And welcome to The Dividing Line, my name is Rich Pierce, and I'm once again sitting in for Dr. White today as we continue our review of the Romans 9 debate. Boy, I tell you, running both sides of this equation is very stressful. YouTube, I don't even know right now whether or not YouTube is behaving. I'm praying that it is stabilized. But it took me four or five shots at connecting up to YouTube today, and I'm just hoping that we actually have a live stream on YouTube. If we don't, if it's hiccuping on you, I apologize for that. I will upload the recorded version of this later on if that's what it comes to, but I'm really hoping that it doesn't. so just a word of reminder uh... we've been taking a look at the romans nine debate between doctor white late in flowers of dallas baptist university from last may and uh... we've actually only gotten into a very short portion of this although we're uh... fifteen minutes into my version of this video we have another i'd believe twenty to go and i've got to get through all of that today so time is very limited for me and But at the same time, we'll probably be playing larger segments of this as Professor Flowers has now fully stood up his alternate narrative in opposition to the narrative given by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9. I want to remind you of our charge. Our charge is that, is from 2 Timothy 2 15, and that we are to accurately handle the word of truth. It's pretty simple. It's pretty straightforward. We are to take an honest evaluation of the word as it comes to us. And as I said in the beginning, sometimes this isn't easy. But it is not for us to make it up as we go along. I don't like what this text says. I'm pretty sure there was someone in history who was accused of having a Bible with a whole bunch of sections that he took his scissors to simply because he didn't like them. I do not see a difference between someone doing that with Romans chapter 9, literally, and I've heard actually people do this, literally just come to Romans chapter 9 and go, I don't like that, and they just tear it out of their Bible. Gone. Problem solved. It's over with. It's gone. No, I want you to take again, and I know it's hard, and I know that some on social media have been reaching out to me trying to get me to take a look at Professor Flowers' responses to what I've already put out there, but I'm not going to do that, and I'll explain why. I think there's two ways of going about this. I can chase Professor Flowers down every single misapplied verse that he throws out. out a contextual verse that he throws out, false narrative that he throws out, or I can simply bring him to the truth. What is the truth? The truth is what Romans 9 actually says, plain on its face, using the same method that I would use reading Romans 8, or Romans 1, or Romans 3, or yes, Romans 11, Professor Flowers. But you see, Again, as I explained in the last Tuesday's episode, you and I, I think, look at the Scriptures in a fundamentally different manner. I look for the context first. If I am going to reach out to Acts chapter 28 to evaluate whether or not it has value to inform me on what is Romans chapter 9, I need to first establish the context of Romans chapter 9 and then second establish the context of Acts 28. Does what is being discussed over here plug into what is being discussed over here? If I cannot establish that link, then this passage does not illuminate that passage. But sadly, or I don't know how long men have found it acceptable to do what you've done here. They've found it acceptable to proof text everything in scripture. I have a point and I'm going to go proof text it all over the place. I can run around proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, and my proof texts are bigger than your proof texts and so therefore I win. I don't believe that's rightly dividing the word of truth, sir. It's just that simple. It's just that simple. I want to remind you that your method is a reflection of how you view the scriptures. Again, your method is a reflection of how you view the scriptures. If you will play fast and loose, and that's what you've done here, fast and loose with the scriptures in order to prove your point, you believe that your point is more important than what the scriptures say directly. If you will play fast and loose with the Scriptures the way you've done here, you in effect believe that your point is more important than the Scripture's point, than the Romans 9 point. And that's really what this boils down to. So we need to follow the simple act of contextual reading. Fancy word for it is exegesis. We need to read out from the text what is there, not bring our Baggage and read that into the text eisegesis Simple act of contextual reading Again as I said on Tuesday Paul's writing style is that of a lawyer Building his case an airtight case that he knows is in a lot of ways as I started thinking about that concept Paul really is the prosecutor he is laying the case out and before mankind of the sovereignty of God in salvation the sovereignty of God in it all that he does within creation and without and that there is a purpose in this he takes point upon point and those points lead to the next point every bit of it as Dr. White points out in his presentation we'll hear that today the thread that he weaves through the whole narrative unfortunately professor flowers has put himself in the position of being the defense attorney wants to distract from the evidence his job is to create doubt against the evidence or in the evidence and ultimately he's going to do this by presenting his own alternate theory what he calls the noble cause what is the noble cause The noble cause, according to Professor Flowers, is using temporarily hardened Israel to bring redemption. So he believes, as he puts it, Paul's intention here in Romans 9 is using temporarily hardened Israel to bring redemption. I think we've already exposed that as a foreign narrative, not just a false narrative, a foreign narrative because the hardening that takes place in Romans 9 is not the hardening that's taking place in Romans 11. The two don't go together. Remember what I said a minute ago about whether or not this illumines this. No, Romans 11 is merely another stage of the case that Paul has made built on top of Romans 9. He's already established this portion, and Romans 11 is him moving on and now discussing a whole other topic, but that is all built upon what has come before. we have the hijacking of terms and phrases uh... like judicial hardening and others paul writes with precision and yet flowers is all over the place shoehorning numerous texts into his case and over the top of the plain text that is known as a romans nine he attempts to get out in front of paul in the previous chat section we just looked at verses one through five by doing it and around What's really interesting is what we're going to be looking at today, later on, you're actually going to see when he gets to the point where he did the end around 1 through 5, he's going to take that and then try to leapfrog backwards into using verse 6 as a baseball bat of doubt to bludgeon you with. Bludgeon the text with, really. He will appeal to the rules of hermeneutics and authority. Yeah, he's done it on social media a number of times. Look, I've got all these PhDs that like me. They think it's cool. They support my position. They support my method. Professor Flowers, let me be clear. Apparently I wasn't yesterday because someone this morning feels that I need to engage you directly. Accused me of doing a hit and run. No. Dr. White engaged you directly. I'm exposing your method and I'm challenging your rules. I'm challenging your hermeneutic. That's right, me, a layman, sitting here challenging your hermeneutic as dishonest and not honoring to the word of truth. Your hermeneutic does not honor the word of truth because it has an agenda of its own. It's eisegesis. And we should never do that under any circumstances. So set the subject of Calvinism aside one more time for me. And as we saw in Dr. White's review, 58 seconds, compared to Professor Flower's 8 minutes and 46 seconds in that section, verses 1 through 5, It should be no surprise to anyone that I believe that Dr. White, here in this debate, gave a clinic in rightly dividing. He managed his time very well. He established the context step-by-step and he followed, he didn't lead, he followed the lead of the writer, the inspired writer, the Apostle Paul. And that's what rightly dividing is all about. The contrast could not be