And good morning. Welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is Rich Pierce, and I've got about three computers going here. I'm trying to control an Apple one at the moment here, trying to figure out where the volume is. And there it is. Oh, let's bring it on down. And we're going to bring that to a quiet, nice little fade there. How nice. And welcome to the show, if you don't know me. My name is Rich Pierce, as I said, and I am the president of Alpha Omega Ministries. I don't do this very often, but last January, I began a series when James was out of town reviewing the Romans 9 debate from last May, going through what was supposed to be Romans 9. And I did what I called a remix, where I kind of swapped things around and had the second debater go first in their opening, and then walk through that, and then followed through. paired them up. I did it in that particular order, but actually broke it down by the sections of the passage that they were covering and the way that they were covering it. I thought it was a really interesting way of approaching a debate. But today, I'm going to be beginning the next section of this presentation. And as I'm doing things here, I am trying to make sure that I have all my technology right, because I'm engineering the show, both video and audio, and all of the things going along with it here with you today. And that is one of the things I'm wanting to make sure I have all my ducks in a row here as we begin to dig into this. So if you're looking at me, looking around, I've got three different mice or trackballs over here controlling three different computers that I've got queued up here. And it was interesting. I thought about the fact that I've got to actually start the show from the other side of the wall and come through the door with an open mic. Now, how do you do that when all you have is what's called a cough drop? It's actually a button you have to push. And that keeps you from, you know, if I have to cough, which my timing has already been bad. And I thought, how am I going to close that door with a open mic? And then I realized, you know, there's things called paperweights. I just put them on the button and they held it down. interesting things that fascinate me. I don't know if they fascinate anyone else. But anyway, that's how I think, that's how I function. I notice things like that. Anyway, the plan here today is to begin the cross-examination section of this debate. Again, a little bit more about me. I'm currently attending King's Church over with John Sampson, who you saw do the previous two shows. I am teaching the Wednesday nights over at King's Church. We're a very small church at this point. We're pretty much just a startup, but we are growing. And the Lord is blessing our work. And we meet at the Palace Verdes facility just south of Union Hills on 87th Avenue up in Northwest Peoria. And we would certainly love to have you join us on Sunday. Our service is beginning at 11 a.m. And we kind of start gathering about 10.30 for a little fellowship before the service. And as we grow, I think we'll be able to incorporate a Sunday school into the equation as well as other more commonly known well-established things that well-established churches do, and at this point we're in the process of growing. So with that out of the way, I want to reiterate a couple of things about Romans 9, which was the focus of this particular event, this debate, and the idea was that both debaters were supposed to come in, make a presentation, exegete Romans chapter 9. They're supposed to walk through it, and they're supposed to comment on it as they walk through it. And exegesis is a verse-by-verse process. It is the extrapolation of information as you go through the text. And I believe, without a doubt, I proved in the previous few programs that I did, one debater did that and the other debater ran as far away from that as he possibly could. Now, on Tuesday, at the end of the show, or at the beginning of the show, I made the comment that I'm going to prove that the reason why I say Leighton Flowers is not listening and is not interested in listening. And this is why I use the, some people feel it's harsh, but I, you know, there are some people in this world that they're like talking to a brick wall. They're just not interested in hearing what you have to say. They just aren't. But they want you to hear what they have to say, and you better listen, even if they're just misinformed. And so, again, that was the way in which I laid the program out to begin with here. I am using Dr. White's Mac and I'm using my Windows 10 machine here. So I need to keep an eye on the time as I, you know, be a good steward of time, just like you're supposed to do in a debate. Remember, the Apostle Paul wrote like a lawyer making an airtight case. His writing style is to build element upon element. It's a detailed thread, writing with precision. Each point is connected to what came before. And the Book of Romans is rightly known as the Gospel according to Paul. Now, in the previous comments that I made on this, in the previous programs I did, I wanted to separate the method. I wanted to focus on the method and separate the topic out so that we don't get hung up on the Calvinism issue. That is the topic of the debate, yes, but I wanted you to look and take a look at the the manner of the handling of Scripture. Is the debater rightly dividing the word of truth as he's handling this? And the simple act of contextual reading is what was at play. And in order to properly understand the text at hand, you must first establish the text itself before you can go off into anything else related. You have to understand what this is saying right here. whatever that is, whether we're in Colossians chapter 1 and we're talking to a Jehovah's Witness, whether we're in John 1 talking to a Jehovah's Witness, context matters. We must first establish the text. Now, the debate structure. As I've dug into this portion of the debate, I'm now convinced that the debate structure and the way they laid it out, while it was inventive, it was unique, it was unusual, it was a mistake. And the reason that it was a mistake, that I believe was a mistake, is that as we dig into this, this first section that we're going through, Dr. White has no idea what Professor Flowers is going to say in his opening remarks. So as the cross-examination section that comes next, you have Dr. White who simply walked through the text. Now we have cross-examination of Professor Flowers cross-examining Dr. White on his text, but there are questions that are going to be asked here that Dr. White has pretty much no idea what is coming next as Professor Flowers does his opening remarks. He is oblivious to the fact that Professor Flowers ran away from the text. He just were gone. He did the hopscotch, he did hopscotch, if I didn't define that in the last one, theological hopscotch. Picture the hopscotch pattern on the sidewalk, and the idea is that you're supposed to jump with one foot, two foot out, two foot in, one foot, and you're bouncing all