and good afternoon welcome to the dividing line my name is rich pierce and i am sitting in for doctor white today i have prepared a special dividing line here in the romans nine debate in a remix That's right. I'm going to review the Romans 9 debate from last May. This debate is actually, well, it's been a burr under my saddle ever since we received, since I viewed the videos for the first time. I have this thing about preachers and their methods. Preachers adequately, not just adequately, but faithfully preaching the Word of God. and sticking to it, and not having agendas when they come before the Word of God, but letting the Bible teach them, and they then pass that teaching on to us. And we are charged in 2 Timothy 2.15 as the Apostle Paul tells us, be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. Now, the Romans 9 debate, if you've seen it, you may already know what I'm talking about. On the other hand, if you have seen it, maybe you're Arminian, and maybe you think that Professor Flowers did a good job in presenting his case. The problem is, in my view, the case was about Romans chapter 9 and what it teaches. And last I checked, Romans chapter 9 is still part of sacred scripture. So let's take a look at how he handled the text in the process of presenting his case. The method matters, and Dr. White, I'm not saying anything new. If you've seen the debate, you know full well that the things I'm bringing up, Dr. White pointed out in the cross-examination sections. He asked these questions, he got Professor Flowers' answers, and I found them woefully inadequate. that is. The questions were right on target. So with that, before we dig into that, I'd like to give you a better idea as to what it is I've got in mind, as to what I'd like you to focus on, because I want to set the issue of Calvinism aside, and I want to ask the question, what is it that we expect from our preachers? Does the man of God go behind the sacred desk and open up the sacred scriptures with that attitude, that that's what he's doing, that that's what he's there for? Or does he have the attitude that this week How can I motivate the people to come back next week? How can I get more, as they say, butts in the seats? Or, if we're coming around to, as James and I both, when we were at North Phoenix Baptist, knew full well, when we came around to tithing season, it didn't matter what text was going to get opened up, we were going to hear about tithing. In fact, the running Southern Baptist joke was, this morning, our focal text will be, and then they'd read it, and then quickly depart therefrom. If you're familiar with his book, Pulpit Crimes, James writes about this. He writes about the methods and the tactics that are used that I believe the best way to describe it is a hijacking. Hijacking the pulpit. for your own personal gain, purpose, agenda. It doesn't matter to me where you are when you open the Word of God, whether you're standing on a street corner, whether you are behind a pulpit. No matter what your circumstance, or in a debate like here, No matter what your circumstance, you need to be faithful to the text. One of the things in my avenues in working with the ministry, by the way, my role here is primarily administrative. I'm the president of Alpha Omega Ministries. I'd also like to plug the fact that I've been working with John Sampson over at King's Church for the last few months. In fact, my wife and I are the newest members at King's Church, and I'm teaching the Wednesday night Bible studies. If you are in the Northwest Valley, I'd like to invite you over. We'd be more than happy to have you with us as we just finished walking through the book, the first chapter and second chapter of Colossians, culminating last night in our focal text, Colossians 2.9. So with that said, I want to focus on the methods that we use and the methods that our preachers use when they unpack the scriptures and present them to us. But before I do, I would like to read this section from the introduction from Dr. White's book, which I think really illustrates this point very well. To this day, I fully understand his motivations. He was an up-and-coming preacher in a large evangelical denomination. He had clearly the ability to motivate from the pulpit He was exciting and passionate. He came to me because he knew I had some level of knowledge of the original languages. He found a commentary written by a fairly well-known scholar that presented, in its interpretation of one of the Beatitudes in Matthew chapter 5, an application and interpretation he had never seen. He asked me if there was any merit in the interpretation. I went to the text. The commentary went to the text, the grammar, the lexical sources, checked and cross-checked other commentaries, and concluded that even though the writer was a fairly well-known man, this was one of those examples where even the best of us chase a rabbit a bit too far down the trail. The text just did not support the application he was making. I wrote up my findings and presented them to the preacher. He was clearly disappointed, but he thanked me for the time I had taken. A few weeks later, I saw that he was preaching in the Sunday morning services, which were attended by about 7,000 people and televised locally. By the way, I was in that audience that day when he did that. I'm a personal witness. This is not a made-up story. I was very interested when he began preaching on the very same section from the Beatitudes. When he came to the text in question, I listened with sinking heart as he made the very same claims contained in the commentary he had asked me to examine. After the service, I happened to encounter him in a narrow hallway in the back