God has a purpose in all that He is doing, and He has a purpose in creation.

He has a purpose in allowing creation to last as long as creation lasts, as far as this particular phase of His intentions is concerned.

It all goes back to having a purpose in bringing about the glory of the triune

God through the redemption of particular people in Christ Jesus. So even the extension of that love of God to those that God does not intend to redeem, you have to make the distinction between the kind of love that is self -giving in the sense of redemptive and that kind of love of God that is seen in the providential upholding of creation, the giving to men of gifts, the withholding of wrath even upon those who are most deserving of it.

So I would say that common grace and the general love of God go hand in hand, redeeming grace and the redemptive love of God, again, they're part and parcel of the same thing.

All right, thank you very much, that was very helpful. Do you have time for one more question? I've got four folks online right now, so...

I'll pass, because it's a question that in the past you've said that you don't like to talk about, so I'll pass. Oh, well that's even better.

Okay, thanks. You're welcome. All right, bye -bye. I think I just dodged an eschatology question there, but I'm glad that I did.

Let's go to where I'm going to be heading in a few days and talk with Paul. Hi, Paul. Hey, Dr.

White, how are you doing? I'm doing just fine. Good. I hope I don't sound too incoherent, it's like one o 'clock in the morning.

Well, I'm probably gonna be awake at one o 'clock in the morning myself, because my clocks could be all messed up, so I'll probably be incoherent on Monday night during the debate, too.

Well, I hope to see you when you come down there, actually. The one you've got on Trinity Road near Tooting Beck isn't that far from me, so I definitely hope to make that one.

Yeah, so that's normally where I stay, that's sort of my base of operations there, at least recently. Oh, really?

Yeah, I stay over toward Wandsworth, so you've got some good...

Oh, fantastic. There's a station right within walking distance of the hotel I stay at, so it's a good spot to get to.

Cool. Well, one more quick thing on that subject. Are you going to also be going down to Speaker's Corner as well? I don't know when

I would, because I'm preaching both services on the second Sunday that I'm there, and the first Sunday I fly in that morning, and the rest of that day

I just sort of stand around drool. Okay, that's a shame, that's a shame. I have a quick question for you about salvation, about predestination.

I'll try and keep this as quick as possible. I've never heard you use the parable of the king who's arranging the marriage for his son as a potent argument for predestination, particularly as the whole parable is punctuated by the line, many are called but few are chosen.

Me, I use that all the time, but given the fact that you don't use it, and I know how often you get dragged into that arena,

I'm just wondering why you don't use it, and is there something that I'm missing here? Well...

Because it seems to me to be cut and dried here. He's basically offered, given this invitation out to the people who basically picture the

Jews, the invited guests, and then he throws it out to those people in the highways, which

I guess would be the Gentiles, and then he basically explains the fact that the invited guests didn't accept their invitation, because many are called but few are chosen, and nowhere in the text does it basically say that the king chose anybody specifically to come to the wedding.

He just basically says he gave out a calling to all and sundry.

Yeah. Well, you know, I think there are specific clear statements on Jesus' part on this doctrine in John chapter 6, and in John chapter 8, and John chapter 10, and John chapter 17, and Matthew chapter 11, and so it may just be the fact that, in my experience, parables are not the best apologetic devices as far as a text to go to because there's all different interpretations.

You have to go through how you interpret parables and what the context was, and so it's just not as didactic an approach.

At the same time, my understanding of that text, when he says many are called but few are chosen, what he's talking about is the fact that the call goes out generally, and what has happened is the people that you would expect to have responded to the call have not, for various reasons, basically focused upon their own selfishness or clearly a disdain for the authority and honor of the king and things like that.

But also for the fact that you have those who do come, there's nothing in the text that talks about the fact that they went out on the highways and byways, but even then there were certain people that they called and there were other people they didn't.