over the place as you're going through the text. And that is what Professor Flowers did in his opening remarks, but Dr. White doesn't know that yet. So as we get into this cross-examination section, you need to recognize that he is at a disadvantage in that regard. The structure of debate, I wanna remind you, you have the opening remarks. The point in doing opening remarks is you are supposed, this is where you make your case. Time is limited and it's supposed to be limited. So you gotta make it count. Now, as we get into cross-examination, that's coming later, the next section is usually rebuttal. And the idea behind the rebuttal is you're supposed to be responding to your opponent's opening statement. So as your opening statement is laid out, you've made your case, you have a limited time to do it, so you make that count, and then the other guy is supposed to interact with what you said. Now, he can bring in new information into this. If you make a comment or if you make a point in your opening statement and you've written a book that completely contradicts what you just said, your opponent, this is where your opponent would bring that information in and then hold your feet to the fire on it. say, wait a minute, you just said this, this, and this, but in your book, over here, you actually said this, and you contradicted yourself, or something like that. This is the kind of new information, but it, again, is supposed to be interactive. It is supposed to address what your opponent had to say. Now, the cross-examination section is where the debate really happens. The cross-examination is where you can directly inquire of your opponent the things that he said in his opening and in his rebuttal. The problem here is, in this case, they had Dr. White go first, then Professor Flowers cross-examines the opening, then Professor Flowers gives his opening, and then Dr. White cross-examines that opening. And by this point in time, cross-examination has occurred without any rebuttal. And this is where I think the mistake was made. I think in this particular case, it may have gone a very different direction had Professor Flowers gotten up and had to face a rebuttal. directly after he gives his opening statement. I think it would have been a different scenario, but who knows, I am guessing on that go from there. So the cross-examination, inquiring into your opponent's opening and rebuttal, this can vary depending on the order of presentation. The structure of this debate was, and I've already covered that, so let's move on. Closing remarks, we are probably gonna get to that on Tuesday. and hopefully if I don't take all this time rambling on myself right now, the closing remarks are supposed to be your summation of your case. Just like your opening remarks are making your case, you've now argued your case in rebuttal and in cross-examination, and now your closing remarks are supposed to be the summation of your case. No new information is supposed to be entered at this point. So the point would be if your opponent already did his closing statement, you have the last word. So the rule is you're not allowed to now suddenly bring in all of this excess information that hasn't been introduced into the debate yet and dump it on him. He has no opportunity to respond. So that's the whole point of no new information and these events are timed for a reason and that reason is no filibustering. Every bit of this, you may sit back and go, okay, all these academic rules and regulations and process, why is that such a big deal, Rich? It's a big deal because it matters to the audience. It is a structure that is designed for the audience to learn something from you. If you run away from these rules. If you run away from this process, your audience learns less from you than they would have had you held to it. So keep that in mind as we move forward. Now the first section we're going to go to here, and I need to cue a couple of things up here, we're going to Okay, let's engineer that little shot right there and then stage that shot and we can move forward. So I'm going to play the first clip. Remember, as we get into this, Professor Flowers has not yet made his presentation. So this is the portion. And I am using the Professor Flowers' posting on YouTube. I'm using that recording in this. So this clip starts at the 25-minute mark in that. So if you're watching and you want to go back and watch on YouTube, the time mark for this is 25 minutes into the presentation. And this is the portion that I call Pleasantries. And let's make sure I got this right, and let's begin. Well, first of all, I do want to thank Heath, Dr. Marion, thank you for hosting us. The Oaks, Jason and the crew in the back, they got here several hours early to get things set up. Thank y'all for everything that y'all have done. Y'all give the Oaks a hand and thank them for everything. And also, Dr. White, welcome to the promised land that we call Texas. And a Calvinistic friend told me... The promised land has a lot of traffic, that's all I can say. I had a Calvinistic friend tell me just this morning, he said, you know, this debate of yours, it proves determinism is true. I said, what do you mean? He said, no one would freely choose to debate Romans 9 with Dr. White. And I understand that now, going through this preparation process. But I do appreciate you doing this. And I do think this is an important discussion. I do not think Romans 9 or Ephesians 1 or John 6 or any of these passages should be skipped. I think that's been part of the problem. I think that's one of the reasons that we have misunderstanding and disagreement within the church is because it has been so neglected for so long. And the reason that we do this, I hope we both know, is to glorify God, and I think we both agree with that. It's not about winning points or making the other look bad, which I know would be very easy for you to do to me. This is my first theological debate, but I honestly, and I haven't felt that from you at all in this discussion since... We haven't started yet. We haven't got started. Give him time. Give him time. We haven't warmed up yet. Okay, so this is the portion I call the pleasantries, and the problem with what Professor Flowers is doing here, you may look at it and go, wow, that's as innocent as I'll get out. The problem is, and you're going to see the contrast, when James comes around to his cross-examination, he's going to go right into the first question. Because in cross-examination, you've got 12 minutes. You are locked into a period of time to get it done. And the goal here is to extrapolate as much information out of your opponent as you possibly can. This is to be conducted like a lawyer cross-examines a witness. And so you want, you have 12 minutes to get as much information out of your opponent as possible. And so you'll notice that James will dig right into his questioning when he gets there. And also, you're gonna hear, well, he said that his, he's gonna explain, I think that's actually coming up, that his understanding of the purpose of cross-examination