Well, you're going to have to forgive me on that one. I'm doing the one-man show today. I'm doing the one-man show today. Welcome to the Divided Line. My name is Rich Pierce. Sitting in for Dr. White once again and trying to do all of what usually goes on over there and what goes on over here at the same time. There is a reason why there is the engineering side and YouTube. For those of you who are listening live, at least able to listen live, I would appreciate it if you would do a shout out on Twitter, as well as on the posting on Facebook, that the YouTube live up and died on me today. I don't know what's going on for some whatever reason the new software which has tested up to this point just fine. Suddenly 15 minutes ago as we start doing our prelude to the show connecting up with YouTube and all the other fun things that we have to do to do the show live. on YouTube choked and died, as I said. And of course, that's now thrown me completely out of kilter here. And I'm going to test my buttons here and make sure at least the video portions that I'm now recording are actually working properly. It looks like everything is now back on track. Drama. I gotta tell you, I have a high respect for what James does over here. I have to rehearse for this. I can't just walk in here like he does, sit down, turn everything on, and just go. He is absolutely amazing in how he does this program week in and week out, and I have an even greater respect for him as he does this. A reminder regarding who I am again, because this is only the second time y'all have seen me behind the camera. My name is Rich Pierce. I am the president of Alpha and Omega Ministries. My role here is primarily administrative, although you can't be part of Alpha Omega Ministries and not have some level of apologetics in your blood. It comes with the territory and I have worked with James for, I actually was recounting events the other day and realized, I think it was 30 years ago this month, I met James White and he gave me a whole new appreciation what the Bible is and how to love God's Word and how to hold up God's Word as well as how to defend God's Word and That's what I'm in here trying to do. I am a layman. I don't have the the letters behind my name that James does or for that matter what professor flowers does But even as a layman, someone who's sat under solid Bible preaching for many, many years, as well as not so solid Bible preaching before that, I can tell the difference. And one of the things that I'm hoping to convey to you as a layman is that when you're sitting in the pews and you're listening to your pastor's sermons, I want you to ask yourself, how does he treat the Word of God? I want to reiterate what I said last Thursday. Your method is a reflection of how you view the scriptures. And we're going to get into that even more today as we develop further Professor Flowers' presentation. A little bit more about me, though. I'm currently attending King's Church. You've seen John Sampson here on this show with Pastor John Sampson. I've been teaching on Wednesday nights for the last few months. And along the same lines, a layman's guide to understanding scripture has been my theme. Going through various passages of scripture, we started out with the Lord's Prayer. We expanded further into the Sermon on the Mount. We recently went through a four-part look at Colossians 2.9. And again, if we employ the simple act of contextual reading, we will find that the scriptures speak for themselves. I want to repeat that. If we employ the simple act of contextual reading, the Scriptures will speak for themselves, no matter where you are. And if that isn't your first and foremost priority before you go into these other texts, then you have your priorities out of line. Because what God says through these men, like the Apostle Paul, as they are carried along by the Holy Spirit is what matters. It's what should matter. And, Pastor, whatever your name may be, whoever you may be out there, if you think that this is the way to handle your sermons on Sunday morning, I hope you're convicted by this. Because I wonder how many of the people in your congregation are unwilling to stand up, come up front after the sermon and say, Pastor, that was a great sermon. The only problem is that's not what it says. That was a moving sermon. The only problem is that's just not what it says. We need to be what the Muslims call us, the people of the book. Don't we? Don't we need to live up to that? Anyway, if you'd like to know more about me, again, I am teaching on Wednesday nights. If you go to Sermon Audio, look up my name, Rich Pierce. Under King's Church, back on October 14th, I introduced myself to the group. It was our first time together, and I go through my testimony there of how I came to be in the Christian faith and how I came to the place that I am sitting in now as president of Alpha Omega Ministries as well as The the one who would be teaching them as well as anyone else who wants to follow along with us. I would like to sincerely invite Extended invitation to you all if you live in the Northwest Valley We meet Kings Church meets at 11 a.m. On Sunday meets again 7 p.m. On Wednesday nights right now. We're hoping to expand those hours, but we're still very small group and If you live in the Northwest Valley, we meet in the beautiful palace Verde's facility on 87th Avenue just south of Union Hills in Peoria and We'd like to invite you along. Please take Take a moment and come look us up and see if maybe the Lord is leading you our way as we are sort of a startup church startup