More of Dave Hunt's Misrepresentation of Calvinism

And good afternoon and welcome to The Dividing Line on a Saturday afternoon. We are live here on Saturday December 14th 2002

Continuing this week with the review of a very recent Again, I don't it's not a sermon.

I don't know how what do you really call it a talk? that was given at Was that Harvest Christian Fellowship?

Is that what was Dave Greg Laurie's church? Yes, Greg Laurie's church in Southern, California By Dave Hunt we started this last week where I pointed out that this is a

I think an important Talk simply because at this point Unless it's somebody other than Dave Hunt writing this book with me.

He's had to have read my opening statements and Therefore would have already heard correction on many of his misapprehensions and Therefore if he continues those misapprehensions, then we have a good reason for believing that he's doing so purposefully or at least that he has no intention whatsoever of accepting correction and that even if he is writing a

Even if he is fully aware of what Calvinists say about their positions He's going to simply continue to define

His opponents positions on his own where they say he's accurate or not That is the historical way that Dave has done things unfortunately his books demonstrate this even when going after groups that are unorthodox and outside the mainstream

He has been shown to be very unfair in his criticisms of many of them Again seeing on the page only the worst possible things putting the worst possible construct on anything

Never giving a benefit of the doubt never trying to understand the perspective from inside that is that is

I think probably the most Common thing that can be said about Dave's writings.

He doesn't understand these movements from the inside He has no interest in understanding them from the inside And hence he does not accurately represent

The arguments of the other side and that affects his apologetic in many ways So we're gonna be continuing that just a quick note as we get going it is getting toward the end of the year and The people the people who listen to this program are not the kind of people that this is overly relevant to unfortunately but I mean that in the sense that people who listen to this program are generally folks

Who work hard to make a living and are not overly concerned about having excess funds laying around at the end of the year they?

have to do something with So as to avoid tax issues and things like that I I think the vast majority of folks listening this program have no concept of what that would even be about But we are facing some

Some needs in the ministry, but they are not like many people Many ministries that you know

I'm continuing to get stuff from Catholic answers and stuff like that About you know everything horrible since September 11th 2001 and and all the rest of this stuff, but in reality

Orders are are good Things have been steady for us the issue is not a downturn and we haven't hired anybody else

But quite simply the ministry has never been able to provide our two our huge staff

And I'm the huger of the staff The staff with health insurance and things like that We take care of our families.

I primarily through my my wife's employment and It's just been you know we for many many many years

I made minimum wage or below and and only a few years ago managed to sneak above minimum wage and We're just we're just not a big ministry, and we are very very very

Careful with the funds that we have and we do a lot with the funds that we have and that's why you don't hear me

Talking about it very often A lot of folks think that we are just set up and well -heeled and all the rest that stuff

That's not true. We just happen to live on a small amount, and I think that's good in many ways We don't have a certain group we have to You know keep happy We don't have you know some huge building that we're trying to maintain and all the rest that stuff and I think that's that's allowed us to Be consistent over the years in a way that That would be difficult if we had that kind of of a burden of Trying to maintain a large staff and all the rest that kind of stuff so my point is that some basically some needs have arisen in the sense that Half of our staff since there's two of us

It's not me half of our staff has encountered some medical needs recently And I was unaware until just recently that There is just a massively huge deductible on the insurance policy

That's that is maintained and not through the ministry as I mentioned, and I just don't feel that it's that it's right that that kind of Burden be borne by by individuals who are very much dedicated to the work of the ministry and have demonstrated their their dedication to the work of the ministry and and Self -sacrifice and so I really feel that that we need to in some way shape or form help with this situation

Indeed we would covet your prayers for for the future right now. We we don't have any information about the future and thankfully

God does but We may have more to say about that later on, but right now.

I'm just letting our folks know that There is a there is a need and if you are in a situation to be able to Assist the ministry at this time.

It would be very much appreciated It's we're not trying to go do anything fancy, or you know we haven't overspent ourselves and so on so forth

I really think though that it's proper to provide the laborer with wages and Given the expense of medical treatment these days you can understand what happens in situations like that So I'm just letting folks know about that Ask you to to pray for us and pray for the ministry and if you can be of financial assistance

That would be very very much appreciated. So just want to let everybody know about that if you listen on an archive.

It's probably still True whenever you're listening to it down the road whenever that might be

So want to make that that need known to folks so as I mentioned last week we had begun

Listening to a a talk, and I guess that's what you have it at Calvary Chapel type churches our talks and Dave Hunt gave a talk it's 70 some odd minutes in length including the audience questions at the end and We started listening.

We heard 11 cuts last week. I've been working on them this morning and have let me look here

I'm up to cut 28 now, so I've got what 17 more made since then and Of course last week.

We had something right at the beginning Concerning the cruise don't forget about that coming up in a year from now that does help to benefit the ministry as well and Don't forget that that cost has come down a good bit

So please click on the cruise link on our on our website if you're looking If you haven't figured out what to get the wife for a

Christmas yet So there's a good suggestion for you. Hey, honey. Let's let's get out of the snow next year and go to the

Caribbean she'll love you for that him and And she'll think it was mondo expensive when in reality it wasn't but anyways so we talked a little bit about the cruise, and then we talked about Jerry Matta ticks and those of you who are wondering if I heard back not a

Whisper not a word, but hey you know I've also got to recognize that mr..