is clarity. So I'm gonna point you in the right direction here. If he's going to call this clarity, then I want you to listen to how much clarity he brings out. Let's proceed. But the reason that there is cross-examination and the questions is to bring clarity to each other's viewpoints. And that's my ultimate goal as a professor, as a teacher at heart. I want you to understand Calvinism rightly, and I want you to understand my perspective rightly. And you're like, what's your title? What do you call yourself? That's part of the problem. We don't have a title really. Southern Baptist, traditionalist, they don't like traditionalist, that's for sure. And there's a lot of different titles out there. And so I'm a non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist. I don't know how else to say that any better. But just a few questions with regard to what you were talking about. Now, I'm going to put a bookmark in this right here. He is now 2 minutes and 16 seconds. into his cross-examination time and he hasn't asked a single question yet on topic or of any kind. So the point is he is now down to nine minutes and 45 seconds, 44 seconds of his time to achieve his goal. This is why I keep emphasizing, and I emphasized in the last series, the way you manage the clock is vital in doing this in an effective manner. So the question then has to be asked, does he know that? I think Professor Flowers is a smart guy. I think he does know it. And I think as we start to dig into or listen as he proceeds, this is a stalling tactic. I do believe that. It's a stalling tactic. He's already taken this much time doing this and the first question hasn't yet been asked. So let's go ahead and get and dig into the very first question. And remember, James hasn't heard anything that Professor Flowers will present yet. So if you went back and listened to the presentation that I gave back in January, there's some things that should red flag your memories here as you start listening to certain buzz phrases that he's using as he asks his question. First of all, you believe Paul is teaching that Jacob was chosen for salvation over Esau, Isaac over Ishmael. And so I want to ask about Abraham's six additional sons that came after Isaac. And I'm trying to understand if you believe they were repubates for the same reason that Ishmael and Esau were repubates, that God predetermined them to go to hell before they were born also because they obviously weren't chosen to carry the promise. And so what I'm getting to with this question is, what I want to understand is, do you acknowledge in any way the difference between those descendants chosen to bring the word, like Isaac, and those who may or may not believe that word, like the other brothers, for example? Well, I need to correct the assumption of the question, which was right there at the beginning, which I tried to correct in my opening statements. To believe that this text is relevant to individual salvation is not to say that it does not have relevance to other aspects of God's dealings with the people of Israel. And therefore, the issue of, say, the sons of Keturah or whoever else you might have in mind at that particular point in time is not even raised here because that's not the point. The point to illustrate on Paul's part is determined by what's in verses 6 and 7. Why is it that Israel is rejecting her Messiah? And the answer to that is, that has always happened in the past. God has always had his purpose in freely choosing. Because those individuals are not even brought up, there is no discussion of what their eternal state was, and there is nothing in what I said that assigns the meaning of eternal salvation solely to the promises. So if the promise is not brought through you, that means that you're eternally lost. So Paul doesn't even raise those objections. I don't know if anyone had ever raised them to him, but he does not even raise those objections in this text, and I would say it goes outside the realm of Romans 9 and what it's trying to communicate. There we have it. Your question, sir, is off topic. It is outside the debate premise. But what Dr. White doesn't realize is Professor Flowers' entire presentation is going to do that. And so he's pointing out, number one, the questions outside of the text and our focus is on the text. This is where I think he starts to realize that Professor Flowers is going off the rails and he is going to go a whole different direction. Now, I also want to point out, watch the interaction here, because again, part of cross-examination, and this is where cross-examination is difficult, part of cross-examination is that you ask a question and you get an answer. Now, the question is to be phrased in such a way as to elicit an answer that you know you're going to get. They say, you know, they tell lawyers in cross-examination, never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. And so that's what's going on here. You're supposed to be asking a question of your opponent that you already know the answer to so that you're able to steer the questioning in a particular direction as your opponent gives you answers that you know how they're going to answer. Now, they're not going to answer exactly the way you're going to predict they're going to answer, and that's the whole off-the-top-of-the-head thing here. That's where this gets difficult and unpredictable. So if your answer that comes back is slightly different than you expected, you've got to make note of that. And like I said earlier, the idea, and we actually had this happen in a debate Dr. White did with an atheist a few years back, where he objected to Dr. White introducing and reaching out to a book the man had written, where in fact the book said something completely different than what the man was advocating. And the irony is the book was for sale out in the narthex of the church at his book table. But the idea is that you're supposed to elicit information and then interact with the answer. It goes back and forth. Watch and see if that is what Professor Flowers does. For example, Lot, we know he was declared righteous by Peter. We know that he was saved, but he wasn't chosen for the lineage. He wasn't chosen. Matter of fact, he was a lot like Esau in that his descendants end up rising up against Israel and attacking them. They were cursed, but Lot was saved. He wasn't chosen for the promise, much like Esau. And so what I'm trying to get to is why do you assume that Esau was chosen for reprobation when Lot, for example, who meets the same criteria, he wasn't chosen to carry the promise, he wasn't the lineage, but he obviously was still saved. Well, again, as I mentioned, the text's point is to demonstrate that before the twins had done anything good or bad, God had a specific purpose. Lot was not involved with that. He would not have He would not have been involved with that one way or the other, at least as far as lineage is concerned. But the point is that even when there was a natural, the natural choice should have been Esau. He's the older. God had the freedom to overturn