work as we want to take the the gospel of God's grace and to the Northwest Valley in contrast to the many, many churches that are popping up over there that are very seeker sensitive. And frankly, there's a whole lot more games going on than there is scripture being taught. So just that is an aside. The Apostle Paul When he writes, I really discovered this as I started digging into the book of Colossians, just wanting to focus on 2.9, in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. And working my way back in order to establish the context that Colossians 2.9 lands in, I once again found myself amazed by, one, the Word of God and the depth of it, but also by the Apostle Paul's writing style. He has this style that takes the case to the jury, so to speak. He makes the case like a lawyer would in such a way that he knows, that he knows that he knows down to the very core of his being that he's got a righteous case, that he has the case, that he has the airtight case. But he doesn't just sit back and rely on that knowledge. He wants to put forward that case every step of the way, element by element. He writes a detailed thread with precision. I discovered in Colossians that as he goes through Colossians chapter 1, and he's talking about the majesty that is Jesus Christ, the creator of all that is, the sustainer of all that is, that those concepts are the building blocks through which he ties our salvation in. As we get to the end of Colossians 1 and we begin in Colossians 2, he has now changed focus to the church. Christ, head of the church, and our role in the church. But every bit of what is there ties back to the person and the work of Jesus Christ as the great God. who is the creator and the sustainer, and as I said in those messages, the glue that holds the very atoms of all of creation together. Without him, there is nothing that is. And this is the way Paul writes. This is his method. Each point is connected to what came before. The Book of Romans is no exception. In fact, the Book of Romans has rightly been called the Gospel according to the Apostle Paul. That same writer, the Apostle Paul, is the same one who, as I said last week, gives that exhortation to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2.15 that he is to accurately handle the word of truth. I believe this is the charge to every man of God who would get behind the sacred desk. You are to accurately handle the Word of Truth. Focusing on the method, because that's the handling of the Word of Truth, Again, I want to reiterate that as we evaluate this debate, I'm not looking to get up to my elbows in the Calvinism issue. I want to set the Calvinism subject aside and focus on the method that Professor Flowers employs here, because I think it speaks volumes about the way he views the scriptures. It also speaks volumes about the way he views his own message. For me, the Word of God is up here, and I am lurching to reach toward it, to measure up, to try to rightly divide it and honor it in the way I present it. And I'm finding that is hard work. That is hard work. But again, I want to reiterate, your method is a reflection of how you view the Scriptures. The simple act of contextual reading allows us to first establish the text as the Apostle Paul or any other writer in Scripture has delivered it. Because remember, it is they who are speaking from God, carried along by the Holy Spirit. Think about that a second. The Apostle Paul writes the Book of Romans. He speaks from God, carried along by the Holy Spirit. Not me. Him. Not you, Professor Flowers. Him. Not James. Him. So our job is to accurately represent what the Apostle Paul, who was being carried along by the Holy Spirit, communicated. Now, I will admit, I am finding it hard to separate myself, or if you will, gag myself from the subject of Calvinism as it's unfolding. I am finding out that there are points that Professor Flowers is making I have to address. They relate to Calvinism. I can't just let that hang. I know that James didn't in the cross-examination, but we're walking through this chunk by chunk, if you will. I want to remind you that what's come before Professor Flowers began with Romans 9, 1, actually he began with the end of Romans 9, but we've already addressed that issue. But in Romans 9, 1 through 5, as he began that, he spent about 30 seconds in the text and then ran away. He asks this question, and I actually typed it out properly this time, I don't know why I was so confused last week, but he asked the question, is Paul more self-sacrificial than Jesus? And I ask the question, why is this even a question? I don't know anybody who's disputing this. There's no contention there. It is a false controversy. It's a premise that he's got to throw out to give him that escape hatch to get out of this text as quickly as he possibly can. He uses it as a springboard, so he's now bounced right on out. He also utilizes the hijacking of terms. otherwise known as cherry-picking. Again, the cherry-picking concept is where I'm going to go to this verse and go to that verse and I'm going to run to all these different verses and I'm going to just pluck concepts out from their context and shove them into my desired context in the narrative that I'm trying to establish. Because really that's what's important, right? You need to listen to me. No, you need to listen to the Word, but moving on. And in doing this, he chooses words and phrases. Phrases like judicial hardening, and we're about to pick up with that judicial hardening concept here as he gets out his Play-Doh. By the way, I remembered, and