greater. As I said, Dr. White spent 58 seconds in the text. And from here on out, you're going to see him spend about two minutes. He manages his time very well. You're going to see him spend about two minutes in each section. And by the way, I did divide these sections up based on The separations that I think Professor Flowers made as he took on bite by bite, section by section of the text. And I used his slides on the wall pretty much as my guide to do that. Some of it as I play it back seems a little confusing and disjointed to me even as I play it back that was not on purpose. It's just simply trying to put the two presentations side by side one another as best I can so that as we take this part and then measure this part against it and make a parallel there as best we can. So as we continue on here, let's see here. Let me do this. We're going to take a look at the section of scripture and don't do that to me. Suddenly my, oh, Bill Gates wants to say something to me here on my computer for a moment and I don't want him to say that. So we're going to just kind of, Oh, and I need to plug in my sound. Oh, yeah. Thanks, Bill. I appreciate that. Yeah, let's just go with that. And we're going to go up here, the tech, when you're flying solo. Let us read into your hearing the next section of verses, which is Romans chapter 9, verses 6 and 7. And I'm going to go ahead and put them right up there. Have that blown up. Let me go full screen on this. romans nine verse six but it is not as though the word of god has failed or they are not all israel who are descended from israel nor are they all children because they are abraham's descendants but through isaac your descendants will be named so that is the the section that we're about to take a look at and i'm gonna go ahead and queue up the video and hope that this all works very well. And let's listen to Professor Flowers as he begins this section. So doesn't that prove God's Word has failed, as verse 6 says? No, but why not? Because God's hardening, His shutting off of Israel, is actually fulfilling His Word. It's not causing it to fail. Okay, I'd like you to take note of one thing here that's really, there we go, it's right there on the screen. So, but it is not as though God's word, the word of God has failed. So we're going to take this snippet of the passage of the verse and then we're going to butt it up against Romans 11, 32. And the two don't go together. But in his world, he needs to use this doubt passage, this doubt verse, as a baseball bat in order to prop up his narrative of hardened Israel. That this is all about hardened Israel, which we've already taken a look at. Let's continue on here. God has a sovereign purpose in fulfilling His Word through hardened Israel. It is, as Paul concludes at the end of 11.32, it says, for God has shut up all in disobedience. Why? So that he may show mercy to all. This is God's plan to show mercy to all people. Now, how does he do that? Well, by hardening Israel, he's ensured the crucifixion and the engrafting of the Gentiles. And notice that individually hardened Israelites might still be saved and grafted back in according to Romans chapter 11, all of which goes to show what point? God's word hasn't failed. But it goes further than that. At this time in history, God hasn't hardened every Israelite. He has reserved for Himself a remnant, as Dr. White pointed out. A remnant to do what? Just to be irresistibly saved? No! To fulfill His promise by bringing the Word to the world. Listen, not every descendant of Israel is chosen to do what God elected Israel to do. Or as Paul put it, for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel. Not every individual Israelite is chosen to carry out the purpose for which God elected the nation of Israel. Not every Israelite is chosen to be a prophet, a priest, a king, or in the lineage of Christ. Not all of them are chosen to be a prophet. There we go. Okay. We'll back that up here in just a moment. The focus is now fully moved to Romans chapter 11. We're using snippets from Romans 9-6 to highlight Romans chapter 11. So if there is illumination going on, the focus is actually over in 11, and we're using snippets from 6 to interpret 11. But again, as I said earlier, these are out of context, this is out of context, and But if you put them together, you make a contextual case for his foreign construct, which isn't a part of the text at all in either place. So let me get back to where we should have been here. 1623 is where we wanted to stop there. And we'll get right there. We'll just pick up from here at 1616 and let him continue on. Israel. Not every individual Israelite is chosen to carry out the purpose for which God elected the nation of Israel. Not every Israelite is chosen to be a prophet, a priest, a king, or in the lineage of Christ. Not all of them are chosen to be apostles, to carry the word and have the authority. You see, not every Israelite is chosen to fulfill the promise that God originally made to Abraham. And what was that promise? to bless all the families of the earth through His seed." You see, there's a false perception at this day and time of the Israelites. What's that false perception? One, they assumed that they were born the authorities of God's Word. We speak God's Word. And they also assume that they're born children of God. By being a child of Abraham, that makes me a child of God. I'm guaranteed salvation. And Paul's response to that way of thinking is to say, no, no, not every Israelite is chosen to be an authority to carry the word of God. Not everyone's elected for that purpose. In verse 7, nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants. You see, Calvinists take these two verses to mean that only some of Abraham's descendants are born elected to be effectually saved. Okay, stop right there. Did you listen to what he just said? we have a straw man being propped up right here again he's already smuggled the hardened israel construct into this text as he continues to beat that drum hardened israel hardened israel hardened israel it is a rabbit completely outside the text now take note of what he just said calvinists take these two verses verses six and seven to mean that only some of Abraham's descendants are born elected to be effectually saved. I'm going to repeat that. Calvinists take these two verses to mean that only some of Abraham's descendants are born elected to be effectually saved. When we come to Dr. White's portion of this, as he covers it, I want you to keep that statement in mind and ask yourself if Dr. White says that. or if he merely goes through the texts and explains what it says right there. Is this a fair description of what we find in Dr. White's presentation? Also keep in mind, Professor Flowers has already at this point, even though I'm putting Flowers first in this discussion for this case, Professor Flowers has actually already heard Dr. White on this topic. So he's already heard him, what we're about to hear when we get there. So let's continue on here. No! Paul's saying no descendant is going to be effectually saved on the basis that they are a descendant. You are not irresistibly saved because of who your granddaddy is. You are saved based not on your nationality, but on grace through faith. It's always been that way. Okay, now I want to point out something here. In the interest of fairness, I think my evaluation of the opening statements is at this point right here we actually find the two debaters as close to the text together as we're going to find. Yes, Dr. White, we already know Dr. White's simply following the text step by step all the way through, but as far as the tangled web that has already been laid out for us by Professor Flowers to lead us off to this hardened Israel thinking, he does come to the point where he's dealing with the issue of descendant israel their issues that he leaves out of this so while they may be close at this point in time it's not gonna last very long See, it is all about faith versus works. Those who are striving to earn righteousness versus those who trust in the promise of God and His imputed righteousness, which is exactly why Paul goes on to give a history lesson. Okay, the Apostle Paul is going to give us a history lesson, but I want you to look at a little something. And pause right there. Let's go full screen with that. You see what's up on the wall? Abraham's descendants, according to Professor Flowers' slide, ends Romans 9-7. But when we look here, right there, he completely left that off. He completely leaves, but through