even the standard tradition of how the promise was to be passed on. And in regards to Jacob and Esau, obviously did much more to demonstrate the reality of his freedom to choose than he did with anyone else. It seems like you're making the connection that the promise is only about salvation. That's not the point. The point, again, and I think we need to emphasize this, The point in looking at Romans 9 is God's freedom in the fact that he has chosen to take the gospel to the Gentiles and that there has been a hardening of the people of Israel and that this is not inconsistent with what he has done down through the history of the people of Israel. It sounds like you're starting from a human perspective and arguing upward from there, I'm trying to say that this text starts from God and that we have to reason down from there. And I don't think that the two perspectives actually end up lining up, which may be why we're here this evening. Indeed, that is why they were there that evening. One thing I want to move back here on, was Leighton interactive? No, the pre-prepared question just simply moves forward and ignores the previous answer. So whatever you're giving me in the way of an answer in this dialogue, I'm going to just push it aside and ask my next question as I press forward, even though you just corrected me and told me you're off topic. You're not even in the text. Lot's not involved here. And so James is now forced to respond, Lot's not involved in this text. He tries to get the focus back to the text again, second attempt. He points out that God's freedom is the choice, the point of the text. And man-centered reasoning versus God-centered reasoning is the issue here. But again, listen as we proceed forward for interactivity in the next question. Are we gonna keep pressing the issue on Lot? Does Leighton even follow up? Does he even hear the answer? Let's move on to the next section. You and I both agree that verse six is key to understanding the entire discourse. I think we both agree that God has blessed Israel by entrusting the very word of God to come through them. I think that's a distinction when what I'm trying to draw between his choice of one brother over the other. The nation is selected for this noble purpose of bringing the world the Messiah and his message. Yet for the most part Israel is... Now I gotta stop there. James hasn't had the benefit of the quote noble purpose argument yet from the opening statement. So that's where the first mention of the noble purpose in the cross-examination is. However, you will find that James will later on ask him about noble purpose. What is this noble cause you keep referring to in your writings? So this will need to get drilled into, this will need to get interrogated, and he's going to do it. So that's not going to slip away. Let's keep going. ...in direct opposition to their own Messiah and his gospel message, which does obviously lead one to ask, has God's Word failed? And I think you and I would agree that the reason the Israelites are standing in opposition to the gospel and rejecting their own Messiah is because God is actively hardening them. Like the verb you said, it's active hardening. We both agree with that. He is, as Paul says, sending them a spirit of stupor. just as Jesus spoke to them in parables to prevent them from understanding and believing. So what I want you to explain is what you feel is the difference between our views on this particular point, because I think we both affirm that God's active hardening of the unbelieving Israelites, but you seem to think that's hardening from birth. It's a natural condition from birth, whereas I obviously believe it's a judicial act of one who is freely rebelled. It's a judicial act of Israel specifically at this time in order to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose, yet you seem to assume, correct me, you seem to assume it's a natural condition from birth, this hardening, this inability to hear, see, understand, and turn to God. All right, I'm going to stop it right there again. I want you, you need to take notice and even if you rewind and re-listen to Professor Flower's assumptions. in all of the questions that he just laid out. He used his buzz phrases that he hasn't even introduced into the debate. So this is front-loading the debate with a position that hasn't actually been entered into evidence yet. So this is where, this was the exchange where I sat back and went, wait a minute, this was a mistake doing it this way because Professor Flowers is not asking about what Dr. White just did. And genuinely, it's as if he didn't even hear it. He's got his script, and this is what he's sticking to, and he's going to just simply keep asking these questions, and it doesn't matter what you said before. I'm not even gonna engage you on that. So he's front-loading the debate. The questions are not about James's presentation. Instead, Leighton's questions are from his own presentation, which actually hasn't happened yet. James can't possibly know what Leighton is asking about because it hasn't yet happened. So his answer, you'll notice, is going to come from the text. Because that's the prophet's perspective on fallen man. We have a heart of stone, not a heart of flesh. The picture that is drawn is of a valley of dry bones. The psalmist makes it very clear that we have gone astray from our mother's breast. We were born altogether in iniquity and sin. We can no more do good than the leopard can change its spots. And so this is the consistent testimony. It certainly is how the Book of Romans began. There is no God-seeker. There is no fear of God before their eyes. This is simply the biblical teaching on the fallenness of man. And where I would say that we disagree with one another, again, because of our starting presuppositions. is in this text, it's not an issue of, yes, there is a judicial act of hardening that God does in regards to making sure that the gospel goes out to the Gentiles. He's chosen a Gentile. For example, Paul says that they will hear from a people of strange tongues, and he makes the application that this is to make them jealous, so on and so forth. But one of the things I hear you saying and sort of putting into your presentation here, especially even in the first five verses, was this idea of Israel's being called to be the mechanism of proclaiming the message of the Messiah. And I have a real problem with that because the whole point of the final verses at the end of chapter 9 is that it had always been God's intention. To take the message to the Gentiles, it had always been God's intention that, you know, verse 25, I will call those who are not my people, my people. Those who were called lo-ami become ami. So all through the Gospels, you have these prophecies that this is what God's intention was from the beginning. And it sounds to me like you're saying, well, God's intention was this, and now he's changed that, and I don't see that that is actually a sound position to begin from. Okay, I don't know why I clipped that there, but again, James is, he's