Matta ticks might be in Rome he might be on a pilgrimage someplace

I haven't the foggiest idea, so we'll we'll keep an eye on that But we only spend about 45 minutes or so on the

Dave hunt situation and sort of that sort of cut things back So we might be able to get a little bit more done today as we listen to these these clips

But the reason I'm responding as I said before To this particular talk other than the fact that I am mentioned in it briefly

Is the fact that at least now we we have a talk where Dave is

Presenting his polemic against Calvinism, and he's doing so having full knowledge

And in fact admitting a few times Knowing what Calvinists say in response now the honest person will then take into consideration

The responses that are offered and Then will sharpen their critique sharpen their arguments based upon that However, that's not what we have taking place

So anyways, let's continue listening. These are direct clips. This is taking directly off of the videotape of the of the presentation

Dave hunt Continues his critique of Calvinism doesn't mean exactly what you think it means

Well different countless say different things I find they don't all agree with one another but What they mean by total depravity they mean in ability

Unable to believe the gospel now. I don't find a verse Anywhere in the

Bible. It says that Jesus said go into all the world preach the gospel every creature It sounds like everybody could believe it if they wanted to now notice what's said there

First of all Dave says I've never seen a verse in the Bible now He has tried in vain to deal with John 644.

He turns John 644 into a testimony for free will By turning the text completely and totally on its head and he would never be able to defend what he says about John 6

Against a knowledgeable person who can do exegesis of text scripture. It's just not possible and I would like to be able to demonstrate that sometime, but He says first of all,

I've never seen a verse that says that man is unable Even though ooh do not I is used in John 644.

It's used in Romans 8 7 through 8, etc, etc But he seemingly hasn't seen that and then do you hear the thinking going on in his mind?

When he says well, you're supposed to preach the gospel to everyone. That sounds like everyone can believe Why does the one fall from the other?

Just because we are to preach to all does not mean that all have the capacity

This goes back to what we said last week. He keeps going on on gets very passionate. We're supposed to preach to everybody

Why should you do that if some of them are damned to hell? Well Dave, it's because we don't know who the elect are and therefore we preach the gospel all knowing that if it is going to have the

Divine if the divine birth is going to take place if it's going to Take root and grow and produce fruit.

It's because God by his Spirit blesses that proclamation in the hearts of his

Elect which is why Paul could tell Timothy I have endured all things what for the sake of who?

The elect now now Dave and he needs to be warned about this Dave likes to mock that use he likes to take verses that he does not understand and Try to twist them in mockery of Calvinism.

So he'll say things You know instead of whosoever will be so the elect may believe or something like that in a mocking fashion

We have a cut we'll get to later on This this afternoon where he really engages in a tremendous amount of mockery.

He's playing to the crowd And yet here you have Paul saying to Timothy. I have endured these things for the sake of the elect and Who are they?

Well, again, we don't know who they are when we stand upon a street corner and preach

We don't know when we do a radio broadcast We don't know when we preach a sermon

But God does and just because we don't know doesn't mean that that's not a divinely revealed

Truth and so there's no connection Me between the statement. We're to preach to all people.

Yes, we are It does not follow then that John 644 doesn't mean what John 644 says that is an unfounded assumption

That is a part of Dave Hunt's tradition tradition Not scripture, but tradition and that's what we are seeing here in.

Mr. Hunt's Commentary at this particular point in time So that's the first thing to to look at now looking at the and I've got so many

I've got so many files open here if my computer doesn't crash. I'll actually be somewhat surprised but continuing on this comment physical death with spiritual death

Of course a physically dead person can't believe but a spiritually dead person can

Physically dead person can't even sin You Cannot equate physical death with spiritual.

Yeah, it's a it's a form of Materialism now, I'm not sure how in the world that's a form of materialism in any way shape or form

But he's talking here about what he says is the improper application of physical death the spiritual death

Well, if he wants to argue that when Paul says you were dead in your trespasses and sins

That means something different than let him do so but again, mr Hunt doesn't derive from the text

Any exegetical conclusions that would say well dead doesn't really mean dead here dead has some other meaning

Instead what we hear over and over again In fact a large portion of this this entire presentation was really an argument against Paul He goes through some of the passages on total depravity as we heard him last week.

He'll well, no one does good but but but Noah did good.

In fact, I realized, you know, it's really strange. Sometimes you're You know, you're doing something else.

I think I was Loading something on my palm tungsten tea. What a massive thing it is

Anyways, I was loading something on there or doing something. I was doing something technical. I remember it was it was technical

It's one of those things where you're just clicking on things and loading things and extracting files and all of a sudden it hits me

You've got PDA envy there son All of a sudden it hits me. I forgot when

I played the clip last week where he makes reference to To this to make a comment on ear that or it's coming up on the two and I'm not sure which one it is

But at some point in this presentation He says well No One can do good but but obviously

Noah found grace It wasn't just granted to him as one of the elect. He found grace in the eyes Lord So he must have done his whole argument is against Paul.

I mean he makes he makes there are Augustinian Roman Catholics that have a higher view a

More biblical view of grace and man's will than Dave Hunt does the man borders on absolute positive

Pelagian ism at times and Sadly the people applaud it and they laugh at it and they think it's wonderful.

You heard them laughing a dead man can't even sin Is that somehow relevant to this?