Isaac, your descendants will be named. To be honest, I can't exactly figure out why he left that off. My first inclination was it was just a cut and paste error for the slide. But then I looked. Let's tap back to it. There's a period at the end of that. Look at BibleWorks. Comma. Not a period. But through Isaac, your descendants will be named. the most generous explanation that i can make here is the professor flowers thought that it might derail you from the point that he just made he's trying to make a narrow point he's been st arguing these hard lines between israel law and gentiles grace as he constructs this new narrative and verses six and seven trying to establish no link regarding his descendants that the promises about the gospel when the promises jesus by the way but uh... he's he's trying to see some broad generalities here and the problem is if he lets you see that I think it might cause you to go looking right back at the text again it draws your eyes when it what all and suddenly you're reading the text again and not following along with him that's to be honest the most generous motivation I can come up with for doing that And if you don't believe me, look again. He put a period on the end of that. Unquote. Period. Unquote. Okay, let's continue on. Oops, and then we have the history list now. We're about to go into James's presentation here, and this one lasts almost... Back to the... Hello. Yeah, let's do that. The tech has been good to me. I'm really hoping and praying that YouTube is actually live. We'll see. but uh... we're gonna play james's segment which is exactly two minutes long and then compare it with uh... professor flowers is depiction above again i want to read remind you back in your hearing he says calvinist take these two verses to mean that only some of abraham's descendants are born elected to be effectually saved and if you're gonna decry that Which is, I don't think, actually a fair description. But if you're going to decry that, the concept of Isaac there, through Isaac your descendants will be named, that's the promise. I think it undermines where you're trying to go with this. But we'll see. Let's listen to Dr. White as he now brings us Romans 9, verses 6 and 7. This then brings us to the key of this evening's discussion, and I believe that this will be borne out by the discussion that we have. verses 6 and 7 determine how we must understand the rest of the discussion in chapter 9. Because, obviously, what is going on here is the Apostle Paul has encountered objections to his teaching many, many times before. Look at all the things you've said in chapter 8 about all that God has done, and yet, Paul, you're a small minority of Jews. The small minority of Jews are accepting their own Messiah. The great majority, including the leaders, are rejecting this movement. So, Paul, are you not saying that the promises of God, are you not saying that the very Word of God has fallen flat on its face, has come to no effect? And that's the exact objection he responds to. And his answer is, no, you need to understand, they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel. And then he's going to give example after example after example of how God has, in His sovereign freedom, guided the path of the promise and the blessing within the descendants of Israel as God has seen fit to do so, and he has rejected some of those who are the offspring of Abraham, but he has accepted others, and it's all of his own Freedom it has nothing to do with anything that they did it was not well, you know We've got that we've got the good Israelites over here and the bad Israelites over there And so I rejected them but there these have been good enough. No, that is not what Paul is talking about He gives this example after example after example, so he starts within the very family of abraham itself he talks about isaac and he says well you know it could have been it could have been ishmael but no god says in isaac shall your seed be called okay so we'll stop right there that's doctor white's uh... exegesis of romans nine six through seven and again here's what's interesting when we compare what james just said with what professor flowers said previously there's a problem Paul's focus is on the children of the promise, or the blessing, and that's through Isaac. So as Dr. White points out, the promise is through Isaac. That's descendant. But it's also by faith. There's a faith there. But it's also particular and prophetic. Professor Flowers wants to focus on the prophetic, but he wants to ignore the particular. Let me explain what I mean. God is going to be described here as having a purpose in all of this. As Dr. White said, he weaves this purpose, this blessing through the family line. There is a descendant factor here, and that particularity comes from God's purpose in election. It's described that way, that it might stand. We're going to get to that. But you see, for Professor Flowers, he can't let you go there. He can only look at the prophetic. If he looks at the particular, he falls into Paul's argument, which he will soon be arguing directly against. The bottom line here is he's got to avoid its basis being in God's promise. Okay, so we're going to go ahead and move on, and we are, like I said, taking a faster approach than we did last time around, and there's a reason for that. And we're going to look at Romans 8 through 13, Romans 9 verses 8 through 13, and see We're going to start with Professor Flowers and see how he approaches it. Let's first read it into your hearing. That is, back up the truck here a little bit. Context, context, context, right? And boy, I'm just bumping things. All right, but through Isaac, your descendants will be named. That is... It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise who are regarded as descendants. For this is the word of the promise, at this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac. For though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it is said to her that the older will serve the younger, just as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. Okay, and let's go ahead and switch back over and go ahead and play this segment. Those who are striving to earn righteousness versus those who trust in the promise of God and His imputed righteousness. Which is exactly why Paul goes on to give a history lesson using Ishmael in contrast with Isaac and Esau in contrast with Jacob. Now let's just stop for a second and talk about Ishmael and Esau. Is Paul literally meaning to say that God hated Ishmael and Esau since before the creation of the world and they have no hope of salvation whatsoever? no i think if you read the old test well i think if you will go run away to the old testament and let's uh... not let paul make his own argument uh... is paul meaning to say that god hated ishmael and he saw the text we have in front of us doesn't even know the address that it's the next that addresses that so once again we have professor flowers Getting out in front of it. And if you don't really understand what I mean when I say getting out in front of it, I'll give you an example. I tell my son, as I raised him, when you have issues in school that you can see, I didn't do that well on that test or I didn't do that well here. I tell him, go to your teacher. Get out in front of it. before it becomes a big problem, before it becomes a festering thing. So it's a defensive measure. You're supposed to get out in front of the thing so that you can minimize its damage. So in this case, Once again, he's getting out in front of the text that is coming past the section that's actually up on the screen, and he's going after that. And the interesting thing is, I find that as Professor Flowers talks about Paul's intention to talk, did Paul mean this? Did Paul mean that? It's almost like he's channeling. No, he's not channeling. I know that, but you know, somehow he has this ability to read Paul's mind and what he actually had to say is not what he meant to say. He really didn't mean that at all. Let's go right away to the old Testament and we can establish these things. But if we read the text and we look at verses nine through 13 through 13 right there, We see the full measure of what Paul is saying, for this is the word of the promise, at this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son, and not only this, but there was a Rebecca also. I read all this for you. But he asks the question, does Paul mean to say this? Well folks, you tell me. It's right there on your screen. You tell me if that isn't