of the church. He saw me coming. He looked embarrassed, looked down at the floor, and then looked at me and said, I know, I know, but you see, it preaches so good. It preaches so good. Your method is a reflection of how you view the Scriptures. I'm going to say it again. Your method of presenting the Scriptures is a reflection of how you view the Scriptures. My own recollection of this event is very much like doctor whites i remember him i remember this preacher and i remember and he was exactly as doctor white uh... describes firing on fire and the youth love them he was he was was on his way and i remember doctor white coming in one was a doctor at the time still in uh... seminary if i recall maybe bible college still coming into our offices and telling us about how this man had asked him to do this. And then I sat, being familiar with the text and what he was trying to do, I sat through that sermon and I listened to him do the very thing that I knew full well he knew was not there. He was going to preach it anyway. He was going to preach it anyway. He knew full well it was not there. And that was the beginning of the end for me at that church as it began to plant seeds of doubt for me and trust in the leadership's dedication to the Scriptures, which to me is the pinnacle. If your leadership is not dedicated to the scriptures, if they don't see the scriptures as something that they are to submit to, then how is it we look at the Roman Catholics and we correct their understanding of the pillar and foundation of the truth passage that they're supposed to be holding up? No. The pillar and foundation of the truth holds something up. We are to hold up the scriptures, the sole infallible word. the soul and foul rule of faith for the church infallible so with that said let's move on to the structure of the debate and when i run through some things with you because as we dig into this and unpack the debate as it was uh... as it unfolded One needs to understand how a debate is supposed to work, and if you don't already, I'd like to point out that there are primarily four elements to a debate. The opening remarks, the rebuttal, cross-examination, and then closing remarks. Audience questions are optional, but they can be there, sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. But in the opening remarks section, the debater, or in this case, if we're unpacking, if we're preaching Romans chapter 9, essentially it's the preacher, he is to make his case. This is where the debate is formulated. Usually you have a point and a counterpoint kind of scenario where we have a positive and a negative commentary on the thesis of the debate. In this case, both debaters are presenting a positive case. So they're putting forward a positive message in contrast to a positive and a negative. So in essence, either one could have gone first. It really didn't matter. Dr. White happened to go first in this particular debate. So in the opening remarks, they are to make their case. And also remember, time is limited. So as you're evaluating their performance and wondering why didn't they spend more time here, why didn't they spend more time here, or they totally forgot that, they have to make it count. So they have to go through, in this particular case, we have a 22-minute opening for both debaters. And they have to make their time count. and so they can't put everything into the equation they must choose the most important points and the most important elements so that they make every moment of their case count they really have to make that case count the second part is the rebuttal period in many cases we've seen a lot of the debates that Dr. White has done the opponent who goes second if Dr. White has gone first unfortunately, use their introduction time or their opening remarks time to simply launch into their rebuttal. The rebuttal tends to get them a lot more ground. It's easier if you don't actually make a case, you just begin by attacking the other guy's case right up front. And that's not how it's supposed to work. We get to the rebuttal period, and the rebuttal period is designed to respond directly to your opponent's opening remarks. It's a much better thing than I can do. It's not something I can do to where you can sit there and on the fly write down what this guy is saying and then get up there and spend however long, whether that's five minutes to rebut or depending on the debate structure, you can off the top of your head, on the fly, from your notes, dig into what your opponent had to say. The next section is the cross-examination. Now the point of the cross-examination is to inquire into your opponent's open or rebuttal or both. So if we're going to do cross-examination after the opens and the rebuttal, then your cross-examination can inquire into one or the other or both together. Usually it's both together as the debate has already developed up to this point. Now this can vary depending on the order of presentation. For instance, in this particular debate, the structure was a little unusual. So both debaters gave opening remarks, and then immediately after the individual gave opening remarks, they go into the cross-examination. Then the next debater gets up, does his opening remarks, and then goes into cross-examination of his opening remarks. And then they went into rebuttal in the same order. Actually, not in the same order. I think they reversed that, and that was also a little different. But again, as I said, both are making a positive presentation, so the order isn't all that critical in this situation. So after the rebuttal, they also then went into cross-ex. So you have Dr. White doing his opening, then going and being cross-examination. Then