I brought my ball of Play-Doh here that I picked up at the grocery store the other morning. And, you know, it strikes me really odd. How do kids get this stuff out? It just took me forever to pry this out of here. But I'll bet you a two-year-old will have it out in seconds. What's that about? I don't know. Anyway, so the bottom line here is, is that he wants to make the case that judicial hardening is the same thing as the human heart and the deadness of man in sin part. So he doesn't see the difference between the clay, and he's going to say this, this is the clay that's represented being talked about in Romans 9. Which I think about that concept and try to follow where he goes with it. And if you're familiar with Romans nine, ask yourself, is he talking about the clay in Romans nine? Cause I don't think he is. So he's upset about judicial hardening. It's his present focus in our, where we're at right now. He says it is what caused him to recant Calvinism. It's the most woefully misunderstood doctrine in I guess Christianity. But yet, what's interesting here is that if this is the clay in Romans 9, it's not talking about Israel. It's talking about Pharaoh. We covered that last week. So, and then what we've got coming up here as well is look for familiar appeals. Familiar appeals. What is a familiar appeal? Romans 9 talks about this, and you know what? It sounds like Romans 11. So let's run over to Romans 11, and we're going to grab that entire discussion, which we're fine reading its context. It's okay over there. We'll break it down. No problem. But we're going to take all that and shove it into here, which we will not read. You got to think about that. So he's about to dig into familiar appeals. But before we do this, I want to break down something. I want to show you something about the noble cause concept that he throws around. This one puzzled me and I know that Dr. White, as soon as cross-examination came in, he started poking at the noble cause phrase that Professor Flowers uses commonly. And in the question he asks him, what is the noble cause? He has to ask it a couple of different times to try to get it out. The noble cause, according to Professor Flowers, is God using temporarily hardened Israel to bring about redemption. So he's saying that the temporarily hardened israel is the clay in romans nine and god uses the temporarily hardened israel to bring about redemption and that that's what romans nine is is got going on here and he calls it the noble cause the problem is is that the noble cause is what i call a mix misleading extrapolation a misleading extrapolation, plucking concepts out of thin air and then finding words that sound good. I hear myself saying this stuff and it sounds harsh, but I can't get around it. Like I said, I've listened to this over and over and over. I'm trying to dissect and find where is this coming from? Well, let me bring up on the screen for you, this is BibleWorks, and what we have here is, and by the way, if you doubt me on this, you're gonna find, let's bring it down to there. I think you can read from there. If you doubt me on this, Professor Flowers confirms this in the cross-examination in his version that's posted in his YouTube channel, go to 58 minutes and 29 seconds. You're going to hear the question there, and he confirms what I'm about to tell you. He drew this concept from Romans 9.21, even though Romans 9.4-5 is what's up on the screen, and he insists in his Facebook page that all those screen grabs were representing where he was in the text at the time he was in the text, and that he followed the text all the way through. And that therefore, because it was up on the screen, therefore that's exegesis enough, even if he didn't even address what's up on the screen. But that's another issue. We'll get back to that later. The key here and what you're looking at here is that, and if I'm doing this right, okay, right over here, you see the noble cause or for noble purposes. So the 1984 version of the NIV, says, does the potter have a right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Now what's interesting to me is that's the only translation that I could find that actually uses the word noble in it. And why am I making this big deal? Every other translation except for one, which was the other NIV, the 2011 version, uses honorable, honorable, honor, Etc all the way through the point is why? grab hold of noble Because it preaches good It sounds cool And again, it's a deflection so I can come to this text that I really I I don't want to grapple with, I don't want to wrestle with it, and I don't want you wrestling with it. I want you following me as I do that end run around. And so I'm going to grab hold of that term there, noble purposes, and then I'm going to rename it noble cause, and then I'm going to take this entire concept of temporarily hardened Israel being used to bring about redemption and I'm going to shove it into that word. So that's what I mean when I talk about cherry picking words and phrases. You pick a word out, sounds cool, preaches good, it has a ring to it. And I can now get your attention by using it. So that's what's going on there. Trust me, that's what's going on there. All right, getting back into the presentation here as I've got it up on the screen now. We left off in my version here at 8 minutes and 39 seconds, but in order to give Professor Flowers his proper context in his presentation, I'm going to back this up almost a full minute, back to 7.50, and let him pick up as he begins working the Play-Doh. Working the Play-Doh and seeing where that takes us. So here we go. Let's hope all the tech works for me today because, boy, I tell you, YouTube crashing on me is not a good start. But at the very least, we are live on the audio side. And so I'm hoping and praying that everything behaves. Here we go. You see this lump of clay, which is actually Play-Doh I stole from my seven-year-old. It's going to represent the lump of clay we see in Romans 9. 