what Paul meant. And this is a two-fold argument, and Dr. White will point this out as he gets into this when it's his turn. Argument one, example one, he's made his argument now. His example is the older will serve the younger. Second example is Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. These are two examples of the point he's trying to make. James, we'll get into these things. Okay, let's go ahead and continue. The Old Testament accounts, you'll see that Abraham's prayer to bless Ishmael and take care of Ishmael was granted in Genesis 17. And regarding Esau, God specifically told Israel, look at the screen, it says Deuteronomy 23, 7, Do not despise an Edomite, for they are your brother. God's not a hypocrite. He's not going to tell them not to hate him if he hates him himself. Okay, now this one I've got to dig into. As I said earlier, you can't chase down every stray verse that are thrown around in these situations. My area of experience in Alpha Omega Ministries and apologetics has been in the area of Mormonism, in witnessing to Mormons. It is where I started out, it was the thing that we were doing when I first became a member in 1986-87 and these are the people that we're out there witnessing to and it is very commonplace for them to be putting up all these different verses that they think supports their heresy. The idea that God was once a man, lived on another planet. Well, let's go look at God's finger writing on the wall. Let's go look at, you know, God having hands and all these different examples. Hey, Jacob wrestled with God. He has to have a body of flesh and bones, right? We can chase these things down right and left, or we can go to the scriptures that teach directly on the nature and being of God. And we can explain those things and show them the truth of where we derive these things from, and the fact that they're simply plucking those verses out of context becomes apparent in the process of doing it. But in this particular situation, Deuteronomy 23 verse 7, Let's see here. I'm gonna write over here to Deuteronomy. I thought I had this in the box there, but we're gonna look at verse 23, verse 7. There's Deuteronomy 23 for you folks. How about that first one, huh? No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord. Fun, huh? This is the law. being delivered. These are the rules. These people can enter the assembly of the Lord. And this is why. But look down at verse 4. Last half of verse 4. Those people hired against you Balaam, the son of Beor and Pthor of Mesopotamia to curse you. Nevertheless, the Lord your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the Lord your God loves you. You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days. Let's move this up a little bit so we can see this a little better. Now we come to the verse that Professor Flowers just plucked out of its context for us and shoved into the Romans 9 argument. You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother. So he just made that comparison of God doesn't hate the Edomites, he's not a hypocrite, so he didn't hate them then and he doesn't hate them now. You know, it's interesting to me that Professor Flowers went here Because if we look at the context of Romans 9, while he's talking about Jacob and Esau, he also uses Pharaoh as his example of God bringing Jud... Wait a minute. Judicial hardening. There it is. About. Let's read the rest of verse 7 here. You shall not detest an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. Well, Professor Flowers, if you're going to put the first part into Romans 9, don't you have to carry the second part? things didn't work out so well for the egyptians remember you know that is that the parting of the sea in israel escaping through it and all that uh... the hardening in in if you doubt me you i'm sure that the gypsies were all really thrilled that their first born children died if you're gonna use this you need to check out the context Instead of running around all over scripture, grabbing anything and everything that you think will support your case. It's not the right way to rightly divide the word of truth. So let's go ahead and go back. And where are we here? We're right there. So don't despise the Edomite. Hmm. Not, uh, not such a great example after all, uh, professor flowers. Remember what God's original promise was to Abraham. I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you. That's a conditional promise. I will bless those who bless you and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed. So God promised to bless Abraham. Now let me ask you, does that mean God is going to condemn seven of Abraham's son and most of his grandsons and not choose them to carry the seed? Because that's not a blessing. You gotta look at the promise. He says he will bless those who bless you. Couldn't Ishmael and others, the other brothers who are not chosen to carry the lineage, couldn't they still believe and support that promise and thus be saved because they bless the lineage, they bless the promise? Here's the point. What is the point, Professor Flowers? We're now playing what's known as the conundrum game. We're going to throw out all these possibilities and what-ifs and what-if and what-if and we're going to create scenarios and present those scenarios against the text. The problem is none of what he just discussed is addressed in the text. So despite the one scenario that the Apostle Paul offers up that might be said against him, Professor Flowers, before he actually does that very thing, creates a number of other scenarios, every bit of which ignores the fact that the line of the promise is through Isaac. And that promise is about the Messiah, the coming of the Messiah. But he knows that. So if he knows that, why is he arguing this? because he's got an agenda and he'll grab anything and everything he can hold onto to shove it together and hold it up. Remember the Play-Doh? Playing with Play-Doh. That's what's going on here. Let's continue on. This is the part of the cross-examination I was trying to get to. The distinction must be made between those chosen by God to bring His Word and those chosen to be saved as a result of believing that Word. Do you see the distinction between those two things? So, what does Paul mean in verse 13 when he quotes from Malachi, Jacob I loved and Esau I hated? Did you notice something there? Here we go again. It's up on the screen. So therefore, apparently, we're supposed to be held accountable for it because if it's up on the screen, it's part of his argument. It's a verbal skip of the context. So we're going to run to the end and read it backwards. That's right. Here we go with reading it backwards. We're going to talk about Jacob I loved and Esau I hated, even though we've already tried to head that off previously. But the point is, Paul's references are in order. First, the older will serve the younger. Again, that's that particularity of the prophecy. It is a particular prophecy. God wants it done this way through these people. Jacob is my choice, not Esau. It is before the twins were born or ever did anything good or bad. You got to think about that. It is before they were born or ever did anything good or bad. Dr. White's going to bring that out as he evaluates this text. Let's keep going. As Dr. Wattis pointed out, this is 1,500 years between verses 12 and verse 13, and it's after Jacob and Esau are, of course, long dead, and it's in response to the Edomites after they have attacked Israel. So in response to their cursing of Israel, Edom's cursing of Israel, the promise says, I will curse those who curse you. So what's Paul's point? Being the seed of Isaac does not ensure your salvation, especially if you stand in opposition to the very... No, it doesn't ensure your salvation, but guess what? being the seed of Isaac you're probably involved or maybe the parent or pre ancestor of Jesus you know those pesky genealogies that we see in scripture that's what that's all about that's describing how the Messiah has come to us from abraham to david all the way to joseph and mary but he doesn't want to let that speak not at all is a context offered in any of these passages no not at all again he's playing the conundrum game he's made many many departures he's ignoring the particularity of the point at hand and the point is right there in verse 11 folks he's gonna go whoops I'm over here wrong verse 11 let's go verse 11 here's the point and he's gonna get into later on here what you'll you'll hear him say what does it mean this is what it means for though the