after Professor Flowers, same thing. Then Dr. White, rebuttal, and then another cross-examination. He's being cross-examined on his rebuttal. It's actually an intriguing way of doing it, and in that regard, I thought it worked out really well in the debate structure. And then finally, in your closing remarks, this is key, and very, very few of Dr. White's opponents have I found have actually abided by this and that is in your closing remarks they are supposed to be a summation of the case that you have presented in contrast to what your opponent has presented so far. So this is the summing up of everything that has happened. I opened, I rebutted, we cross-examined, and I'm putting it all together to make a summary case and conclude my entire case here. This is the way it finishes up. No new information is supposed to be presented at this point. Closing Remarks is not supposed to have any new information. It's supposed to recap all that's come before. So with that in mind, we need to remember also these events are timed for a reason because no filibustering. You've got, in this case, they've got 22 minutes each to make their case and make it count. No more. And if they want, they can go less, yeah. So why am I doing this? Again, as I said before, I have a problem with preaching with an agenda. It's never a good thing, and too many sermons in our day and age have been the result of preachers with an agenda that is outside of scripture. Or, for that matter, think about it. How many sermons have you heard that, you know, the guy makes a good point? It's right on target. But the text he was working with had nothing to do with what he was preaching about. He just forced it in there. It's called shoehorning. We're going to shoehorn it into the case. And back to that example Dr. White gave earlier, why? Because it preaches good. That's not the way to do this. We need to let God's Word do the talking. We need to follow the simple act of contextual reading. Before we can understand a text, we must first establish the text, and we can only do that by walking through it and letting it speak for itself. You may say, but I struggle with a lot of texts. Or people tell me they struggle. They don't like what it says. You know what? All of us struggle with things in Scripture. I struggle with what I hear. I struggle with what God has to say to me. I am a sinner. I'm a man. I'm filled with pride. It is often difficult for me to hear what the Bible has to say to me and about me. But the solution to this is not to run away from it. The solution is to confront it and submit to it. That's right, submit to it. This is why the concept of Jesus Christ as our Lord is so important. Because if he's not my Lord, I'm still a rebel. I'm still out there doing my own thing, living my own life. What's the difference? Submitting to the Word of God is important, and believing all the Word of God. I had a Twitter exchange in late November with Mr. Flowers. It involved a number of things I'm not going to go into today. I don't have time to, even in this situation, I'm having to pick and choose where I spend my time. And one of the things I thought was really interesting was Mr. Flowers had the perspective that when one handles the text, any text I guess, One needs to first come to it from a bird's-eye point of view. That was his phrase. Then we come and look at it in a grammatical point of view. So I guess we're supposed to stand back and look at the big picture of it all, and maybe Acts and Romans and 1st Corinthians and 2nd Corinthians, and just kind of look at all of it in a big global sense, and then we can get specific. I don't see that. What about the context? I think that there are circumstances where we learn things and we learn more through understanding the light and knowledge that parallel passages bring to the table and illuminate this text for us, the text that we're in. But before we can ever even know that this text and that text go here, we must first understand this text and what it's talking about. This is not a circumstance where we can just go and grab all these different verses and shove them together, as some have said, throw them into our shopping cart and go do the checkout thing. And now we've got our own little customized preferred theologies in our shopping cart. That's not how the Word of God works. There are some questions to consider, I'd like you to consider as we go into this. Ask yourself, is the presenter interacting with the text? Is it actually being addressed? Is he listening to what's being said? How much time is being spent with the text? Now, keep in mind, as I said, time is of the essence, and there's going to be portions that both debaters will have to summarize for you. They don't have the time to be able to go through every single portion of it, verse by verse. So keep that in mind as we go through this. Is the presenter, this is key, is the presenter embracing the text or avoiding it? Is the presenter embracing the text or avoiding it? Look for evasive tactics like running away from the text. We read it and, okay, we're going to go over here and talk about this over here. Cherry picking. Cherry picking. Alright, I'm going to read this section and it sounds like this and sounds like that, so I'm going to go grab and pluck some verses out of their own context that sounds like that, and we're going to discuss those instead. Cherry picking. My favorite, actually my second favorite, reading it backwards. reading it backwards. Start at the end and literally read it backwards. And you may chuckle at that, but we've actually had circumstances where James has had exchanges with Arminians about John 6, 37 through 45, where the Arminian wants to start