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 are 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. So even if God makes a genuine appeal to this lump of clay, come to me, I love you, come, be saved, repent and believe, they cannot willingly respond. They can't. So God, what He does is He selects a group from this lump, and He gives them a new heart. He saves them irresistibly out of pure grace, nothing that they've earned or done to deserve this. And He saved them from this hopeless condition, which ultimately was decreed and ordained for them by God, by the way. And why does God ordain it this way? For His own glory. He wants to glorify Himself, to show these elect ones how good they have it in comparison to the ones who are damned to eternity in hell. Okay, I'm going to stop right there and let's take notice of something here. He is talking about this section. So he's leapfrogged again. Remember something, we have, let's look back over here again. You can't see it right there, but Romans 9 verses 4 and 5 is what is up on the wall behind him. Romans 9 verses 4 and 5 is what's up on the wall, but that's not where he's talking. So he's leapfrogged over 6 through 17, maybe 16, in order to reinvent the potter and the clay. But think about what he just said. you just went through the calvinist says this in the calvinist says that verse seventeen for the scripture says the fair for this very purpose i raised you up to demonstrate my power in you that in my name that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth so then he has mercy on whom he desires any hardens whom he desires you may say to me then why does he still find fault for who resists his will on the contrary who are you a man who answers back to god the thing molded will not say to the mold or why did you make me like this will it Or does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump, lump, one vessel, noble use, we'll use his term, and another for a chamber pot, use James' term, same lump of clay, two different results. Hmm? Not just talking about, you know, this stuff's messy. Yeesh, how do kids get away with this? Anyway, another for common use, or the chamber pot. what god although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and he did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory even us whom he also called not only from the not from among jews only but also from among gentiles and it goes on now you want to talk about what sounds like That sounds like what he was just talking about. That's what Calvinists believe, as the way he was just talking about it. Here's an idea. Go back, listen to that section again, and insert the word, Paul believes. Paul believes. Paul believes. And see if it doesn't plug in to this section of Scripture, which he just leapfrogged into, but didn't put up on the screen behind him. think about that in his concept in his presentation at this moment in time the audience is supposed to believe that he is discussing romans one through five with four or five of the wall think about that a little bit let's uh... let's continue on we are going to be treated to uh... a uh... an emotional appeal coming up now So think about what I just read, and now listen to what he has to say as he proceeds. And even if some of these are their parents, or their children, or their loved ones, these people can't question God. Who are you to question me? I can do and make you whatever I want. If I want to damn them to hell before they're even born, that's my decision. I can do what I want. You don't question me. You worship me because, look, at least you're not one of them. Didn't I just explain that? In the same lump of clay, vessels, noble causes, chamber pot. So, but we're going to bring the family into this. We're going to make it personal. We're going to go, oh, you know, your dad, God may not want us. What if dad is a chamber pot? According to Romans 9. Well, what if dad isn't a chamber pot? What if he's a vessel of mercy? As James will point out, we don't know which one is which. Our job is to proclaim the gospel to both, and let God do the saving, and let God be the just judge. Our job is to proclaim the gospel to all mankind. There's a whole big difference between that and what he's going after here. But he'd rather pull your heart strings and go, oh, well, you know, that little baby that you just had, God may not want to save your little baby. You know, he may be damned, or he may be one of those vessels of wrath. that Paul talks about in this passage. That's hard to hear. And he knows it. And he's going to pull your heart strings. But the one thing he's not doing is dealing with this text. I didn't say this was an easy text. It's not an easy text. But the fact of the matter is it says what it says. And either we learn to deal with it and submit to our great God whom we claim to love above all things. What happened to Jesus talking about, unless you hate your mother and father? What about that? What about those concepts? No, he don't want to talk about those. God is the ultimate benevolence. Above all his other attributes is benevolence, and that's where he's coming from right now, and