twins were not yet born or had not done anything good or bad so the god's purpose according to his choice would stand not because of works but because of him who calls and down over sixteen it doesn't depend on the man who wills of the man who runs but i got who has mercy god's perverse eleven god's purpose according to his choice that's what it is it is god's purpose according to his choice that's what's important to the apostle paul not because it works but because of him who calls all right let's continue on here the very word of god as did your own brothers the edomites okay we're gonna uh... stop right there and now we're going to go to doctor white's presentation as time is fleeting But I tell you, doing this show, when you really get a role going on, it goes by very quickly, and we still have a lot of ground to cover. I might actually go long just to be able to finish this off today, because Dr. White will be back next week. So let's go on to watch Dr. White's evaluation of Romans 9, 8 through 13. And therefore, he says in verse 8, it is not the children of the flesh that are the children of God, but the children of promise that are reckoned as true descendants of Abraham. So, there is a principle that is laid out here. And what we're going to see all the way through the rest of the chapter is that we are going to see God's sovereign freedom illustrated over and over and over again, drawn from examples in Israel's history, to answer the objection, Paul, why are so many Jews not believing in the message that you present? Okay, so with that in mind, he says in verse nine, for example, for this is the promise that this time I will come and Sarah will have a son. And so God miraculously raised up someone that didn't even exist at the time that God said, no, I'm not going the direction that you think I'm gonna be going, Abraham. He brings someone into existence that didn't even exist at that time. And then he brings up the example of Jacob and Esau. Not only this, but also Rebecca, when she had conceived by one man, our father Isaac, even before the twins had done anything good or bad, in order that the purpose of God, according to His choice, His election might stand, not from works, But from the calling one, there's that term calling. Remember, this is just directly across the page from where that term calling had been used in the description of the elect of God. The term calling had been used in regards to those who are then justified. You have the same language being used here. In order that, that purpose of God according to election might stand not from works but from the one calling it was said to her the greater or the older shall shall serve the younger just as is written Jacob I love but Esau I hate it now that second citation is from Malachi 1 2 and many people will say ah see this is this is about nations this is about the Edomites and the Israelites the problem is is that how Paul is using this text, or is he using this text to reflect back upon the very words that were said to Rebecca in regards to God's freedom to choose? It seems fairly obvious that that's exactly what he's doing, and may I suggest, just in passing, that what should startle a biblically-trained mind in the phrase, Jacob I loved, Esau I hated, is not Esau I hated, but Jacob I loved. That's what should be startling. If you have the idea that God owes His love, that anyone, whether it be Jacob or Esau or anyone else, is owed something from God. That you don't understand the hatred that God has for sin and His holiness and His separation. If you think that's something He's under obligation to do, then you're not going to really be able to understand what Romans 9 is all about. Okay, and something I want to point out, and I missed it on the last one, For those of you who think that Malachi 1, 2, and 3 is strictly referring to Jacob and Esau in a national level, I challenge you to go back and look at it. I've got to speed past this for time right now because I've got to speed things up. Go back and look at it. I think you're going to find, if you look at it fairly, that in verse 2 it speaks directly of Jacob and Esau as individuals. And in verse 3, then takes the result of God's judgment, God's particularity, and brings it forward into his descendants. But I submit to you that those of you who've accused the Apostle Paul of cherry-picking Malachi, I don't think he did at all. I think he uses it, and he uses it properly, and he uses it within its context, and he does a great job with it. The problem is, again, your tradition can't let him speak that, can't let it be that. and you've got to fight against it. So, but for the sake of moving on, we're going to take a look at Professor Flowers' presentation on Romans 9, 14 through 18. But before we get to that, let's read it into your hearing. What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be. There's Paul's detractor, singing his song, using his objection. God, why did you make me this way? For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then, this is Paul's conclusion as he looks at these texts, so then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, for this very purpose I raised you up to demonstrate my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So then, conclusion time, he has mercy on whom he desires and he hardens whom he desires. there's his argument there's his point now let's go ahead and uh... look at uh... professor flowers view on this passage Verse 14 asks the question, is God just to condemn a direct descendant of Isaac to hell? Ask the Edomites. They stood in opposition to God fulfilling of His promise, and look what happened to them. Paul is saying, if you curse those direct descendants of Isaac for opposing God's Word, why would it be unjust for Him to condemn you for opposing God's Word? Yeah, okay, so Schoenhorn hardened Israel into this. We brought the Passover into it, which, where's that in the text? Did you notice that he's reading something other than what is on the screen? This is about Israel being hardened? Paul's entire thought process has been contorted into something completely unrecognizable here by someone who is actually, it's unrecognizable by someone who has actually read this text. So think about it. If we had an unbiased observer come to Romans 9 and simply read the text for what it was saying, could they come to Professor Flowers' conclusion? Would they even look to Professor Flowers' conclusion? Would they even think about hardened Israel when they're reading about Pharaoh? I don't think they would. Let's keep going here. Paul is reminding his readers that direct descendants standing in opposition to God's Word, it's nothing new. It's been happening for years. There's no reason to think God's Word has failed because descendants are opposing Him. Paul goes on to quote from God's exchange with Moses in Exodus 32 and 33. I'll have mercy on whom I have mercy. This is where Israel has obviously just built the golden calf. They deserve to be wiped out immediately for their rebellion against God, but in response to Moses' intercession, God relents and He shows them mercy. So why would Paul refer to this story, which they would have been very familiar with? Paul is saying, by way of a history lesson, if God chooses to show mercy to some unfaithful Israelites and harden other unfaithful Israelites in order to fulfill His promise to bring the Word to the world, then who are you to question Him? Verse 16, so then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. What is it referring to in verse 16? Same thing he introduced in verse 6. That's why verse 6, I agree with Dr. White, is key. He's... No, it's referring to verse 11. He's referring to God's Word not failing. Because God's Word doesn't depend upon the man who wills and the man who runs. God's promised to bless all the families of the earth by His Word. That cannot fail. It's not dependent upon the faithfulness of the Israelites. He will show mercy to the unfaithful Israel by patiently enduring them in the rebellion in order to fulfill His promise, like He did in the golden calf incident. And He will harden them in the rebellion in order to fulfill that same promise, like He's doing now in the first century. Paul uses the example of Pharaoh in verse 17 and 18 to make his point. Just as God hardened Pharaoh in his rebellion to accomplish the first Passover, catch this, so too he hardens Israel in their rebellion in order to accomplish the real Passover. God is accomplishing a redemptive purpose through hardening Israel. Now... Again, I