at verse 45 and start working his way. Instead of left to right, it's right to left and see how we can You know, what we can come up with through this method. I don't know, that may work well with a Beatles album, but I don't think it's very good for Scripture. Anyway. Now my personal favorite, and that's leapfrogging. Leapfrogging. What's leapfrogging? Well, leapfrogging is, you're bopping along through a text of Scripture, and you're going along, and you know what? You don't really like this next portion, so we'll just jump right over it. Leapfrog. Jump right over it. I still, to this day, don't know why this preacher did this but back in the days of my youth uh... the pastor of my church was uh... at the time again same church dr white and i were both attending at the time he was teaching on colossians one expository preaching and one week he stops at chapter two verse eight the following week he picks up a chapter two verse ten In him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form was the text that he skipped. I don't know why. He leapfrogged it. And to this day, I just don't, I can't fathom why. Maybe it was a mistake. But I know people at the time brought it up to him. Never went back to it. I don't understand. So leapfrogging is also something else that you need to keep in mind. Things to look for in these debates, you're going to see both debaters will appeal to hermeneutics. They're going to say, they're going to claim that theirs is the case that is being faithful to the text. Proper hermeneutics. As I said before, they will need to summarize for portions of time. For the sake of this presentation, just so we have the context, because that's what I'm about when I'm teaching on Wednesday nights in Bible study, context, context, context. And it is amazing, especially when one is going through the Apostle Paul, how much and how precise a writer Paul was. and how much is there as you're walking through it, just section by section, word by word. He doesn't waste a single word in how he uses it and how he packs a line of thought together. Colossians 1 is an amazing, amazing passage that we've been going through. Oftentimes I find myself preaching to myself more than I am teaching others. It's such a blessing to do it. So I'm going to read the text before I play the section, and I want you to watch how closely, as they get into it, the text is being followed or departed from. Is the debater interested in what is written? Or is this the last thing in the world they want to read? That may sound harsh, but I think you're going to see that's the case for one of these debaters. Now, I did change the order. That's why I called it a Romans 9 remix. I changed the order up because I felt that one of them needs to be put forward as the example of what not to do and then as a counterfeit, frankly, and then the real thing needs to be presented. This is how it should have been done. This is how it would have been done rightly. So I changed the order. Professor Flowers will go first, then James. And again, this first section, this first portion, of my filling in is just going to be in their introductory remarks, in their opening remarks. We'll see if we get any further than that. James may kick me out, he may lock the door, he may never let me back in here again. I don't know. We'll see. But for now, I've commandeered the studio and I've taken over and this is what we're going to do. And I'm uploading this show today. Okay, so remember also it doesn't change the effect or how the debaters would have conducted themselves because James had, number one, not heard Professor Flowers' presentation, although if he had, it might have totally thrown his opening off. We may not have actually seen this simply because of how far off the beam Professor Flowers went. And Professor Flowers' presentation would not be changed by this because he read it all verbatim from his notes. So with that, we're going to speed in here and I've got my keyboard over here operating the machines from the other room. I'm doing a one-man show today. I really hope and pray this works. And we're going to go ahead and hear the initial portion of Professor Flowers's, let's call it the introduction to his opening remarks. First of all, I want to just say that I agree with Dr. White on many of the things he just now taught. I agree with much of the things that he teaches and that he does on his dividing line program. I very much support his ministry and hold him in high esteem, as I do with many of my Calvinistic friends. There's no ill will to those who disagree with me on this subject, and I hope everyone understands that we can be brothers and love one another even though we do disagree over this point in doctrine. I also agree with Dr. White on the point that this chapter is soteriological. It is about salvation. It involves individuals. It's not just about nations. It involves Jacob and Esau. It involves their being chosen. It involves Moses. It involves Pharaoh. All individuals. Many times my view is totally and completely dismissed and washed aside as not being applicable because we don't involve individuals and that's just not a clear view of our presentation. Salvation by faith, not by works. That's the focus in Romans chapter 9. It's by grace, not law. Paul's contrast in Romans 9 is not monergism versus synergism. I believe those are man-made terms used to reframe this debate. Throughout the entire letter, Paul has contrasted the salvation of those who pursue righteousness by works through law versus those who pursue righteousness by grace through faith. which in general is a contrast between the Jews and the Gentiles. okay so in summary uh... professor flowers begins his