The point is that there's going to be this general gospel call that's going to bring in Jews and Gentiles together, and I don't see its primary focus as being—and even amongst the

Gentiles there was a distinction being made between this person or that person or something along those lines—and even then you still have the further application of the king comes in and there's the man there and he doesn't have the wedding garment, and the reason then he is cast out into outer darkness with his weeping gnashing of teeth is because he has tried to get in not following the prescribed pattern and accepting the provision of the king himself, which

I have preached on that and I think it's an excellent example of the fact that there's only one gospel in only one way and you either accept

God's provision or he's not going to accept any type of replacements or substitutions or anything along those lines, but it just seems that that's the emphasis and trying to use that for things where you have texts that are much more clear on the subject.

I've just not chosen to go that direction. Oh, okay, that's fine, but you would agree that it generally does—

Well, it's consistent, but I just don't think that the emphasis of the text is—because even when you say many are called, few are chosen, yes, that is a general statement of the fact that there is a general call to gospel and then that there is an election, that's true, but the immediate application in that context has to do with Jews and Gentiles, not so much the personal aspect that you see in Romans 9 or Ephesians 1 or something like that.

You'd still have to go elsewhere for that kind of thing. Hello?

Hello? Yes. Okay. Just one more quick question.

It relates to John 3 .16. I've heard you explain this, but when you've explained this in the past, it's been mostly from a defensive point of view, you know, when you basically elaborate on the

Greek and the fact that it doesn't actually say whosoever, it's the believing ones, etc., etc. Does verse 18 also lend some weight to the whole predestination debate?

Because it basically says that if you don't believe, you're basically condemned already, and I'd always miss that, basically, in the whole argument, but it's just something

I've just thought about recently, and I haven't really ever heard anybody use that as an argument either.

I don't have the potter's freedom, so you may have discussed it in your report. Yeah, I was going to say, I did, and especially when

I responded to Dave Hunt, I think I provided a fairly positive exegesis of John 3 .16,

and the point is that in 16, 17, and 18, there is a specificity in verse 16, who has eternal life.

It's the one believing. There is a restriction. In verse 18, you have the same type of thing, and that is that the one who does not believe is already in the position of being condemned.

They already stand condemned. They're already under the condemnation of God, and it is only the one who believes that is not condemned.

And is that a condemnation they can't escape from? Is that your understanding of that? Well, the only escape from that condemnation is by belief in Jesus Christ, so I don't think the point of the text is to be addressing, and there's nothing you can do about it outside of the grace of God changing your heart or something.

Again, the question is, when we look at these texts and we interpret them, do we interpret them consistently with other texts, but we don't want to try to make them say something that they're not actually saying, as long as we're being consistent with it.

You know, we rightly point to our Arminian friends who try to turn texts into statements that the author never would have recognized.

We obviously, I think, don't need to be coming up with text that we're doing that to, because we have so many plain, clear, compelling, exegetically sound texts as it is that we don't need to go there.

So it's clear that there are people who are condemned, and then there are people who are not going to be condemned, but I don't know that is really relevant to the

Arminian Calvinist argument, because we would agree on all of that. The question is, who has this ability to believe?

And that's really not something that John 3 is addressing, at least not in the sense of outside of the necessity of the new birth.

Now, that's really where I think John 3 is important, because 3 .16 is normally separated from the fact that unless the new birth has taken place, you can't even see the

Kingdom of God. So, hey, I've got two more calls to get to real quick, and so we'll hopefully see you next week.

Definitely, definitely. All right, see you then. All right, good night. Bye. All right, let's get to James.

Hi, James. Hello there. How are you, sir? I want to keep this as far away from eschatology as we can.

I am, though, interested in when you go to debate in the Muslim world or in Europe there, doesn't that make a big difference as to how you and them both look at Jerusalem?

For example, in 70 AD, we know it was a stumbling block to the nations, and now it's still a stumbling block.

To all the nations, as we saw in the last few days. And we still see. Doesn't that make a difference as to how you look at world history with them as to what happened in 70

AD? Well, I suppose in some contexts,

I assiduously avoid allowing my Muslim counterparts to drag debate topics that are normally not on that to that.

That's where they want to go, because that will get the emotional juices going on their followers part and pretty much end any meaningful conversation at that point.