he's pulling on your heartstrings. Let's keep going. You need to worship me. You see, as much as I love my Calvinistic brethren, I believe this is a complete misreading of Paul's intention in this passage. okay so he believes it's a complete misreading of paul's intention in the passage and yet all i did there was just read it really is is is this what if god willing to demonstrate his wrath and make his power known endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and he did so to make known the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy? Is that not saying exactly what he just decried? I think it is. Let's keep going. So what do I believe? This lump of clay, in our perspective, represents hardened Israel at this time, not all of humanity. So let's back up and consider this question. What was Jesus attempting to accomplish in the first three years of his public ministry? Was he attempting to be a great evangelist and just have thousands to come to him? Was he attempting to have a Damascus Road experience for every single Israelite? He could have, he's the son of God, he could have done it that way, but it seems he does just the opposite. Jesus would heal someone and then he would say to them, see that you don't tell anyone about this. If you recall, Jesus spoke in parables. Why? Why would you need to speak in parables? To prevent the Pharisees from understanding and believing. He's cutting them off. He's blinding them. Jesus clearly did not want some people to turn and be forgiven, at least not yet. This is part of God's active work in judicially hardening Israel. Calvinists believe everyone, not just Israel at this time, but every single individual is born judicially hardened, and they remain hardened their entire life without ever hope of salvation. Why? Because God salvifically hated them since before creation, and that's just the way He ordained it. So don't question Him. But we believe Israel, over the years, like clay, can grow hardened if it's left out. they've become calloused by their own choosing despite god's enduring holding out his hands despite his patience and his love for them and only now at this time this crucial time in human history is he judicially hardening them and giving them over to the rebellion to accomplish redemption through them okay so now the new narrative is fully formed and is stood up so All of his argumentation forward will come from this perspective. What Paul wrote doesn't matter. It is now about what he has in that book, in that three ring binder, typed out. That's the new narrative and that's, you know, tell me I'm wrong and maybe this is harsh again, but that's what he's treating as scripture. I don't think he thinks that's scripture. But that's my objection, Professor Flowers. You appeal to the rules. You appeal to, I saw you on Facebook the other day appealing to PhDs that like the way you do it. Sir, there are those who look at the scriptures, and folks pay attention here, they look at the scriptures and they see it in a flat manner. So if I'm looking at this text of scripture here, it's equivalent to that text over there. There's no texture in either one that causes me to be concerned about drawing information from any place because it's all on a level playing field. It's all equal. And so I can be in Romans chapter 1 and go to places like, oh, I don't know, Sodom and Gomorrah and pluck out a sin that I want them to have had that wasn't homosexuality, but is instead, oh, they weren't hospitable. And I can take that and I can shove it into Romans chapter one. Oh, wait a minute. Does this look, sound familiar to you? Sir, you don't like that conclusion, and neither do I. Why? Because that's not what Romans 1 says, and that's certainly not what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. We both know that. But I tell you, Mr. Vines and his friends are using the same exact method that you are. The only difference is, they're drawing a different conclusion than you. You need to think about that. No. Scripture has contours to it. There are portions of Scripture that are historical in nature. There are portions in Scripture that are teaching in nature. This passage here, Romans chapter 9, all of Romans, is a teaching, a didactic text. We're supposed to be learning things as the Apostle Paul is our teacher. He is our professor. He is the one who is, as I said early on, he is winding his way through a presentation as the lawyer presents his case, thorough, detailed, and woven. There is a texture here, and he is also building block upon block upon block upon block of information. Everything that comes here is tied to that which came before. Not in a flat sense, there is texture. But not for latent flowers. Layton Flowers throws all these verses up on the screen and he just starts reading, reading, reading, reading. I'm going to give you an example of that. I don't know if we'll get to it today, but I might give you an example of that later on as he continues to try to make this case and he starts dragging the Edomites into the discussion of Esau and Jacob. and you're going to find out that contextual reading isn't just about the focal text at hand. You need to be doing contextual reading on all the other ones, too. And if you don't do that, then you can make Scripture say whatever you want it to say. And gee, I wonder where the skeptics in the world got the idea that the Bible isn't trustworthy, because you can make it say whatever you want it to say. Well, if I treated Shakespeare the way you treat Romans 9, sir, I can do the same thing with Shakespeare. It's