introduction to his opening remarks and he wants to point out that the focus of chapter nine is a contrast between salvation by grace uh... against salvation by works so salvation by grace and not by works he rejects the labels of modernism and synergism as a false premise man-made terms and then he says that the entire letter is about righteousness through law versus grace and faith and claims a general contrast that is presented between the Jews representing by law and the Gentiles representing by faith. Now on to James's presentation. We're going to go ahead and play that clip and see how he opens up. The test from my perspective this evening is the test of consistency. Who is going to present a consistent perspective? Who is able to apply the exact same method of hermeneutics and exegesis to this text that we would apply to any other text in regards to the resurrection, the deity of Christ, the trinity, the atonement, etc., etc.? ? who is going to be consistent in their handling of the text of Scripture this evening. Now, as I open up Romans chapter 9 with you, the exegesis that I will offer to you needs to be the same exegesis that I would give in a mosque in South Africa, in the East London Mosque, in a meeting with atheists, a debate with Roman Catholics, or a classroom at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, though I'm only welcome in four out of those five places. It needs to be consistent and it needs to be something that you hold me to as you consider everything else that we believe as Christians and how we handle the Word of God in those other areas. okay so in summary of doctor white's introduction to his uh... opening remarks he is focusing on the need consistency in the method the it shows a test of consistency this the handling of the text needs to be something is faithful when you're over here you handle the scriptures the same way as you would overhear if the issue were not calvinism And the issue was about the deity of Christ. And this comes up in the debate, in the cross-examination even. If Professor Flowers was in fact debating a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, Dr. White, do both. I challenge you, go back and listen. Go back and watch either one of those debates. They're on YouTube. see if doctor white departs from the same methodology that he uses in this debate tonight it needs to be the same as i said before whether you're on street corner or you're behind the sacred desk now let's go ahead and continue with professor flowers is continuation as he continues and he is going to begin with a focal text as he begins romans chapter nine in his presentation The substance of it, he begins with his focus on Romans 9, 30 through 32. Yeah, that's it. The end. We'll go to the end. Well, for what it's worth, this is what it has to say. What shall we say, then, that Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith? But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith. but as though it were by works they stumbled the stumbling stone with that we're going to go ahead and play the next section in professor flowers presentation This is why Paul summarizes this chapter in verse 30 and following by contrasting the Gentiles who are attaining righteousness versus the Israelites who are not. And why? Why isn't Israel attaining righteousness? Is it because God doesn't really love them? God hasn't chosen them? God has destined them from hell before birth? Is that why? It's not what the scripture says. Verse 32 tells us exactly why. they are not attaining righteousness. Quote, because they did not pursue it by faith but though it were by works. God clearly desires all Israel and every single Israelite including the hardened ones to be saved and I want to prove that point. Okay he says he's going to prove that point and he has just now doubled down on his previous section say using 30 through 31 as the place to take his stand that romans nine is about and gentiles he started at the end is this reading it backwards i submit to you it's leapfrogging because he's just leapfrogged the entire everything that came before Here's the tactic, folks. The tactic is that I'm going to go to the end, and I'm going to use the conclusion that the writer uses, but I'm going to get there a whole different way, and I'm going to ignore all of what he had to say in getting here. usually jumping to the end is a red flag, should be a red flag for you, to understand that there's a problem in how this presenter is already attacking or taking, coming to the text. So again, we've got leapfrogging already going on. We're just a few minutes into the debate. Let's go ahead and listen as James He opens, well, he doesn't open up in Romans 9 either. Well, let's listen to where he does open up, because he opens up before Romans 9, starting in verse 28 of chapter 8. Remember, and he'll point this out, the verse divisions in your Bible didn't come along until 1551. Frankly, it's one of those unfortunate places in which there's a chapter division in a place that just doesn't belong. So, starting in verse 28, let's read it into your hearing. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren. And these whom He predestined, He also called, and these whom He called, He also justified, and these whom He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own son but delivered him over for us all, how will he not also with him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies. Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword? Just as it is written, for your sake we are being put to death all day long. We are considered sheep, as sheep to be slaughtered. But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Now, let's see how closely Dr. White sticks to the text. So I'd ask you to open your Bibles. I'm actually going to start outside of Romans 9 and Romans 8. We have to do that. Most of you are aware of the fact that chapter and verse divisions are later additions. The final verse divisions were not added until 1551. And we need to look a little bit before Romans 9 to get the context. And what is the context? Well, we know about the golden chain of redemption in Romans chapter 8. We know that Paul talks about those whom God foreordained, those whom he predestined, these ones also he called, those whom he called, these he also justified, and those who he justified, these he also glorified. Why do I mention this? These are soteriological terms. These are terms that have to do with salvation, especially when we look at terms such as justification. And, therefore, please note the use of the term ekkalison in verse 30. He called. That term is going to be seen more than once this evening. And what is that calling? And if the calling of verse 30 of chapter 8 is soteriological, because it results in the next step is justification, and hence it does have to do with personal salvation, then will anything be presented that tells us that we have shifted subjects, that we're no longer talking about the soteriology of chapter 8? Likewise, in verses 31 and following, we have the law court, and we have the question asked in those verses. Who will bring a charge against whom? God's elect. Well, what's the charge have to do with? It has to do with condemnation. Who is the one who will condemn God's elect? It's Christ Jesus who died, who was raised again. All of this is clearly in regards to salvation itself, the salvation of individuals, and the salvation of the elect as a group. So, this is the context that we have going into chapter 9. Okay, so now we have the presentations will begin in parallel. So, Professor Flowers began with Romans 8, or Romans 9, 30-32. Dr. White begins with Romans 8, 28-39. One goes to the end, the other goes to the very beginning. Context, context, context. That's the key, folks. Context, context, context. So now, with that said, fasten your seatbelts, because we're about to go into both debaters now, starting at verse one and carrying on. We're going to begin with Professor Flowers, and I'm going to read the text into your hearing. And pay attention to the text. It's important. I am telling you the truth in Christ. I am not lying. My conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart, for I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. Who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the temple service, and the promises? Whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is overall God-blessed forever? Amen. I submit to you that what you're about to view is where the bait-and-switch occurs. That's right. That sounds harsh, but a new narrative is about to begin. You're going to find that Professor Flowers is about to take off on the longest portion of his presentation. It will amount to eight minutes and forty-six seconds. Eight minutes, forty-six seconds. And he will spend more than 40% of his time outside of the text. So as I play this, I'm going to start and stop it. I'm going to interact with it because there's some things here that need to be pointed out along the way. So with that said, let's go ahead and play the clip. At the beginning of Romans 9, Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, expresses a self-sacrificial love for the hardened, unbelieving Jews, which sounds a lot like Jesus to me, one who is willing to sacrifice himself to give himself up for all his enemies. Is Paul more self-sacrificial than the Lord who inspires him to write these words? I don't think so. Okay, I'm going to stop right there. Already, less than 30 seconds in, to this presentation in is he starts to interact with the text he's read a portion of it and then he asked this question and I gotta tell you I've listened to this debate over and over and over and I've listened to this the introductions over and over and over and it wasn't until recently that I just kind of went wait a minute why is he asking this question is Jesus more self-sacrificial than Paul Actually, I wrote it down that way, but I think if I recall, his question was, is Paul more self-sacrificial than Jesus? Who's asking that question? I don't know of anybody who's ever raised this as a legitimate question. So then why ask it? He asks it because he needs a jumping off point. He needs some kind of springboard to get him out of this text. And that is exactly what's about to happen. In the very next chapter, Paul states plainly in verse 1, my prayer to God for Israel is for their salvation. And then he ends the chapter quoting from Isaiah, from the very lips of God himself, all day long I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people. It looks like a father holding out his hands to a child. That's the image that we have from Paul. Paul also quotes from Hosea in the context in Romans chapter nine. And if you look at Hosea in that context, Hosea says it even more plainly. He says, even as the Lord loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods, love and turning. And Jesus even weeps over Israel because they have become blinded. So their unbelief is clearly not because God doesn't love them or want His elect nation to be saved. This is the nation, according to verses 4 and 5, that has been entrusted with the very words of God. The Messiah and His message were ordained to come through Israel. They are chosen and elected for that noble cause, for that noble purpose. So, why did Israel reject their own Messiah? Why did they stand in opposition