So I just simply don't give into the temptation to get into any of that because it becomes a political thing and ends the conversation.

And I can't think of any debate topic that I have undertaken with Muslims or would be undertaking over the next two weeks with Muslims where the current state of Israel, the ancient state of Israel or Jerusalem, what happened in 80, 70, or anything like that would be relevant.

If I could understand some, like if we were to be discussing, was

Jesus a false prophet in Matthew 24 when he talked about the end of the world and how people interpret that,

OK, then we'd have to get into it. But that's not an issue that has come up.

It might. I could see how it would, and I could see how my response on that being different from a lot of evangelicals with their particular eschatological perspective would be,

I think, an advantage to me and not a disadvantage as far as that's concerned.

But I would have to explain it because they've probably only heard one perspective on that matter. But other than that, no,

I would not say that. I can't think of, for example, this next two weeks in any of the debate topics that we're doing that the current state of Jerusalem or the ancient state of Jerusalem would be relevant.

Couldn't you look at the Qur 'an as a commentary, though, on the past?

In other words, five centuries later, as a commentary upon Christian or what we'd call

Jewish -Christian commentary? That would require the author of the

Qur 'an to have significantly more contact with and knowledge of the history that went before him than the author of the

Qur 'an evidently possessed. The fact that the Qur 'an utilizes resources, sources, accepts as factual stories material that was clearly fables and legends from the

Gnostic Gospels and things like that would indicate that the author of the Qur 'an is not attempting to give us any serious commentary on what had happened in the preceding six centuries with Jerusalem or anything of the kind.

I don't know that the author would have had much knowledge of that. So, no, I wouldn't view it in that way. I mean, you could see it as a grima with the

Muslim world that you come from America, you come from the West. It's a stumbling stone to us, too.

Yeah, no, I really— It's a common denominator for— Yeah, I wouldn't see it in that way,

James. I've got to get one more call in before I go. Thanks for your phone call today. Let's get to Carl real quick.

Hi, Carl. Okay, I am going to be Carl's voice here because Carl called in and—

Oh, I wonder what you were doing. Because we lack the kind of equipment necessary to put Carl on the air—

Why? I'm going to basically be his voice for him and read his question.

He was listening to Robert Gagnon on secular arguments against homosexual practice and it occurred to him that when debating with liberal

Christians, quote -unquote, it might help to argue that most homosexuals would not accept the monogamy that the liberals think would be permissible for them.

And so his question is, should he argue that gay Christians are inconsistent in their practical rejection of monogamy?

Well, Dr. Gagnon is exactly correct there. I certainly have raised the issue many, many times.

It is a reality that when you have a Matthew Vines, when you have a

Harry Knox talking about loving monogamous relationships, that they are talking about less—

And I'm going to be generous here. I'm going to be very generous here. They're talking about less than 3 % of male homosexual experience.

And so to utilize an argument that goes against 97 % of the group you claim to be representing does show the hypocrisy of that.

But also, they recognize they have to do that. If they're really going to come out and defend especially male homosexuality as it exists around the world, they'd have to be talking about bathhouses and dozens and literally hundreds of sex partners over one's life.

And it's a little bit difficult to try to put that into any type of religious context. So yeah, sure, they are inconsistent.

And that would be well worth pointing out, as Dr. Gagnon does, and as I have as well.

Okay, folks, I really would appreciate your prayers. Travel, lots of travel.

Spend a lot of time in airplanes. You know what that tends to do. You end up exposed to everything under the sun.

So help would be really nice. Sleep would be really nice. Four debates and that trip on the 25th.

Keep it all in mind and in your prayers, if you would. Lord willing, we'll see you back here on the 27th.

You're on the dividing line. See you then. We must contend for the faith that fathers fought for.

We need a new reformation today. It's a sign of the times.

The truth is being trampled in a new age paradigm. Won't you lift up your voice?

Are you tired of plain religion? It's time to make some noise. I stand up for the truth.

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries. If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at PO Box 37106,

Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the World Wide Web at aomin .org,

that's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.