trying to get Leighton to interact. with what's in the text. And he even has to extrapolate things from the question itself as it was framed. Because again, like I said, Professor Flowers hasn't done his opening yet. So let's go ahead and listen to some more. Thoreau Sr. wrote, double predestination or equal ultimacy is the view that God works in the same way and in the same manner with respect to the elect and to the... Okay, this drove me crazy. I didn't know that R.C. Sproul was in Romans 9. He's not. And so the answer is completely ignored, and now we're going to move on from the front-loading of the opening statement that's coming, and now we're going to start introducing things that R.C. Sproul and Lorraine Botner have to say on these things. It is becoming and will continue to become more and more apparent that the last place that Professor Flowers wants to be is in the middle of Romans 9 up to his elbows. And the one place that Dr. White wants to be is in the middle of Romans 9 up to his elbows with it. He wants to grapple with it, and Professor Flowers wants to run away from it. And it's going to continue. Here we go. In the case of the elect, regeneration is a monergistic work of God. In the case of the repubate, sin and degradation are a monergistic work of God. This clearly makes God the author of sin. Such a view is indeed monstrous assault on the integrity of God. It's not the Reformed view of predestination. It's a form of hyper-Calvinism, a radical form of superlapsarianism. Yet you, along with several other scholars, have argued, quote, the Bible is clear that Just as God chooses some for mercy and salvation, he chooses others for judicial hardening and reprobation. When he loved Jacob before he was born, he also hated Esau at the exact same time. Does your teaching on God's active work of mercying, as you call it, and then hardening in verse 18, how does that not meet the radical form of superlapsarianism as defined by Sproul? What is the difference? And be specific if you can. Well, two things. I thought we were focusing on Romans 9, but we can leave that if you need to at this point. Secondly, I can guarantee you something, knowing R.C. Sproul personally, he's on my side of this debate tonight. And I think you've misunderstood, and I have—I don't know how many times I have corrected the concept of equal ultimacy. I have spoken against it. Any of you who've listened to my programs know that I speak against equal ultimacy, which is the idea that the action of predestination unto life is identical to the action of reprobation unto death. There is obviously a massive difference between the extension of divine power and mercy, even seeing the incarnation that is necessary for the salvation of God's elect. Massive difference between that and the allowing of an individual to continue in the condemnation that is theirs as fallen sons and daughters of Adam. There is no necessity of the extension of divine power to cause that to happen, and in fact, I would say that God restrains that evil that would flow from their heart if it were not for God's sovereign decree that they're only to do certain things. So I think you've misunderstood Dr. Sproul at that point. Now this exchange I thought was interesting because Dr. Sproul and the quote, and the words, the characterization that Professor Flowers used as he characterized Dr. White's views is at issue. And I think while Dr. White said, I think you've misunderstood Sproul there, which very well may be the case, and Flowers actually says, well, all I did was quote him. As I'm listening to this, and I've listened to the section over and over and over, I think the point, listen to what James does here. He has to explain, I have said repeatedly, over and over and over, all these things, and he lists it out. So I think to properly understand the exchange, the correction is, you've misunderstood me. Perhaps it's both, but clearly as Dr. White gives his defense, the clarification isn't Sproul said this and Sproul says that. It's I have repeatedly said these things, so I'm in line with Sproul. I am perfectly in line, and either way you go, you misunderstand Professor Flowers. You're not understanding it properly, and that is the chief point here. Let's see here. Now I need to switch. Yes, this I believe I'm going to play a little bit more of this, but I believe we're about to get a, that's it for Professor Flowers' time. At this time. Yep, there's our little alert on that. So I have this set up where I have this queued up to go over here and a whole, oops, sorry about that. And for those of you who are seeing me, you know, this stuff popping up and popping down, I'm sorry. I did miss the fact that using QuickTime for this, the only way you see the timestamps is if you're hovering, which brings all this other extraneous stuff up here. And if it doesn't bug you, it bugs me. I don't like it at all. But just a... a technical point along the way here as I'm having to do double duty in doing this. So again, keep watching for interactivity. Is James listening to Leighton? This is going to begin the next section. So Professor Flowers has now completed his presentation and we're going to go into the next cross examination section where Dr. White now cross examines Professor Flowers. And folks, I know it's inside baseball, I keep pointing this out, but if you learn anything from this, it's not just about this particular debate. If you listen to any debate, if you're watching any debate, these are things you need to be looking for because the guys doing it know these rules. And they know why these rules are important. These rules are important for you, for your benefit, as you're listening to what they're having to say. And so when they stray from these rules, for instance, I pointed out that it was common in James's Roman Catholic debates, often for the debate opponent, he ran out of time in his opening statement. So instead of going to rebuttal, he just keeps doing his opening statement when his rebuttal comes around. You're the loser when he does that. You now miss out on information that is vital. He needed to hone his presentation to fit that opening time, and if he couldn't do that, he needed to go back and negotiate with his debate opponent a longer opening statement time. This is why these things are done, because you're the one that's supposed to benefit from this, and so am I. So as we now begin this next section, Watch for interactivity. Is James listening to Leighton and Leighton's answers and responding to them? Or is he just simply moving on to the next question, the next question, the next question? So let's go ahead and dig into this section now. Professor Flowers, you indicated, you used the phrase, the noble cause, a number of times. In fact, in your podcast on Romans 9, you used it 24 times in just the first podcast. Could you show us the noble cause in Romans 9? Yes. If you look at the two lumps of clay, he makes some for noble purposes and some for common. It's a noble purpose that he's made Israel for. And what is the noble cause? To bring the