to His Word? I believe the reason most of Israel has rejected their own Messiah is because God has hardened them in their rebellion. He has blinded them from recognizing their own Messiah. And he does so not because he doesn't love them, or he doesn't desire for their salvation. He is hardening them for the exact opposite reason. He is hardening them in love. And I want to prove that point tonight. Paul explains in chapter 11 that he has sent Israel a spirit of stupor. He has given them over to their calloused, self-righteous hearts. And he has pushed them out, almost like a parent would push out a rebellious teenager. he has pushed israel out he has cut them off this is a doctrine that is called judicial hardening and it is a woefully misunderstood doctrine in western christianity today and if there was one doctor that led me to recant calvinism this is it so i want and so he wants to unpack it is what he's about to say well that's judicial hardening So, we got about 30 seconds from Romans 9, 1 through 5, and only a part of that, and now we've jumped off into a whole different narrative. Hence my phrase, bait and switch, because that's what happened here. Yeah, as Dr. White described it in the description that we put on the YouTube video of our version of this, Professor Flowers didn't want to debate Romans chapter 9. He wanted to debate the issue of total depravity. Now, in the cross-examination, Dr. Weiss is going to ask him some questions about judicial hardening. And if you don't know what that actually means, I find it amazing that he gets in there and he says that this is the major reason why he left Calvinism, and that it is woefully misunderstood. woefully misunderstood. Professor Flowers, I would suggest that you have a woeful misunderstanding of judicial hardening. And Dr. White tried to correct you on that, but you weren't having any. You weren't having any. You see, this is where the, in the next segment, believe it or not, he's going to get out a ball of Play-Doh. And unfortunately, I forgot it at home this morning, but I went to the store and I grabbed my own ball of Play-Doh. So I'm going to have to do an imaginary ball of Play-Doh, because this is what Professor Flowers just did, so that you get it. This is your Bible. this bottle of play-doh is your Bible and we're going to pluck off a section that is Romans 9. I'm going to put it down, mash it down really good. All right, and now we're going to pluck off, let's see here, we're going to pluck off Romans 10, 10-21, Isaiah 65-2, Hosea 3-1, Mark 1, 40-44, we're going to pluck off Mark 8, 29-30, Matthew 8-1, 16-20, we're going to Get Luke 5, we're gonna get Luke 9, we're gonna get Acts 28, favorite part to camp out on here. Acts 28, then 27 through 28, and we're gonna mash it all up together, and we're gonna take it, smack it over the top of Romans chapter 9, and mash it down real good. And guess what? We got a whole new debate! A whole new debate! And now I can talk about what I really want to talk about. This is what I'm getting at when I talk about the method. Take a look. Take a look right there. Get over there. What's on that desk? Professor Flowers did a lot of work in preparing this message. And that's a three ring binder in front of him. And he's reading every bit of it word for word. This is not a mistake. This is a narrative. And this is the problem we run into when we run into preachers who come across texts that they don't like and so they will preach anything but and say they did. That's not honest to me. What you just did here isn't honest, Professor Flowers. This is what the cults do. I take a Mormon to Colossians chapter 1 and 2 and I talk about the deity of Christ and he's the one who created all things. And they want to run somewhere else. You take a Jehovah's Witness to that same place and they want to run somewhere else. Or they'll change it. All other things. Let's take that Plato and mash in some different words and totally change the meaning. This should not be named among us. It really shouldn't. Is this God's sacred word to you? Or is it Plato? He wants to get after judicial hardening. A couple of things about that. He's already way down the road and you as a listener don't even realize it The Judicial hardening doesn't take place in Romans chapter 9 until verses 17 and 18 and Judicial hardening in Romans 9 isn't about Israel It's about Pharaoh That's right. It's about Pharaoh not Israel you can run off to these other texts where God did put Israel under judgment and talks about that where the Bible talks about judicial hardening punishing but Pharaoh was put there for a reason according to Romans 9 17 and 18 he's not Israelite we know that Pharaoh might, as Moses stood before him the first time, might have let his people go. Not likely. But the first plague comes along, the first pestilence that comes along, he might have let his people go. But God wasn't done with Pharaoh yet. So he judicially hardened him. Judicially hardened him. Moses came one more time said let my people go and another plague came And Moses said let my people go and God judicially hardened him We're gonna hear professor flowers put things together that don't go together the depravity of a man's heart comes from his sin nature. We as Calvinists talk about the deadness of man in sin. That's right, the deadness of man in sin. He's born this way. If you want to say we're born this way, I think he actually will argue this at the end, that you get to hold that against God, even though if you actually read the chapter, that's exactly the argument of the detractor, of Paul's critic. But Pharaoh is the one that this is about Pharaoh is the one judicially hardened and yeah, he's a dead sinner