just can't avoid the fact that it's just not there. It's just not there. You're totally ignoring Paul's point and Pharaoh's being hardened, not Israel. God's power is being demonstrated in Pharaoh's hardening. This is judicial hardening, not what Professor Flowers has presented. The contrast between the text and Flowers' false premise could not be more clear. Let's hear him out. What would one of these calloused Jews say in response to this? If you were one of those Jews that was being cut off and calloused, well, Paul tells us exactly what a Jew would say to that. Romans 3, 5, it brings the diatribe up earlier in the book of Romans. But if our righteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing His wrath on us? That's an Israelite talking. Does that sound familiar? Actually, that's not an israelite talking that is the converted man the apostle paul that is a christian yeah he's an israelite but he's inverted so again we just building the whole new narrative run by it need to speed by for time so let's go ahead and uh... bring james into the equation and listen to what he has to say Now, all through this text, we're going to have objections raised. And those objections are like guideposts. They are helping us to understand where this text is to be taking us. If you end up agreeing with the objector, that means you're arguing with Paul. You don't want to be there, okay? When you hear the objections, the objections will help you to understand where it is that Paul himself is going with his argument and the fact that he's heard all these objections before. What shall we say then? There is no unrighteousness with God, is there? May it never be." So clearly, something about what he just said indicates there is unrighteousness with God. If you take the Malachi 1, 2 thing, read it backwards into it and say, well, this is just about Israelite, the Edomites. The Edomites are persecuting the Israelites. That takes away the idea of unrighteousness. The point is that before the twins had done anything good or bad, God made a decision that left one out of the line of promise. That was God's free choice to do that. And so he raises the issue of unrighteousness, and the first counterexample he's going to offer in verse 15 is, for Moses says, I will mercy whom I mercy, and I will compassion whom I compassion. They are literally verbs in the original language. And so he draws from Exodus 33, where again, God, in his freedom, revealed himself to Moses. in such a way that he didn't have to do this, but he chose to do this out of his own freedom, his own kingly freedom, and he mercied whom he would mercy, and he compassioned whom he would compassion, and then we have the apostolic interpretation given to us once again. Therefore, it is not of the willing one, using the standard term to will, it is not of the one who wills, neither is the one who is running, who is engaged in activity. But, in contrast to the activities of man in his will and his activities, but the mercying God. So, whatever is being talked about has something to do with God showing mercy. In contrast to the activities of man, whether it be the will of man or the running of man, And that's the understanding that Paul gives us of the quotation from Exodus 33. And then he just piles on, and now he gives us a fascinating example, because now he takes us outside of the people of Israel to someone that everyone in the people of Israel knew all about, and that is to Pharaoh. For the scriptures say to Pharaoh that for this very reason I raised you up, singular, In order that I might demonstrate in you my power, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Now, once again, unless the demonstration of God's power, and unless the proclamation of his name in all the earth is a part of our highest priorities, we will never really understand what Romans 9 is all about. And the fact of the matter is, in our very Western culture, that's not a high priority for almost any of us anymore. And yet, the point that is being made by the Apostle is that, look, God can raise someone up, and certainly Pharaoh represented the entire nation of Egypt, but Pharaoh ended up being destroyed in this whole incident, did he not? He himself was raised up, his heart was hardened. God said before Moses ever talked to him that he would harden his heart because he had a purpose. He had a purpose to despoil the gods of Egypt. He had a purpose to bring all the plagues to pass. And so he put Pharaoh in that position for that purpose and he was absolutely just and free to do that. And that's exactly how the Apostle then interprets those words in verse 18. Therefore, whom he wills, he mercies, and whom he wills, he hardens. Uses the very same Greek term that's used in the Greek Septuagint of God's activity in Pharaoh, in hardening his heart. In the original language, it's a direct parallel between the two. Whom he wills. Notice the contrast. It's not of the man willing, but of God willing. Whom he wills, he mercies. And whom he wills, he hardens. Now, I'd like to suggest to you, that's really the text that causes people a real problem. Because if God really has this freedom to deal with His own creation as He sees fit, then all of man's attempts to, in some way, insert himself into the process of salvation, even if it says 99% of it is of God, But, man has control right here. All of those systems collapse if what Paul is saying here has specific application to the actual gospel itself. Okay, so in the case of correcting the record here, for the purpose of correcting the record, the objections in the text to what Professor Flowers has presented are right there. Barrow is the one being hardened. I already covered this. The contrast is there. So let's, for the sake of time, we're going to speed along and get to Professor Flowers' presentation as he wraps up with verse 19. Now, one thing you need to keep in mind here is that because Professor Flowers used 8 minutes and 46 seconds when he was in one through five, he's eaten up a tremendous amount of his time and Dr. White has managed his time very well here. So, he actually has a good deal of time still left, and I need to get through all of that. So, let me read real quick here for you, verse 19. You will say to me then, why does he still find fault for who resists his will? So, let me go ahead and play the clip as Professor Flowers deals with verse 19. It sounds exactly like verse 19. The Paul's objector is not an Arminian. Paul's objector represents an Israelite who has grown calloused and is being judicially hardened in that condition. It does not represent someone born, decreed by God, to be totally unable to willingly respond to God's own appeals to be reconciled. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture which teaches that man is born unable to respond to God's gracious truth. That is why he holds us responsible, able to respond. We are able to respond to the truth of God that is revealed. That's why he holds us responsible to that word. Romans 1 clearly teaches that no man has any excuse. Yet if Calvinism is true, then unbelievers have the best excuse known to man. God made me like this. I couldn't have done otherwise. I hated God. Why? He first hated me. I rejected God. Why? He first rejected me. God made me like this and I was not able to do anything about it. I was not able to have faith. Why? He didn't grant me the faith to have. We give mankind an excuse and unbelievers an excuse by adopting the systematic. I believe we need to be able to say the simplicity of the gospel, repent and live as Ezekiel 18 says. Come to me all who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me for I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest for your souls for my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Thank you. And that concludes Professor Flowers' presentation of Romans chapter 9, which he literally spent, and I calculated this based on time, and I was very conservative with how I put this together. If Professor Flowers seemed to still even be alluding to the text that he was focusing on, I did not count that against him. He spent more than 40% of his time outside of the focal text. I think that speaks volumes. 