word to the world, to bring the Messiah and his message, to bring redemption. Okay, so just to recap here, and I just grabbed a note, a slide from my presentation when we went through his presentation, to capsulize, as best I understand what Professor Flowers is, the case he's making, the noble cause is using temporarily hardened Israel to bring about redemption. This is God doing this. The problem is it is a misleading extrapolation He plucked this out of thin air. The phrase noble cause is lifted from Romans 9 verse 21 in the 1984 version of the NIV. It is, in every other translation I could find, translated honorable. So from the same lump, there are vessels of honorable use and common use. Well, he just confirmed it, so we're going to continue on here. Okay, and you said that the clay represents temporarily hardened Israel? Yes, I believe he's not representing all of mankind whenever he's talking about the lump of clay. I think he is talking about specifically Israel at that time, because that's what the very original question is. That's what we're talking about from the very beginning. He starts off by introducing the question, which is, You know, I would cut myself off. I would be accursed for these people. He's loving them and willing to be accursed for them because they are the people who have been entrusted with the promise. They've been entrusted with the prophets. They've been entrusted with the very words of God. And if the very people who are entrusted with the very words of God aren't believing it, they're standing in opposition to it. It would seem it's failed. And so that's the question. And so Israel seems as if they failed because they're opposing God's word. And what I think Paul is saying is, no, it's a part of God's plan to harden Israel at this time so as to accomplish redemption through them. So the lump of clay he's referring to is hardened Israel, that they have been calloused in their hardness. Now, notice something. Professor Flowers has already answered the question. The question was about the clay. Okay, now this is a basic debate tactic. And that is, during cross-examination, If you want to restrict how much information you're forced to give out under questioning, you delay. You slow your answers down. And yeah, you do need to be thoughtful, okay? But then you do this. I'll just point out, I think John Stott as well as Leon Morris, both Calvinistic commentators, both agree that God never hardens anyone who hasn't hardened themselves first, and that's why I referred to Acts 28, because they have grown judicially hardened over time, I mean they've grown hardened, calloused themselves over time, and God is giving them over or blinding them in their condition, sending them a spirit of stupor, as this text says, so as to prevent them from recognizing their Messiah. Why? Because if they recognize their Messiah, they're not going to crucify him. If they had the Peter experience in Acts chapter 2 when 2,000 of them come forward and get saved, they're not going to crucify him. And so I think that's real important to understand that we have to understand that what Jesus was accomplishing by hardening and cutting off Israel was to make sure the crucifixion came to pass and the engrafting of the Gentiles because Jews were so biased in that day, they were not going to allow for, go ahead, I'm sorry, you're obviously not happy with me continuing. Well, I'd like to get to a few questions. I'm reading body language. Well, yeah, I'll be honest with you. Go ahead. I think we need to get to more than one question and get back to Romans 9. So Dr. White calls him out on this, and he even sees it. He sees the frustration in Dr. White's face. Twice you could hear Dr. White attempt to follow up another question. But instead, Professor Flowers chases a rabbit, changes the subject, and forces the expression of frustration. The point is, you've already answered the question. Now going off on a rabbit trail merely wastes your opponent's time. And that's why he's frustrated here. Because again, he recognizes he's on the clock and he needs to get as many questions in as possible in order to achieve his goal. And what is his goal? To inform the audience. This is why we say so much. Cross-examination is where the debate takes place. So let's continue on here. So if the clay is temporarily hardened Israel, then how does it then conclude in verses 22 through 24 by saying that part of that clay, which is formed for honorable use, is those who are called of the Jews and the Gentiles? Okay, before he answers that, I want you to notice something. Look at how Dr. White just phrased that question. This is not on a script. He's looking at notes that he took, yes, but it is not a scripted, I'm going to just read what this says right here now, kind of question. He's interacting with Professor Flowers' presentation and what he just answered. So he's trying to probe the issue of the clay and get more information on that. and he's trying to compare his answer, the previous answer, with the text. Okay, you just said this, that, and the other thing, but the text says this. How do you make the two work together? So again, there's that interactivity that needs to happen in a cross-examination. Let's continue. How do you get the Gentiles... The Gentiles are just being introduced in verse 24. And so he's saying, so also not only us who are being called, but the very purpose that he's doing all of this is to bring redemption to the entire world. So he's including now from verse 24 down, he's showing that this is the purpose is to bring redemption to all nations. It's almost like I like to use the comparison of Jonah because Jonah is called to go to Nineveh and Jonah, in a sense, could represent Israel. And so if Jonah represents Israel and Jonah doesn't want to go, he is he's running from God, kind of like Israel. They're not they're not obeying. They're not cooperating. And what he's saying is that doesn't matter. God can accomplish through an unfaithful person, even Jonah, to bring the message to the Ninevites, which represents the Gentiles. so that's what's happening here he's he's using unfaithful people to accomplish his promise to take them to all to take the word to all nations so what he's saying is God's word hasn't failed because he can even use unfaithful Israelites this hardened lump of clay he can recraft and mold some of them for common use to cry out crucify him for example he can recraft some of them to be apostles if that's what he so chooses but he is going to bring his word because he always fulfills his promise So the vessels of mercy, mercy here only has to do, mercy here is not soteriological. It is functional as to who gets to be used to be an instrument of bringing the message of Christ. Well, like I said, I think it's both because... How could it be both? Well, I can explain that. I think that, remember, there's two assumptions of the Israelite in that day. One, we've been entrusted with the words of God. We're the authorities. And then two, we're automatically children of God if we're children of