No, it's not relevant to this at all If he claims to have read hundreds of Calvinists, then he knows beyond all shadow of a doubt

That what we're talking about is inability to do good not inability to do evil He knows all those things but he just doesn't simply, you know, he just chooses not to deal with the reality of what we are attempting to communicate and as such is his

Obviously his criticisms do not get him very far and they bring them out very powerfully

But they ignore Let me give you the context in this one again I'm not sure why

I cut it where I did but you know, sometimes this happens He is saying the

Calvinists have their favorite verses they have their favorite arguments That's the the context what he's saying here now listen to what he then applies that to and they bring them out very powerfully

But they ignore The whole body of Scripture hundreds of other verses that give you the other side of the picture so they

Major on their proof text They major on their proof texts, well

What in the world is it when? Most books such as mr. Hunt's or Norman Geisler's repeats 2nd

Peter 3 9 1st Timothy 2 4 and Matthew 2337 over and over and over and over again without ever

Seriously even trying to respond to the exegetical

Demonstration that these works simply do not these passes its passages simply do not teach

What their tradition assumes they teach? Isn't isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?

the proof texting is being done by the Arminian the exegesis is what is being offered by the

Reformed perspective and Dave Hunt doesn't know how to offer exegesis. He doesn't have any interest in offering exegesis

And in fact as we will see He in essence dismisses the importance of doing sound exegesis and mocks

Calvinist for even attempting to engage in that Activity what about there's none that do it good well

We see I knew it was coming up. I knew I said I made this clip last week But you can't always remember what what you said.

Here's the clip. I was talking about just a few moments ago What about there's none that do it good? well

We have at least one exception back there to Genesis 6 5 and that was Noah don't we God was gonna destroy the whole world, but there was one man

Who found grace in the sight it doesn't say the one man to whom God gave grace because he had predestined him he found grace

There must have been something on Noah's part Something on Noah's part you see we have all tried to explain to Dave that fundamentally what he's saying is

The reason someone is saved is because they are better than someone who is not

And that I don't see how he gets around that in fact. He's seemingly admitting that why did Noah find grace well because Noah was better Noah Noah deserved it now.

He didn't say that did he he didn't say that but is that an improper? Reading of what he's saying

Noah found grace. What does that mean? Well obviously Dave is attempting to make the grace that Noah found the same as the grace that saves that's a obvious Misuse of the phrase that's not

Not at all the the case, but even even at that. What was it about Noah doesn't that mean

Noah was better And he was better on his own wasn't he oh he might.

Oh, no. He was better because God well wait a minute you just said No Noah found grace, and there must have been something in Noah that caused and received that grace not the way around You can't have your cake and eat it, too

This dances on the very edge of Pelagian ism as I said I know Augustinian Roman Catholics that would disagree with this

Who would say no no no no no? and of course Dave hunts going yeah, see

Augustinian Roman Catholics see as if see I'll say in Augustine the first Roman Catholic and will

I don't think we get to that this week, but he goes into that Toward the end of his presentation and just enough to make anyone who has a historical bone in their body just cringe at the

Gross misuse of historical information, but anyways, let's let's press on that since you cannot

Respond to God you are totally you're dead and and and they're totally

Unable to even believe the gospel then God must reach out to you And why does he do this?

Unconditionally in other words there's nothing in you why God should do it But now we have a problem

Why does he? Predestined some to heaven and others to hell there's no difference between them

Nothing in them that would cause me to do that and there is nothing in God Who would cause me to do that he has no respect for persons?

There's no shadow of turning with him, so I can't find a reason in God or in them why he would choose

This person and and and not that person so we we have a we have another another problem

Well that problem is is Dave's Because he won't allow the scriptures to speak for themselves

Did you hear what he said well if there's nothing in them and see he's arguing against that he is arguing that God chooses us based upon something in us our faith

God chooses us because we believe So that's part and parcel so some so why does one person believe in another doesn't there's there must be something in them

They must be in some way shape or form better But you hear the argument that that he's using well if there's nothing in God because he's no respecter of persons

What was respecter of persons mean? Isn't Dave hunt the way in one saying God is respecter of persons because he chooses based upon what we do

He chooses us based upon who's better He is a respecter of persons from the

Arminian perspective, and I know I'm not an Arminian yes You are Dave. It's just a historical word that describes your belief the only difference you have with Arminius is on Perseverance of the

Saints or eternal security and and your doctrine of eternal security is is absolutely without any foundation whatsoever

You don't even allow for the possibility of the existence of false faith or false assurance or anything like that It's it's a weird thing, but anyways.

It's an Arminian position. It's very clearly an Arminian position and So he's he's he's in essence saying well if God chooses

And he doesn't choose based anything at us and anything within him Well, then you've got a conundrum and yet He himself is the one who's saying that God's choices depend upon those who do it better.

They they're more spiritual They they believe in some way shape or form the way someone else does not he's the ones making

God a respecter of persons now The biblical phrase respecter of persons means God does not look upon a person's race upon a person's

Money upon a person's social status and say well. I like rich people. I'm gonna just take rich people to heaven

That's what a respecter of persons is about that's has nothing to do with the fact that God chooses

But you see if God chose based upon anything in the creature that would make him a Respecter of persons, so it's

Dave is contradicting himself. He is the one who has Because he he just simply refuses to listen to correction refuses to listen anyone trying to help him out

Is is not seeing it's not now he says there's nothing in God because it's not a respecter of persons, okay

But what about the clear biblical teaching? That the basis of God's Selection is the counsel of his will

The basis of God's election is his own mercy and grace Why won't he deal with that?

Well, we'll see if he does deal with that because obviously I presented a very strong case for that in my own materials that he has to respond to On this particular subject going of course to Ephesians chapter 1

Let's try to sneak This is a minute and a half clip one more clip in here and a few comments before we take our break

Predestination is always because of foreknowledge Whom he foreknew

Romans 8 29 whom he foreknew he predestined

To salvation or to be conformed to the image of his son. He could save you without conforming you to the image of Christ He predestined whom he foreknew.