not the Bible's problem that you treat it that way. The Word was delivered with clarity. The challenge is, are you willing to submit to that clarity? In any case, again, I want to reiterate, like I said, I'm getting dragged into the Calvinism stuff here, but the point is letting the scripture speak, letting it speak loudly as men spoke from God, as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Not you, not me. They were. And that's why we have their words, their concepts, their thoughts, and their teachings right here in this book. Okay, where am I after I got sidetracked there? Okay, so we have a new narrative. It's now fully formed and let's continue on here. I'm trying to get more and more in, in between interruptions, but there are points in which I just, I just did. I gotta, I gotta, I gotta do something and say something about this. I'm sure somebody is going to get a hold of my face I just made. And next thing you know, I'm going to be the one making demonic faces. Look out. Okay, here we go. Why would Jesus need to blind people if they are already born totally, completely blind? Why send a spirit to a corpse? A spirit of stupor to a dead man? Seems redundant, doesn't it? You see, men are born sinners. Yes. They are not born judicially hardened. They are not born unable to respond to the loving call of their Father. Okay, there we have it again. direct correlation between judicial hardening, which is a totally other thing than the deadness of man and sin. So we have the deadness of man and sin. We're going to shove them together and then we're going to extrapolate and, well, we're going to impeach Calvinism through this method. And as I said earlier, he's now stood up the new narrative and now he's attacking this false narrative, the straw man, that he's created, of combining judicial hardening together with the deadness of man and sin, and that forces him to, again, create a whole new narrative, a whole new argument, and not deal with what Calvinists really believe. Misuse of the passages, misuse of my belief system, sir. And again, I want to say this. You've complained a number of times on social media that Dr. White, nor I take you seriously. If I haven't demonstrated that already, sir, you're right. And this is why I don't take you seriously. I'm using your presentation here, sir, to indict so many other preachers that do what you do they may not do it as extravagantly as you did here they may not pour as much work into this as you did here but they do do it and i don't care how many phds say it's okay if that phd thinks that what you've done here is rightly dividing i don't think that their their degree is worth the paper it's written on I don't. You may look at me and go, Oh, you're just a layman. You don't know what you're talking about. Here's the problem. I've been a Christian for a long time. I've been in apologetics for a long time as a layman. And my response is, sir, I may have been born at night. It wasn't last night. And any PhD, THD, S J. that uses this method I got no time for it's not honest and if you want our attention you're gonna have to get honest and I have a feeling that that water that ship has sailed too much water into the bridge sir you're not interested in properly accurately representing what I believe or nor why I believe it You're certainly willing to take the scriptures and twine them into a tangled web. I'm not. I'm not. Where are we again here as I get caught up here? So we're at 1148, judicial hardening. Let's move on here. At this time in history, Israel has grown calloused against the revelation of God. Paul teaches us this very clearly in Acts chapter 28. He says this. This is a didactic text, by the way, out of Acts. Okay, this one I couldn't let hang. The book of Romans is a didactic text. Romans chapter 9 is a didactic text. It's a teaching text. I've already explained twice now what involves that kind of teaching for the Apostle Paul. In Acts 28, there is a portion, a small portion of a summary of what Paul preached that day. He preached all day, as you point out here. But the book of Acts is a historical text, not a didactic text. And I'm not going to argue this with you. You should know better. book of acts is a transitional book the new church the baby church out of the gospel era and transitioning out of a as a sect of judaism into a point of standing on its own two feet we call this the acts of the apostles that's the full name of it the acts of the apostles this is the accounting the historical accounting of what they did. Do we learn things from their preaching in this? You bet we do. But that doesn't make it a didactic text. We will learn things from the section of Paul's sermon that you will read from, but it's still within and part of and is a historical nature. But just as you've done so many times so far, I believe that you have a need to make this equivalent to Romans nine, so that this is a didactic text and this is a didactic text. This is Paul preaching. This is Paul preaching. I'm going to take him in this context and make him say what I need him to say. And again, just like I've done in so many other places, I'm going to shove it in here and stand it up. Suddenly, Romans 9 is not looking very familiar. In fact, it's actually becoming a faint glimmer in the distance as you take us off onto another realm. Paul witnessed to them from morning until evening, explaining about the kingdom of God from the law of Moses and from the prophets. He tried to persuade them about Jesus. Talk about a long invitation. Here's a long one. All day long. Some were convinced