40% of his time, more than 40% outside of the focal text. So, in summary, Flowers needs this to be about God judicially hardening Israel. If he can't make that happen, his entire case crumbles. But for Paul, the hardening example is about Pharaoh and how God used him for his own purposes, and he did so righteously. That's the thing we have to remember. God gets to do this, because we are his creation. That's the example. He's the potter, we're the clay. He gets to make, from the same lump, vessels for his purpose. whether that common use or honorable use. That's what the text says. And in this particular case, sadly, when Flowers wraps up, he goes right back to being Paul's objector directly. He does it without shame. He does it verbatim. And his presentation ends here. So we still have Dr. White's presentation on verse 19. Let's go ahead and listen to it. And all of man's attempts to, in some way, insert himself into the process of salvation, even if it says 99% of it is of God, but man has control right here. All of those systems collapse if what Paul is saying here has specific application to the actual gospel itself. And the objection raised by Paul in verse 19 makes this very, very clear. Therefore, you will say to me, how can he still find fault? For who is able to literally stand against his will? His will. Who can stand against His will? The argument basically is, well, if this is the case, then God has no basis upon which He can judge, because this is arbitrary, and there has to be some external means of controlling God's activities. Okay, so very quickly here for the sake of time, the emphasis here is on God's sovereignty, and that is the focus of the Apostle Paul. James now has the remainder of the time as he is going to go into Romans 20-24. Let me read it into your hearing real quick, Romans 20-24. On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? Or does not the potter have right over the clay to make from the same lump of one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, willing to make 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 not from among jews only but also from among gentiles Now I want you to keep in mind here that while we could say that Professor Flowers didn't actually directly interact with this text, he actually, again that was that leapfrog back in Romans 9, 1 through 5, where he jumped ahead to attempt to redefine the clay in the hands of the potter and the purpose behind that being hardened Israel. a concept that isn't here at all. So let's go ahead and listen to Dr. White as he finishes up his, let me get over to that, as he finishes up his Romans 9 presentation. Now many people, including even Reformed theologians, don't view verse 20 as a full response. I do. I believe what follows, you have a full response to the argument that was just made by the objector. But see if you can see how that works out. Literally it is, oh man, who are you, the one answering back to God? By putting that term man right at the beginning, I think the answer is given. You are his creature. He made you. He formed you. Every breath of your mouth, every beat of your heart comes from his hand. And he can do with you as he pleases. Amen. Who are you to answer back to God? And then you have the quotation from Isaiah 29. The thing formed the one who formed it. Why did you make me like this? The fact of the matter is we don't like viewing ourselves as pots having been made by the hand of the potter. We don't like that. We rebel against that, we chafe against that, but that certainly is the biblical perspective. A question is asked in verse 21, does not the potter have the exousion, the authority, the power, at the same lump? to make the same lump of clay, to make some vessels for, well, for honor. And does not the potter, when he places that lump, is there anyone who can force him to make something from that clay that he does not desire to do so? Does he not have the freedom to say, I'm gonna make something beautiful for the king's palace. And then he puts some more of the exact same clay on, and he makes a chamber pot. He makes something that is for dishonorable use. What does he mean by that? What could that possibly mean? What is the application? Well, he goes on. What if God, though willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make known His power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared beforehand for destruction, in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy which He prepared beforehand for glory? Notice, this follows directly on the illustration He just gave us. Follows directly on illustration. The illustration was the potter, and so you have vessels of dishonor, that is, they're prepared for destruction, and then you have vessels of mercy that are prepared for honor. And so Paul presents the idea, what God put up with great patience. those vessels that he created for dishonor, and it has a purpose, in order that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory." Have you heard that language before? Remember in Ephesians chapter 1, the fundamental question? Why, God? Why one person and not another? Why the way of salvation that you've chosen? The biggest answer to all that. to the praise of his glorious grace. Amen. And I'm going to get into the details of that here in a moment. But Professor Flowers, in his presentation, I measured 7 minutes and 53 seconds spent away from the focal text. Now, I mentioned that he departed the text. Frequently and he objected to that characterization and he Accused James of departing from the text as well. Not just not as much as him And he in this exchange I said, okay well, so where do you show You know because chapter divisions as James points out didn't come along until 1551 and So, you know, I think that it's a poor beginning, and we went back and forth as to what exactly he believed the chapter actually began at, and I only said it begins at 9.1, that's what was in the contract, so 9.1 is where it starts fine. So if we actually look and use the same standard, and actually I was more strict with James, home team and all that, you know, James spent two minutes and 48 seconds of Romans 9 in his presentation. That includes any allusions whatsoever to any other text, even the remotest and the minors, the tiniest of counting. One minute and 43 seconds of that was spent in Romans 8 28 through 39. So literally one minute and three seconds was spent by James White outside of Romans 8 28 through 9 24. And his use of the text was, as I said, a clinic in how to do exegesis. Point by point by point, following the text, not leading the text. And that's just huge. Now, what triggered all this? happened back in late November when I received an email. I'm the guy that answers the phones around here. I'm the guy that, you know, screens the emails. To be honest, not very many emails actually get through to Dr. White. They really need to be something that caused me to want to interrupt him to make that happen. But this gentleman looked at the description that doctor white wrote on our youtube page of this debate and he called it dishonest demanded that we take it down that uh... professor flowers did not exegete passage and instead change the subject And I challenged the man in email and I asked him where, when did, can you show me when did Professor Flowers actually, where did he actually exegete the text? And he sent me an email back basically showing a presentation from beginning to end was the timestamps, or Professor Flowers portion of it, which was not exactly as we've just seen. Truthful about that. In response to that email, I was doing a number of different things and I fired up the audio version of this. And while I'm doing other things, I'm listening to Professor Flowers' opening presentation and I'm simply writing numbers down. And as best as I could figure out, he was bouncing all over the place. I do think I've found that he did leapfrog from here to there, but the case was not nearly as bad as I had put together. And Professor Flowers rightly challenged me on Twitter, called it a dishonest exchange and wrote an article about it. earlier dishonest county of uh... of his word order and then brought these slides that he used to the overheads and the fact that they were one after the other after their well we've uh... we've seen how relevant the slides actually were to his verbal presentation and what was in that book that he was reading from even to the point of reading scriptures that or things that weren't there as if they were But I improperly counted off the audio. And the fact of the matter is when I went to the video that he pointed me to, I tried to duplicate what I had done, and frankly, even going back to the audio, I could not make it happen again. I couldn't figure out how in the world I got that. And so I apologized, rightly. And I honestly said to him, I don't know how I came up with