Well, what would that mean? Did you catch that? Let me let me play out one little section I know is a minute and a half, but let's just just you've got to catch this 29 whom he foreknew he predestined

To salvation or to be conformed to the image of his son. He could save you without conforming you to the image of Christ You hear that?

This this is a major me. I mean there should be Armenians Up in arms

Saying Dave Hunt you have no idea what you're talking about. He can save you without conforming you to the image of Christ Being conformed to the image of Christ is a special blessing and Not all

Christians are to be conformed the image of Christ. That's how he gets around these pad But there's nothing that says that you're you're you're elect to salvation

We pointed out that when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he contradicted that you've been chosen from the beginning for salvation

A passage that Dave never deals with anywhere in Scripture anywhere in his in his book.

I mean But here he gets around it. Well foreknown. He's gonna say well foreknown.

It just means looking in the future and Yet you're gonna see he knows what the answer that is

Misrepresented and then not deal with even the misrepresentation very well, but you've got to hear that statement

Being predestined to can be conformed the image of Christ Does not mean you're predestined to salvation now, excuse me

Is this okay, even if you said that even if you said ah, this is just two blessings Is that blessing given to anyone who is unsaved?

So if you're predestined that blessing doesn't that Imply salvation in fact necessitate salvation is is a non saved person ever conformed the image of Christ Hmm 29 whom he foreknew he predestined

To salvation or to be conformed to the image of his son. He could save you without conforming you to the image of Christ He predestined whom he foreknew.

What would that mean? Well The ones I believe that he knew would respond to the gospel he marked out a special blessing

For them. Otherwise, why talk about foreknowledge? Well, the Calvinist has a problem.

So then he has to say prognostico Prognosis that means to know in advance well, what that really means is

Predetermined now, let me stop him right there Notice something's going on here and I know we need we're coming up on our break precinct

We'll just pick this this quote up afterwards, but notice what's going on here Dave Hunt is

Confusing the verb and the noun He's using them interchangeably now.

You can't do that That's not sound exegesis, but he's doing it anyways now

He knows he just pronounced even pronounced correctly prognostico But that's the verb and then he uses prognosis.

That's the noun They're used in different ways This has been explained to him and you'll see now he's gonna say well that that means predetermined

No one says that means predetermined for loved but not predetermined That's why debates have to take place you can stop that right there and say no you're wrong

Here's what's actually being said now respond to the reality if you can't debate they can always

Run off on these rabbit trails and you never get anywhere Well, we'll continue with this cut on the other side of the break here on the dividing line, we'll be right back

And welcome back to the dividing line the stream this the streams

The dulcet tens of Steve camp there and pilgrims progress bringing us back to our study of well, you know study sounds so so serious, but anyways our review of Dave hunts talk at a

Calvary Chapel type Church of late on Calvinism We're halfway through a little little clip here.

I was gonna play the whole thing, but I keep having to stop it of Dave promoting the concept of foreknowledge

Determined I think we'll just stop that there and then start again, well what that really means is

Predetermined so now we have a redundancy whom he predetermined he predetermined Whom he predetermined he predestined

That's not what the Bible says Foreknowledge is always a first Peter chapter 1 elect

Can you finish the verse according to what the foreknowledge? according to the foreknowledge elect according to the foreknowledge

Something God knew in advance caused him to elect certain people not to salvation but to a

Blessing what could that have been those that he knew would respond the gospel? Well, there's there's the standard view, but did you notice not a single word of refutation?

Not a single word of refutation of the actual meaning of the verb No mention of the fact that it has been explained to him now

He's you know, I've read hundreds of Calvinist. Well, if you've read hundreds of Calvinist then at least 50 times

You have read that when the verbal form of prognosis go

That is the verbal form not that not the noun form Not what you have in the passage you is just repeating over and over again

But in the verbal form when it's used with God's subject It's object is always persons not what persons do now if I knew that fact

Then how in the world? could I stand in front of an audience of hundreds or even thousands of people and Pretend I'm giving an answer

When I know I'm not giving an answer and I don't have an answer. I Don't understand that.

I Honestly do not understand that How can you do that, I I I don't know

I I just don't know Well, we continue on the call particular redemption the

Senate of Dort said quote the most precious death of his son Should it should extend to all those and those only who were from eternity chosen a salvation

See the Calvinist argues like this Are you going to say that Christ paid on the on the cross?

He paid the penalty for the sins of people who will also pay that penalty themselves in eternal hell

Now that's double a double payment. That's not that's not right Are you going to say that the sum of the blood of Jesus was wasted on the cross?

It was poured out For the redemption of those who were rejected so some of the blood of Jesus was rejected.

I'm sorry was was Wasted now, let me stop that just there.

I was gonna let it go on a little bit farther, but here here is Dave's attempt To deal with the arguments for particular redemption such as presented by Charles Haddon Spurgeon in the very sermon that that hunt quoted where he said that hunt

Unequivocally denied particular redemption Except he presented this very argument that he's now responding to so much for the meaning of unequivocal

And yet still he will not present the actual argument. It's not that the blood of Christ was wasted

Those of you who are reformed know I hope what the real essence of the argument is the real essence of the argument

Has to do with Substitutionary atonement and that is

That from the Arminian perspective from Dave Hunt's perspective who seemingly he just talked about foreknowledge

So he believes in what's called SF simple foreknowledge God knows all future events not because of an eternal decree, but through some special ability of knowledge

He knows all future events. We knows who's going to accept him and yet Knowing that Knowing who is going to accept him.