by what he said, but others, they wouldn't believe. So what's Paul conclude? He must not love them. He must not have selected them. No, what's he conclude? He says, for this people's heart has become calloused. They hardly hear with their ears. They have closed their eyes. What does it say? Otherwise, they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand. And they would turn, and I would heal them. Therefore, I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen. Notice it says their hearts have become calloused. Not that they were born calloused. Babies are not born with callouses on their hands, and they're certainly not born with callouses on their hearts. Callouses grow over time with tension, with rebellion. Go to Acts 28. Not you, Professor Flowers. I think you've already made your case, and you've convinced yourself of it. go to Acts 27 and 28, read through the entire passage and see if what he just depicted, see if what he just explained has anything to do with what is there. Again, we have this transitional book that is giving the account of the church, the early church, the first church, standing on its own two feet as an independent entity. Is God turning to the Gentiles? Is the gospel going to the Gentiles? Yes. But it's a totally different context than Romans 9 is. It's a totally different context than how you've depicted it. But you'll grab hold of that one word, calloused. And here come the babies. The babies. Little babies. Little babies grow up to be men like George Washington. Or Thomas Jefferson. Or Billy Graham. Or Hitler. We never want to think about the baby in that regard. But the fact of the matter is, is that sinful baby, as they say, so many parents know, they're sinful. You don't have to teach a child to lie. The old adage that the child comes out of the womb shaking one fist at mom and dad and the other fist at God. Anybody who's had the children that you've had, sir, should know better. than to depict the sweet innocent little baby, the sweet poor innocent little baby who grows up to show his sin in a matter of moments after birth. But, you know, it's easier to pull at our heartstrings in order to get us to back off and submit to your line of thinking instead of submitting to what's actually taught in the text. Preaching with an agenda. It does work, sadly. It does. So, let's move on. Now what might a person be able to do if they're not calloused? The text tells us plainly, they might see, hear, understand, and turn. This is an explicit teaching of man's natural abilities prior to becoming calloused. So in direct contrast to the condition of the Jews who have grown calloused, Paul says the message will go to the Gentiles, and they will listen. Now why might they listen? Why might they hear? They're still sinful people, aren't they? Yes, they're having orgies. They're horrible, sinful people. Yes, but they're not judicially hardened by God. This is what Paul is talking about in Romans 9-11 with the cutting off of the Jews and the grafting in of the Gentiles. This is the special revelation of God first which the Jews. And what happened? They grew callous to it, generally speaking. So God has cut them off. Okay, so now we're transitioning into a part where he now starts reaching out and he just said Romans 9-11 as a block is about this. No. Go look at it, folks. All you have to do is read it for yourself. The focus transitions to Israel in mid to late chapter 10. Yes, 11 is about God hardening Israel. That's the thing. There are some things in here you talk about familiarity There are things in here that are familiar because he's he and he knows that we believe these things okay, it's a common thinking between Armenians and Calvinists that we look at this Israel had they were the people of God we believe that And they crucified our Lord And as such, the transition took place, the gospel went to the Gentiles, because Israel rejected her Messiah. But as Romans 9 talks about, not all the Jews rejected her Messiah. Not all of them. So what do you do with that? James challenges you on that point. And again, you dismiss it out of hand. Dismiss it out of hand. the more times I see you dismiss these things and not actually wrestle with them, it becomes more and more disturbing to me as I listen to this. And again, somebody taught you this is okay. And somebody taught them and somebody taught them. This tradition goes back a long way. But it is a tradition that has an attitude that the preacher has a right over the text, and not the other way around. I submit to you that the text has the right over the preacher. There's some other group out there four or five hundred years ago that still to this day, but the Reformation thing happened and challenged them, but they too have this mentality that the priest or the Pope has a right over the text and they call that Holy Roman Tradition. Maybe not exactly the same thing, but the same source and concept. The problem is, when you start running away from Scripture unto your own agenda, you're going to fall prey to the same trap they fell prey to. And that's what's been happening. And I submit to you that the John Dominic Crossings of the world, who look at the Scripture, all of the Scripture, And if you doubt me on this, go to the debate that Dr. White had with him. You can see where he talks about the nature of scripture to him. Yes, it's flat. But what makes it interesting is that he sees it all as a parable. How many times in that debate does he remind himself, well, it's a parable, dummy. It's a parable. I tell myself it's a parable, dummy. If you