But there's something different going on there than him simply being a man dead in his sin. I But for you to be able to make your case, Professor Flowers, it is clear to me you couldn't do it by separating these concepts. So you had to put them all together. Dr. White challenged you on this, and your answer to it was, it's a distinction without a difference. Excuse me? In our land today, I see God judicially hardening our leaders, right and left. As you watch our leaders in the church compromise right and left. Danny Cortez and homosexuality. You don't think that isn't the result of judicially hardening the land? I do. Churches falling into apostasy right and left. You don't think that's the result of judicial hardening? Dead men leading religions, leading churches. and compromising right and left with the word. Because they're not interested. It's not a sacred text to them either. They'll use it however they see fit and whenever they need to. And my claim to you, Professor Flowers, is just like you starting to do here, if you'll do it on the subject of Calvinism, you'll do it whenever it suits you. And somebody taught you to do this. Professor Flowers is a professor at Dallas Baptist University. That means he's teaching the next generation of preachers that this is okay. And I'm telling you, sir, it's never okay. Ever. There is no text of scripture that does not first and foremost have an immediate context that we need to submit to, even if it's hard to understand. Even if it's hard for us to wrap our minds around it, we need to do that first. We need to not be doing what you're doing here and running away from it. We're short on time, so let's continue on here. There we go. I think. There we go. I want to unpack it. You see this lump of clay, which is actually a play-doh I stole from my seven-year-old. It's going to represent the lump of clay we see in Romans 9. Okay, I got to stop there. Not long. I see why James does this so often. He's got his clay in his hand and the clay represents, he's going to tell you, hardened Israel. But the clay isn't presented, the pottery and clay isn't presented in Romans 9. He says this is the clay in Romans 9. That's what he just said. Rewind it. Okay, watch it. The clay isn't presented until verses 20 and 21. Now he doesn't actually ever get to 20 and 21 in this presentation. But the clay isn't about hardened Israel. The clay is about vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy. And he's using already this phrase, noble cause. God has a noble cause. But you see, in verses 20 and 21, the clay represents the same lump that the potter can make vessels for noble causes, and vessels for common causes. As James has said so many times and does say so in this next portion, when we get to 20 and 21, the potter gets to make a beautiful vase, a vessel, a vessel that is for honorable use. And he also gets to make a chamber pot. And if you maybe are too young to know what a chamber pot is, look it up. I'll let you go from there. So we have just a couple more minutes left. I want to just go ahead and do a little bit more here, and then I'm going to wrap up and we'll continue next week. But let's take on a little bit more of this line of thinking from Professor Flowers. And remember the context, the actual context, of both judicial hardening, real judicial hardening, and the potter and the clay. and then watch how he treats it. According to the Calvinists, this lump of clay represents all of humanity, all of which is born hellbound due to the fall in Adam. In essence, what Calvinists teach is that all people are born judicially hardened, unable to see, hear, understand, and turn to God. Now, they're not as evil, Calvinists will say, as they could be, but they're definitely as unable, corpse-like dead, dead like Lazarus. Not dead like the prodigal son, like Jesus says, but dead like Lazarus, in the tomb dead. According to Calvinists, they are in this condition ultimately because God so decreed it. As Calvin himself put it, some are predestined to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. Doomed from the womb, banished from birth. Well, I guess the computer's going to go ahead and have me finish up there anyway, but I'm glad we at least got that last section in there. Doomed from the womb, banished from birth. No melodrama here, is there? So anyway, I'm going to wrap up for today and I appreciate you joining me for this hour. I'm going to pick up here, we're at 8 minutes and 39 seconds into the remix. So I'm the only one that has the remix, so if you're going to be looking for that time, Mark, you're not going to find it in the actual video. We're not going to be in the same spot, but at least in this particular section, I'm going to write that down. Eight minutes and 39 seconds. We'll pick up, maybe rewind a little bit, and pick up Professor Flowers' presentation on Tuesday. And I have recorded this one because I wasn't quite sure how well the tech in all this was going to work. I'm running the show by myself, and I'm doing all the transitions over here. You can actually see my hands moving around. I'm appreciative of things moving forward. James actually asked me earlier in the week, does this mean that I'll be able to do the show by myself? And I'm like, I don't know. I don't know. We'll see. We'll go from there. I appreciate you being with me, and I appreciate you bearing with me as I've done my first dividing line in, goodness, I'm going to say 15 years. And I've certainly never done it really in front of the camera. And it's been a blessing to be able to do this. It's been my privilege, and I want to continue on with this because the Word of God is precious to me, and I hope it's precious to you.