He still lays the sins the the guilt of sin

He's going to talk about sin versus sins here in a moment. It doesn't make any difference He lays the wrath that is due the sin for every single individual that is going to be in hell upon his son knowing

That he's doing so in vain That is the objection

That is what Spurgeon called monstrous, and I think we could say

Spurgeon meant that unequivocally That is what the objection is and Dave Hunt will not deal with it listen

See the Calvinist argues like this Are you going to say? That Christ paid on the on the cross

He paid the penalty for the sins of people who will also pay that penalty themselves in eternal hell

Now that's double a double payment. That's not that's not right Are you going to say that the sum of the blood of Jesus was wasted on the cross it was poured out?

For the redemption of those who were reject him so some of the blood of Jesus was rejected

I'm sorry was was Wasted Wait a minute

If there'd been only one person To be saved it would have taken all of the blood of Jesus, right?

He had to pay the penalty for Adam's sin The Bible talks more about sin and offering for sin than for sins

God's justice had to be satisfied Even if there were only one person you can't say this

Drop of God's blood was shed for that person in this drop of God's of Christ blood was shed for that person and so forth

Well, that's not the point. No one is trying to divide the blood of Christ up We're simply saying if you believe in substitutionary atonement if you say

Christ died for me in my place bore God's wrath Against sin in my place, then you have to answer the question if God the

Father knew that John Thomas Was going to die in rejection of Christ and undergo eternal punishment for his sins

Why would God the Father lay the sins of John Thomas?

Upon his son knowing that this would make Christ suffer needlessly

Why That's why we have to do a debate because even though I've asked that question

I asked that question the Potter's freedom, which certainly got cited enough in Dave's book to Allegedly tell us that it's been read

Since I asked that question, I think I deserve an answer not an obfuscation an answer an unequivocal one, please

I think that's a fair thing to request No response is here offered

That is just trying to do an end around and get around the reality of the argument

Well, we continue Tie you up in knots

All to prove that whosoever doesn't really mean whosoever now did you catch that?

That's that's how Dave Hunt's responds To the documentation that for example in John chapter 3 verse 16

The King James rendering whosoever Does not have a basis in the

Greek language to support his tradition Now remember Dave Hunt thinks that whosoever

Means there is no election and everyone's able he's reading two huge conclusions into one

English word and Yet Dave will tell you and he will tell you honestly He couldn't show you in a

Greek text the words that make up the Greek phrase That is translated whosoever if his life depended on it

If you walked up to Dave Hunt and opened up a Greek New Testament and handed to him and said show me whosoever he would have no idea and yet when presented

With the fact that for example in John 3 16 it is everyone believing so whosoever believes whoever in the group that believes

Will receive eternal life everyone in that group not Whosoever Therefore has the capacity to believe or whosoever in the sense that those that those who believe is not a chosen group

The word the phrase doesn't even begin to address any of that But despite being told that Knowing that having heard that His only response and I don't know about you you tell me does this sound to me

It sounds to me it sounds to you like Mockery Tie you up in knots

Are you died arguments? It doesn't that sound like mockery to me sounds like I can mean does it sound like mockery to you? Does he provide a response?

All to prove that Whosoever doesn't really mean whosoever. No, that's not what it proves.

It proves whosoever has a meaning different than Dave Hunt's tradition And see

Dave Hunt will not examine his tradition. He will not allow his tradition to be seen for what it is

It sounds like mockery to me and I don't know if you know, I if I were disagreeing with someone who knows a lot about Accounting or something

As he does in fact interestingly enough Dave Hunt is an accountant I don't know that I would sit around You know if we had a disagreement over How you post?

inventory Items to a particular ledger. I don't know that I'd sit around mocking what he had to say about that Just because he had studied it

That's that doesn't seem overly wise to me. Just the power choice so we can love him Doesn't it say you know the the

Ethiopian? What does here mean to be baptized? Well, if you're one of the elect you can be baptized otherwise

Say if you believe with all your heart look up this word heart.

It's the real person It's the decisions I make for my will keep your heart with all diligence

For out of it are the issues of life seek me with your whole heart

What if God is just as absent with irresistible grace? What what is this heart? Have to do is it do

I have nothing to do with it The Calvinism it works so well.

He can take totally depraved dead and sin You know rebels and so forth that can't understand anything and they have no will and he causes them to believe

Then after they believe He doesn't do a very good job with them I Mean every

Christian should live a perfect sinless life with me Unbelievable Unbelievable, I mean

There's so much there. I Mean how many different errors can you pack into into one?

particular section He takes dead sinners who have no will he knows that's untrue

He knows that's a canard. He knows that's false But he simply keeps repeating it because in Dave Hunt's mind

Dave Hunt defines whatever subject he's addressing Even those who have studied it for years

Cannot know what Dave Hunt can know about having studied for a number of months It is a false

Misrepresentation of the system to say that man has no will that is untrue

It's a falsehood and then to go boy God doesn't do a good job with him because he should make him sinless

They Experience difficulties in their life Well, what are you offering in its place?

Mr. Hunt? Why do Christians sin from your perspective? I? Thought they

I thought from your perspective once you've been given eternal life that you're not going to cease having eternal life

So, how do you answer that question? I answer that question by saying God has a purpose. He's conforming me the image of Christ What's your answer you to your

God doesn't have a purpose doesn't have a decree He's just a great cosmic responder who is completely dependent upon the libertarian will of man

I mean why glorify your God if he has simple foreign knowledge if he just simply he creates and Then he looks in the future goes.