those numbers. Perhaps somehow I got confused. from his many departures from the text. I tried to write these things down directly, but I was not giving the presentation its proper due. I was being fast and loose in that. And that's how this came about, because I told him, I said, the problem is now I feel like I owe you a proper evaluation, no matter how that comes out. And to be honest, I think I've done that. I think I've pointed to the scriptures. shown the charge that we have before us and that under no circumstances should we ever find ourselves doing this. Now this morning someone on social media asked you know am I ever going to actually interrupt what he says I know he's already posted a reply to me which I have deliberately not viewed because I needed to get through this and not be distracted from it. with more argumentation. One thing that I found with Professor Flowers is rhetoric has no end. There is no end to rhetoric with the man. And when it comes to reasoning with him, as Dr. White tried to do in the cross-examination of this debate, it's not possible. It just isn't going to happen. As I said last Tuesday, I do believe that it's like talking to a brick. Everything you say just bounces right off. He's going to think what he thinks. Should we as apologists do this work chasing the rabbits of the groups that were evaluating. When they bring the boatload of verses that Professor Flowers brings here, do we have an obligation to chase down every single one to find out whether or not it's in context or not? I know for a fact the ones that I did look at were not. They weren't. One of these things was not like the other. One of these things was not the same. Theology? I mean, that's as simple as it gets. Or, do we take the approach of the authentic thing? Do we hold the other side to the truth? Instead of chasing down all these rabbits, whether it's dealing with the mong in the issue of God having a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man, and running around all these different proof texts that they've come up with, or do we take them to the texts that show us plainly the truth of the matter? I believe that's how we do apologetics. We show them the real thing, it will expose the false thing. And so I have no intention of chasing down Professor Flowers' continued rhetorical justifications for this. I do not believe that this is how you treat the scriptures. Calvinism is the issue, or whether it's Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormonism, or Roman Catholicism, or sinless sinless perfectionism or go down all these isms or king james only ism you need to take them to the true take them to the facts and show them those that's how you do it rightly dividing the word of truth There is something we call the highway game when we're talking with Mormons. My favorite issue in witnessing to Mormons is who God is. Explaining, going to verses and passages like Isaiah 43, 44, going into Isaiah 40 through 48 and explaining this is our great god this is the god of the old testament he is created all these things and there is no other there's not a plurality of god's there is only one true god going into the shema hero israel the lord is one going into all these different things, but I'm taking them to the truth. But you see, when you're doing that, you will find, I'm going to interrupt you, and if it's as if you're going down a highway and somebody grabs your steering wheel and takes you down an off-ramp, they take you to a distraction, they want to take you somewhere else, but allow you to go straight down that highway. The narrow path, for instance, would be a good example. And your job is to go with them, because if you try to pull it back, you're going to wreck. And bad things will happen. Point is, you're going to clash verbally. They want to go here, so you simply go there with them, and you look for the first opportunity to then take them on an on-ramp to get back on the highway and track where we're back talking about who God is. Okay? So, that to me is the right way to do this. Romans chapter 9 was the text. Bringing him back to the text is what Dr. White did. Yes, in the cross-examination, he did an examination that Professor Flowers made. And believe it or not, the next chance I get of being in here, we're actually going to shift gears here and pick up the cross-examination portions and start unpacking that. Because his answer in some respects is amazing to me, to many of these questions. But it brings out the points that I've made regarding what we're asked of him. Professor Flowers refuses to see the point repeatedly. He insists on putting, for instance, core issues together like judicial hardening and the depravity of the heart and the deadness of man in sin, and then arguing that thing that he's put together, which we see as two different things. And when we challenge him on it, distinction without a difference. Again, dismissed out of hand. He's going to justify himself, he's going to deflect, just as he did here today, in this example. So why am I doing this? What's the point in going through all this, if it's not to correct Professor Flowers? It's not to correct Professor Flowers. I don't think that he's correctable. My hope is toward those young men that he's teaching. That's right. I'm hoping when one of those young men finds himself in that situation like that young man did many years ago, who was the example in Dr. White's book, Pulpit Crimes, who was sitting there looking for what preaches good, I'm hoping that as that young man is sitting there preaching, preparing to preach his first sermon, and he's thinking about what preaches good, looking for things that have sizzle, so he can impress his audience. I'm hoping that one of those young men will have viewed this view, and he'll think of this show when he's doing that, and he will be convicted. As he's doing that, he'll be reminded, that's not how you handle the Word of God. And he will rein himself in. He will model the Apostle Paul and follow the text, just as the Apostle Paul did in this text. and he will rightly divide the word of truth. And that will be his ultimate priority as he presents that sermon. And he will put off the desire to tickle ears. Instead, he will put on the desire to use God's Word knowing that it will not come back void and that wherever they may be in this audience, whether they be little child or elderly, God's Word will speak to them if they're believers. God's Word will speak to them if they are elect. God's Word will not come back void. You've got to think about that. In his closing remarks, and I'm going to start wrapping up here, yesterday was an actual jumbo, how about that, I did a jumbo, live, I hope. Professor Flowers goes off onto Joel Osteen, what he calls namby-pamby evangelicalism, he says what drew him to Calvinism was the fact that there was an answer there, there was a standard against this kind of thing. And he decries this. But you see, Professor Flowers, or anybody else who wants to use these, take this path that he's taken, I submit to you that the only difference between what was done here and what a Joel Osteen does, or what a Metz does, is the outcome. The method is the same. The view of the scriptures is the same. It is Plato. that you can shape into anything you want it to be and you can play with it and make it look like anything that you want even if you want it to be a unicorn or if you want it to be a homosexual Christian or if you want it to be a health wealth gospel or if you want it to be let's all be happy happy happy and with a Bible in our hand giving a pretty speech that has nothing to do with what's in Scripture. I don't see a difference in the method. It's what gives them the feeling that they can have that freedom, and there is no fidelity to the Scriptures there So how can Professor Flowers consistently decry it? I don't believe that he can. Not consistently, anyway. He can preach against it all he wants. But in my book, there's a hypocrisy meter there that's going off the charts. Look at that, end of the slideshow. I thank you for bearing with me as we have done this together. And I want to thank those who have given me their encouragement as I've done this. This is not what I normally do. And I have found that it is hard to do what Dr. White does. And I don't even, I pale in comparison to his abilities. I thank you and I hope for an opportunity to be able to do this again. And I appreciate it. Thank you for being with me on The Dividing Line today and these last few episodes. I appreciate it. Blessings.