Abraham. And so Paul is saying, no, neither one of those is true because one, not all of you have been chosen to carry the word. Not all of you have been given the authority to carry God's word. And two, just because you are a child of Abraham doesn't make you a child of God. You're not saved because of your nationality. You're saved by grace through faith. And so he's undercutting both of those viewpoints by going through this and showing there's other descendants. Edom is another descendant. He's a direct descendant of Isaac himself. And he's not saved. So he proves his point by pointing out Edomites. And so it is very soteriological. I think soteriology is all throughout Romans 9, Romans 8 to 10 and 11 as well. And he's trying to prove why his word has not failed. That's why I agree with you. Verse 6 is absolutely key to understanding the rest of this text. Wait a minute. You have done your presentation, Professor Flowers, and you believe that we agree about verse 6. This is part of the problem. This is one of the major reasons why these two men are sitting on opposite sides of this stage. I don't believe what Professor Flowers presents about verse six and all of what he did there is something we agree on. We may agree that it is key, not the key, but the point is that I don't see him understanding, and I don't see him trying to understand. Instead, I see a man who's got a square peg, and he's going to make it fit in that round hole, no matter what. And if you come along and you tell him that square peg won't fit in that round hole, he's going to tell you it's a distinction without a difference, and he's going to keep trying. You may think that's unfair, but that's my take on it. So where are we at here? We are at 104.29. Let's keep moving here. We're going to get into, I'm going to try to start and stop freely here. We've got another five minutes on the program before I need to wrap up today. I'm hoping to get this section done today and then on Tuesday we'll begin with the rebuttals as well as the cross-examinations that go along with the rebuttals and try to squeeze in the closing statements too. I'm going to have to play a lot more and comment less on Tuesday, but I'd like to get that done even if we have to go long and do a mega or a giga or a jiga or 1.21 gigawatts or something like that. I don't know. Anyway, let's move on with this. You said in your presentation that, this was your words, that God has elected or that He has chosen that people be saved by believing that word. Do you believe that God chooses who will believe, or is God's choice that it's just that salvation will be by faith? The second. So God doesn't choose who will believe. The object of his choosing is the method, not the individual. The individual is still chosen because the individual who believes, just like the prodigal, when the prodigal son comes home, the father chooses to show him mercy. The father doesn't owe him that. That's a monergistic work of the father. The father could cast him out or punish him or stone him even on that day for what he did. It's a monergistic work of the father to decide to take that son back in. So it's a very personal relationship between those two people. When he's coming home, he chooses to show him mercy. So that's one of the reasons I think our view is a much more personal view of election than your view, because your view has God choosing people without any regard to their personhood or their knowledge of anything good or bad to do, whereas my view He knows exactly what they did. They're coming out of their pigsty. He knows exactly who they are, and he's choosing to show them mercy in the midst of their shame and filth. But he's choosing to do so because they have humbled themselves. Well, yeah, I would say yes. Yeah, the Bible does. Pay close attention here, because Professor Flowers' shoe is about to get nailed to the floor. Humble yourself and you will be exalted if you so they have a lot of passages in scripture Which teach that very clearly that humility are humbling yourself is a part of our responsibility As as children of God for example as children of God Well, okay, well, as people, I spoke there. James 4.10, humble yourself before the Lord and he will lift you up. 2 Kings 22.19 is a great passage because it says, because your heart was responsive and because you humbled yourself before the Lord, when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people, that they would become cursed and laid waste. And because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I have also heard you, declares the Lord." Okay, Professor Flowers, do you believe that the presentation that we just listened to here models for us the kind of interpretation and exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection, justification by grace through faith, necessity of the atonement. Do you believe that this kind of exegesis, which you just gave us, the same kind of exegesis that you would use to demonstrate those truths from Scripture? I would think that the book that I'm writing, the blog that I've written, the podcast, I go into a lot more deeper exegesis. This is a 20-minute presentation for the beginning of a debate. What I heard was a presentation on a group of topics that then eventually got to some of the verses in chapter nine, but it was not an exegesis of chapter nine. You did not walk through it. No, he didn't. You created a system and then went in and said, so that's why this says this and that says that. Hopscotch. What I'm asking is, do you believe that that's the same methodology that we are forced to use to demonstrate to the Muslim the deity of Christ, to demonstrate to the Muslim the necessity of the cross, or make it any other situation where we're dealing with someone outside the faith. Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things? No. I think that it was a debate. You've got to take notice of that. No. No. Now he's going to give what he believes to be a bunch of reasons as to why it's no, but ultimately it's no. And he's right. He didn't. And this is where James calling him on this was when I decided I need to do something with this. This is something I can work with because rightly dividing the word of truth, the scriptures are not your personal playground. I don't care who you are. It is not the personal playground of the Pope to sit in some chair in Rome and decide X, Y, and Z because he can. It isn't the personal playground of the word faith movement. It is not the personal playground of a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon or a Baptist or Reformed Baptist, anyone. Our dedication needs to be to understanding the word, a right, a right. And if what he's about to say justifies what he did that night in your mind, I think you need to get your priorities straightened out because that's not why you do theology. That's not why you do what we do here. We're about showing people and demonstrating the truth from God's Word and letting it do the teaching, not playing theological games. Let's finish this up and then I'll wrap up with some