Hey, it all turned out. It all turns out. Well in the end. Yay glorify me Why? What if it didn't turn out right

I I I'd I'd I'm I don't know.

It's obvious that from mr. Hunt's perspective He thinks we're saying you do not have to believe to be saved

That's what that's what he's saying So deep is his commitment to libertarian free will that he can't even hear what's being said to him

Of course you believe to be saved that's not the issue The issue is what is the nature of saving faith?

Is it a work of the Spirit of God and to whom does the Spirit of God minister that saving faith?

To say you have to believe Dave. I have I Have believed any true believer can say

I have believed with my whole heart But when

I say that I am NOT Denying the reality of the work of the

Spirit of God When Lazarus could say to people I believe in Jesus Christ, he wasn't denying

Jesus Christ raised him from the dead was he of course not the two aren't

The assumptions that are just all through this due to Dave Hunt's tradition tradition tradition tradition

Again if we've learned anything from listening to this stuff And some people say I you know you

You know if you've you've lost it white because all you ever talk about anymore is Calvinism I'm sure there are people who say that Are you noticing that many of the things we're discussing are very relevant to all of the groups that we address

The necessity of examining your tradition in the light of Scripture Every group that we had we address this is something we have to deal with them on every single one of them

Not just Roman Catholicism with its blatant denial of Sola Scriptura but all of these groups and When we're talking about the atonement we're talking about the nature of the gospel

This is relevant to every single group to whom we seek to minister So we haven't lost our balance we're dealing with an individual in fact

I have many times And I have to admit it's it's a nice thing to be able to point out.

I've many times said to Roman Catholics Who have found hunts materials offensive

Yeah, I know. I've critiqued him too. You've you've critiqued Dave hunt yep a lot of folks don't like it

He's got a lot of disciples a lot of slammed a lot of doors in our faces But yeah, we've we've critiqued

Dave hunt you bet We have to if you're gonna be consistent So we have to address these particular issues

You have to go to the Old Testament to find out what the new is talking about as I'm sure most of you know

Redemption for example, I think it's mentioned 81 times in the Bible 80 of the 81 in the

Old Testament Because this is where the foundation is is laid And All we like sheep have gone astray, what is that that's all

Jews have gone astray Have not not all

Jews gone astray Yes, but are all Jews saved No But he says all we like sheep have gone astray.

We have turned Everyone to his own way and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of the elect

No, the iniquity of us all Okay, there are many scriptures like that Wow Again Trying to get an exegetical handle on on Dave hunt is a difficult thing

Here he leapt from the first part of the discussion into Isaiah 53 and seemingly is saying well

Isaiah 53 is something that all Jews would say Oh all Jews say we like sheep have gone astray.

Is that is that what you're saying Dave? And this is only about Jews When those same passages are applied to us in the

New Covenant Hmm aren't you a pre -millennial dispensationalist

Dave? Are you actually saying that Isaiah 53 only has relevance to Jewish people?

Is that what's going on here, I don't know I I've only heard what you've heard

All I know is not all Jews would say we like sheep have gone astray in fact the the one of the main repetitive phrases of the prophets is the hard -heartedness

The fact that Israel would not confess her sins. These are not the words of every

Jew These the words of God's people and God's people in every age

Old Covenant or New Covenant when touched by the

Spirit of God Whether it was 700 years before Christ or 700 years after Christ are not only

Very quick to confess their sins and say we have like sheep gone astray each one of us has gone to his own way

But then it follows that it is only to them but he has caused

Our iniquity to fall upon him and does it not say in that very same passage which for some reason for some reason

Dave doesn't address that The servant will justify the many

Not the all Dr. Pipe I think made a very good point in this debate with mr.

Hunt which mr. Hunt never addressed just ignored it And that is all

Very frequently in context will be limited by that context to a particular group, but many never means all

And yet Isaiah 53 says that he justifies the many hmm interesting

Isaiah 53 is a very consistent Revelation of the nature of the gospel.

It does not fit into mr. Hunt's traditions. However It really transcends them well,

I get to Calvin a while I better move along quickly get to Calvin here where he got this from but He didn't get it from the

Bible he got it from someone called Augustine and then he imposed it on the

Bible First Timothy 2 Verse 4 for sake of time who will have all men to be saved

And to come unto the knowledge of the truth It sounds like he wants all men to be saved doesn't it?

No, no way to understand that of this. It doesn't mean all without exception

It means all without distinction Now if you don't know what that means

You haven't been indoctrinated as a Calvinist yet Doesn't mean all without exception

Means all without distinction. Well, that's a very clever Argument, but where does it say that now?

What do I mean by that? I'm a merchandiser I have a store and I put an ad in the paper all merchandise 50 % off You come into my store.

You want this particular item and I say no, I'm sorry. That's full price. What do you mean?

You said all merchandise 50 % off. Well, I didn't mean all without exception

I mean all without distinction In other words every variety of merchandise is off 50 % off but not every item

So the Calvinist says see what he means there Look, it says prayers for rulers and all in authority

He's talking about all kinds of men rulers and slaves and Aborigines and and you know

Caucasians and this and that all kind he doesn't mean every person without exception

He means all kinds without Distinction you understand a very clever argument, but it's not what the

Bible what the Bible says If any man thirsts let him come to me and drink

I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Christ as the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth

Christ died for the ungodly Are only the elect? Ungodly each one of these passages each one of them.