look at all of scripture as a parable, how will that skew your understanding of what is plain? I don't see a difference. It's just a different agenda, that's all. You're just looking for a different result. But ultimately, you're not holding this up. You're not being the pillar and foundation that holds up God's Word as the truth. I'm not seeing a big difference there myself. All right, let's hear him out and try to get this at least finished up for today as the time is fleeting here, and at least get this portion finished up. Here we go. And now it's being sent to the Gentiles who are being grafted in. So God has given Israel over to the calloused hearts, and he has blinded them in their rebellion so they cannot recognize their own Messiah. So doesn't that prove God's word has failed, as verse 6 says? Okay, uh back here. All right, you know, what's interesting is that he will throughout this debate bring up that verse Can't continually questioning. God's word failed has god words. God has like has god's word failed has god's word failed and Again, that's one of those verses that he's reciting to poke at us. He's trying to get an emotional react Oh, no, we don't want to say that. Oh, no, we don't want to say that And he's got you in a corner, and now he's got you where he wants you. That's the tactic that is at play here. OK, so we've heard him out, and we have just a few minutes left on the show. So let's, so I played that to stop. All right, let's listen to James's presentation. of Romans 9, verses 1 through 5. That's what that was, by the way. Romans 9, 1 through 5. Let's see how James handled this text and see how long this takes. At the beginning of chapter 9, Paul says he has unceasing grief and unceasing pain in his heart for his fellow Israelites. He could wish to himself be separated from Christ. What's he talking about? Well, again, he's talking about salvation. He's talking about their being brought into a relationship with their own Messiah. And he talks about the great privileges that were theirs, and especially in verse 4. who are the Israelites, who is the adoption of sons, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the Latria is the highest form of worship. It's the worship in the temple and the promises. And then the greatest thing that they have, the greatest thing that has happened is the very son of God, God himself has entered into human flesh through the people of Israel. And that's why Jesus is described as God over all, eternally blessed in verse five. that's it that's james's presentation on romans 9 1 through 5 he just read it talks about it summarizes it that's it we have this call to consistency james repeatedly brings up to professor flowers this call to consistency in fact again in the cross-examination and again if you want to look for yourself and to check me on this at one hour six minutes fifty four seconds to one hour eight minutes fifty eight seconds there is discussion where james asks him directly is this the method that you would use with a muslim never last week I point out that whether I'm on the street corner, behind a pulpit, in a classroom, sitting across the table with a friend, I need to be consistent in how I handle the Word of God. I need to be consistent in my method. After pressing a couple of times, Professor Flowers will say, no, no, it's not. Then here comes the excuse, but there's a time and a place for all things. And then he appeals to someone in the audience who drove a long way. I guess that makes him a Calvinist. I don't really know why he had to go there. The only thing that I can get from this exchange between the two men is that somehow Professor Flowers sees this particular venue as an opportunity to where he must do more. than just what he agreed to do. So he's got to lay out the entire case and it's got to preach good. I don't understand that and I don't think I ever will understand that. Whether that man drove across the country or came halfway around the world, the most valuable thing that he can hear is the Word of God, preached faithfully. And mark my words, this may be a debate. All you have to do is listen to Professor Flowers. Look what he does in the rebuttals. Look what he does in the closing. It is an end-to-end sermon. The only departure from that is the cross-examination period. And you're going to see in the cross-examination period that Dr. White exercises great restraint. member what i said the point of cross-examination is you are supposed to interact with what your opponent said it is introduction and in this room in his rebuttal so that's exactly what james did i'd i'd point you in that direction between now thursday go and look at the whole debate go focus on those cross-examinations and see if james departs from what was presented. He's trying to inquire, but he's also very confused as to how in the world Professor Flowers jettisons what he agreed to. But he restrains himself. I would not have been so restrained. I don't have the self-control that James does. I'm more than happy to admit it, I don't. But it is what it is. Well, I want to thank you for joining me today. I once again hope that I have honored the ministry of the gospel of Christ and that I have exhorted you to a high view of scripture and the value behind believing what is written. and recognizing that this is what men wrote from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. We need to recognize that and we need to submit to that. Hopefully I can get the tech issues worked out and on Thursday we will be live on YouTube. Pray for me in that regard. Blessings.