closing comments. And I think there's a time and a place for all things. I think there's a time and a place for sitting down and writing a commentary which goes line by line through every single point without a lot of emotion. These good people, one of them, Brother Joe from Arkansas, he had to be a Calvinist. No non-Calvinist would drive that far for this. So, I mean, these people have driven a long way, and so I don't, I'm trying to give them an understanding in the shortest amount of time of the full view of what we hold to, and this is the best way I knew to do that. And I do provide, as a matter of fact, I released a podcast today that goes line by line through almost every line. Okay, forget the debate. I went through it line by line on my podcast. Which lasted an hour and 45 minutes. So I have already done what we're supposed to be doing tonight. In the last minute here, according to the bio that was read, you were an elder in a Reformed Baptist church? No, I was a minister. Challenge the credentials. A minister, not an elder. It was not elder-led, it was a congregational-led church. Well, it couldn't have been a Reformed Baptist then, but my question is this... It was part of the Founders Conference, Southern Baptist Convention. Oh, okay. All right. But it wasn't a 1689 church. No, sir. Here's the question. You say that we believe all are judicially hardened. Could you show me anywhere where I or any other Reformed Baptist or anyone else has not made the necessary distinction between being dead in sin and judicially hardened? Well, I'm basing it upon your interpretation of what is called total inability, or total depravity, where you speak of man's corpse-like inability to respond to God in his appeals to be reconciled. 2 Corinthians chapter 5, for example, very clearly has Christ in us making his appeal be reconciled to God, and the Calvinist believes that mankind is born in a condition that they cannot willingly respond to that appeal. Take notice that as he gives this answer, remember back in the beginning of this debate, he explains that the concept of judicial hardening, which he grossly misunderstands, the concept of judicial hardening was what made him reject Calvinism and walk away from it. I think at some point he became absolutely committed to that and that this is not something that he can misunderstand in his mind. If he does misunderstand it, well, there's more to come on that. But there's no question he misunderstands it to anybody that knows the subject. Let me let him finish here and then I'll wrap up with some comments. And thus, that sounds a lot, to me, like judicial hardening. Judicial hardening is the inability to see, hear, understand, and turn so as to be forgiven. And that sounds just like total inability. So my contention is that Calvinists do not make a distinction between total inability and judicial hardening, at least one that's a distinction worth a difference. All right. Thank you, men. Okay, so that is the end of that. I'm going to go select a different slide here, and we can switch over to that and get ready to close the show out. Take notice that he defines judicial hardening inaccurately. I said it before, I'll say it again. Pharaoh is the example in Romans 9 of judicial hardening. Pharaoh was born a sinner. Pharaoh was born with original sin. Every good thing that Pharaoh could possibly do in his life is stained with sin. As Isaiah 64, 6 tells us, All of the good things that we can do are as filthy rags before God. The best that we can offer him are as filthy rags before him. That's Pharaoh's condition, and that's talking about total depravity. That totally depraved man was used by God, and that's described in Romans 9 by the Apostle Paul as being raised up for a particular purpose. That purpose is judicial hardening, not this, that God would use Pharaoh to make his power known. And he hardened his heart even deeper, and he hardened his heart even deeper. That's judicial hardening. That is not this. This is an apple, and this is an orange. This is a square peg. This is a round hole. One of these things is not like the other. One of these things is not the same. But for whatever reason, Professor Flowers can't allow it. And his theological correction His theological answer, his theological rebuttal is, it's a distinction without a difference. I'm sorry. From the moment I ever heard of these two things, I never thought that. And trust me, I'm the guy sitting in the audience, James will tell you, raising my hand, objecting to four out of five points, and there was no reason why I should have held to the fifth point. At a certain point, James actually had to ask me to be quiet so he could actually finish the presentation that evening because I kept interrupting. But when somebody laid out these two as part of that equation, as part of that presentation, I understood it easily. Easily. This is a smart man. I don't understand how he can make that case and make that argument with a straight face. I don't understand it. I don't understand it. So on Tuesday, we're going to pick up where we've left off and start into the rebuttals. And in this situation now, we have Professor Flowers going first, and then there's a cross-examination, and then Dr. White going, and then there will be a cross-examination, and then five-minute closing remarks. Keep in mind the rules as you evaluate the debate because it's not just the issue of Calvinism, it's not just the issue of the treatment of Scripture, it is also the treatment of the audience. Remember something, Professor Flowers just finished saying his justification for doing what he did in this debate was the guy drove a long way from Arkansas and I didn't want to waste his time. I wanted to put on the best presentation I possibly could and get all the information out there. I think that's a fair evaluation of what he just said. Well, if that was your motivation, why'd you run away from the debate? You didn't engage. You never engaged in this debate through the whole time. That's why James calls it a bad debate. But for me, I think it's a good debate because it illustrates, it's very illustrative of the problem of why Armenians can't talk to Calvinists. because they want to dismiss us and use phrases like it's a distinction without a difference. And you know what I hear? Talk to the hand because the ears aren't listening. That's what I hear when you do this, Professor Flowers. And that's why I say trying to reason with you is like talking to a brick. It's like talking to a brick. There's nothing coming back. Your interaction in the cross-examination, when you were asking the questions, was non-existent. I don't think you heard a single response James gave. You just kept to your script. One side's listening, one side's interacting with what the other says, and the other one can't, won't, or just doesn't care. You tell me. This is Rich Pierce, and I'm signing off for today's Dividing Line. Start the music up here. Thank you for joining me. Appreciate you. Come by King's Church and visit us sometime when you get a chance. Blessings.