First of all first Timothy 2 He at least accurately points out that we ourselves point out

That the context refers to kinds of men. Does he give any rebuttal of that?

No Instead he gives some strange off -the -wall discussion of Salesmen or something it has nothing to do with what actually we're saying

Does he then deal with the first Timothy 2 5 the Jesus Christ the mediator?

Is he gonna make Jesus the mediator for all men? Is he gonna answer the question does Jesus Christ mediate?

For those who are lost is he the mediator of those who are in hell? Those are questions that he needs to answer.

I despairing of ever getting direct answers to those questions, but those are questions that need to be answered and they need to be plugged into his attempted interpretation of first Timothy 2 4 and Then he says well, you know, they give you erudite answers, but it's not what the

Bible says Well, okay. Why not? All we hear is well, that's not what the

Bible says, okay, can you give us something more than that? Can you give us some reasoning here behind that and then each one of the passages that was read

To everyone who does what believeth to any of those passages have anything to do

With whether that is a universal capacity or it is necessary that the Spirit of God draw men unto

Christ No, we just simply read them in the light of Dave Hunt's tradition

Tradition becomes the key element of the interpretation over and over again starting to sound like a broken record, isn't it?

Yeah, because after a while, there are only so many errors that you can make and You have to end up starting to repeat yourself

Well, we've only got let me see here. One, two, three, four, five six cuts left They're not overly long

Might be able to sneak a call in you can give it a shot if you'd like eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty

One we'll be right back right after this break Today So many stars strong and true

Quickly fall away And welcome back to the dividing line. My name is James White.

We are continuing our discussion of Dave Hunt's attack upon his caricature of Reformed theology unfortunately gobbled up Listening to the audience questions.

There was only one question from someone who Seemingly could see there is a problem there But nobody that I heard got him and said dude.

Yeah, no idea what you're talking about I mean how in the world, you know that didn't happen unfortunately, so we're listening allowing him to define his own position well, actually he doesn't do that, but he defined his own tradition and Define his his arguments in his own words and then demonstrating that Well that they don't really have any any substance to them.

Here's the next section. It's a very short one Bonus has a very clever argument for each of these but I think it does violence to the

Word of God I think it is It's libel on the character of God.

That's so limited to whosoever doesn't mean whosoever He didn't die for everybody

That's Again, not an argument It's an admission now. The Calvinist has has arguments in each one of these passages

I'm not gonna tell you what they are because I don't have responses to them The Calvinist will go to the original language of the text.

They'll demonstrate that I am actually giving in a traditional interpretation not an interpretation It's borne out by the words the text, but since I can't deal with any of those things

I'm just gonna say it's a libel against God and I'm gonna hope you're good. You're gonna believe what I have to say that Seemingly is is all the substance that is offered

They have an argument, I'm not gonna tell you what it is I'm not gonna accurately present even when I did tell you what it is And I'm not gonna give you a response to any of it.

You just need to believe me that they are wrong Well that that is effective for some people

That is effective for some individuals It is it is not effective for those who who love the truth.

No, wait a minute. Have you read Luther's bondage of the will? Oh, no, you got it.

Here's here's where we really get into mockery Okay. Now now we're talking here.

Keep this in mind We're talking here about the first written theological debate of the

Reformation Luther debating Desiderius Erasmus on the nature of the human will

Luther's book the bondage of the will and I found it interesting.

I found out just this week just in passing that An article appeared written by Vance who also wrote the long anti Calvinistic book

In the Bible believers bulletin Pete Ruckman stuff King James only why wide -eyed wild -eyed

King James only ism the worst sort the cultic kind and Vance writes for The December 2002 issue and The huge revelation we all know that James White is against the

King James Bible But the title is James White Calvinist I've been exposed

Believe it it's like what you're just catching on to this now or something. You think

I've been hiding this or something It's obvious. They think oh, we're gonna expose him. Ah, you know all the rest of stuff

Amazing but anyways in in in the course of his criticism of the

Potter's freedom He raises all sorts of all sorts of issues

About sighting men and all the rest of stuff and he says he uses guilt by association to say that anyone who isn't a

Calvinist is is Associated with Roman Catholicism and stuff. No, that's what Dave Hunt's doing What I did was referring to is the fact that I went through the bondage of the will

I demonstrated the parallels between Erasmus's position and Norman Geisler's position and the only way to argue against that is demonstrate the parallels are invalid if they're valid then

You have to deal with that Do you not you would you would think so? So anyways, here's listen to this mockery of Luther's monumental work

Have you read Luther's bondage of the will? I won't ask you to raise your hand.

How many you've read Luther's the bondage of the will who? Know you almost fall backwards

Wow Luther wrote a book the bondage of the well and in it he proves man has no free.

Well It does say whosoever will they come And I can give you well we don't have time but Look it up you look it up for yourself

When you compare what love is this to bondage the will it's like You know

The San Francisco 49ers playing your local junior high school football team, you know, I mean it's it's not even in league

You know And yet here's Dave Hunt just who is utterly ignorant of most of what

Luther was talking about and Keeps demonstrating his ignorance over and over again Despite the best efforts of everybody to try to stop him not to stop him doing this

Unbelievable whosoever will that means free will the the surface level nature of this kind of argumentation

You might say well you're being mean to him the man claims to have read hundreds of books on this subject hundreds

But this was the exact same argument that he was making The day that he started off our radio program by saying

I've never read the Reformers. I don't know what they believe I just stick with the Bible His tradition hasn't changed one

Yoda One Yoda About a free will

Offering let me just give you Exodus 25 to talk about the tabernacle

Bring me an offering of every man that giveth it willingly With his heart

Leviticus 1 2 3 4 he shall offer it of his own Voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle

Leviticus 20 to 18 his free will offerings Leviticus 22 19 his free will offerings 20 to 29 free will offerings free will offerings

I I expected that eventually Somebody would be so desperate

That they would go to the use of the term free will in describing offerings in the

Old Testament As evidence of the existence of libertarian free will I Expected someday

I'd run into someone who knew so little about the Bible and knew so little

About meaningful forms of exegesis and had so little respect for context that someone might actually do that Well, there it is

Free will offerings in the Old Testament prove libertarian free will It doesn't matter

That the text says is not even trying to address the nature of the will the relationship between sin and depravity

And the will or anything irrelevant as long as the phrase appears there it is

I When I I remember when I first heard him, I was just like well I've heard all now

God must do it all I am nothing and I say that from my heart And you understand that but what does

Paul say? Colossians 129 Where unto I also?

labor Striving according to his working that worketh in me mightily I can do nothing of myself, but I've got to do it in his strength

I'm not just floating on a pink miracle cloud. You know, I'm not just passive and he does everything

Why does it say work out not work for work out your own salvation with fear and trembling

It is God who works in you Yes God is working in me But I must give my heart my all in a partnership with him

We are workers together with God Paul says but the Calvinist only wants no

It's all God God does it all you can't do anything. You have no will you have no choice

God just picks certain people and then he zaps them with irresistible grace because he's protesting them to heaven well

Now Dave Hunt doesn't know the difference between regeneration and sanctification does he? Now Dave Hunt who has written read read hundreds of Calvinists Seemingly missed the discussion of sanctification all of them seemingly missed the tremendous sermons on The necessity of our doing our duty before God Seemingly doesn't understand that when

Paul said we were fellow workers with God He hadn't be talking about the Apostles not in the matter of salvation

Seemingly he doesn't understand that Calvinists as the Bible differentiate between the work of regeneration which is absolutely monergistic and must be monergistic because of the man the fact that man is dead in sin and The fact that we all as regenerate individuals

Use our wills which are now freed from slavery to sin To seek to honor and glorify

God that we preach constantly on the necessity the propriety of doing good works

I Guess that wasn't in the hundreds of Calvinists That's mr.

Hunt Read by his own statement, and did you catch it again that I have no wills

Now remember in case you're just catching at this point I've already told mr. Hunt that is a canard it is false

He doesn't care Just repeats it just goes on with it It's irrelevant

Just just moves on from there. Just a couple more. We do have one caller in line

We'll try to get get there as soon as we play these last two well perseverance of the

Saints I Know some of you would disagree. I believe in eternal security

Jesus said I give my sheep eternal life They will never perish and I think if I have eternal life today, and I don't have it tomorrow It's kind of a strange kind of eternal life but I thought because Because I believe in You know that I'm saved

But I would be at least a one -point Calvinist Perseverance of the Saints I found out.

I'm a zero -point Calvinist because they believe in That they are secure for the wrong reasons

Because they're one of the elect, but how do you know you're one of the elect? If God does it zaps me.

I can't believe I can't do anything and he's asked me How do I know he did it?

In fact in fact John Calvin even said in his Institutes God gives some people a false sense of security the better to damn them

Wow How do I know that that's not the kind of you know?

I think that I believe but no no he gave me a false sense of security

The better to damn me, and I quote for example. I quote RC Sproul Saying how

He wasn't sure he had tremendous doubts because he wasn't living a good enough life The only way that you can really be sure well.

There's another way I'll tell you in a moment But one major way for most of you to be sure is if you live a good enough life

And you can never be sure because maybe an hour before you die you think some horrible thought or something

I don't know or so that really well Wow I like doing that Isn't that fun?

You know he's oh you're mocking him. No. He's mocking the truth in in in in Absolutely culpable ignorance it was not ignorance.

He's not ignorant. He does he knows this is what we believe He's just he's just mocking the truth

The the really difficult thing here And I've personally found it was one of the more difficult Chapters deal with is he wrote he wrote one of the chapters on this subject and responding to it was extremely difficult

Because he never gives his own position Seemingly he takes a complete anti lordship as long as you tip your hat toward God once Bingo bango bongo you are in heaven.

That's it You could never have a false faith anyone who's ever said Jesus Lord boom you're in heaven now

I know he can't possibly really believe that because what about all the cults and isms that he

Very clearly consigns the pits of hell They said that So there was there was no

There was no Presentation of a positive position that you could really sink your teeth into as they say this is wrong his whole point is all those

Calvinists say they you know they they say that That you have to be amongst the elect and so you have to always be wondering if you're amongst the elect and all the rest of stuff, but he never then says well wait a minute

I Believe in the elect as based on foreknowledge and that doesn't mean that I'm making my salvation based upon my being in the elect but I am in the elect and so I guess it wouldn't be fair to say that's case with Calvinists and He doesn't answer any of these questions

He in essence promotes the idea there is no such thing as a false faith anyone who says Jesus Lord must be a

Christian But we know that's not what he's saying, but that's the only conclusion you can come to The argument is so one -sided and takes no interest whatsoever in consistency

That's it's very difficult to respond to outside of saying well. You're just attacking a straw man

Are you saying that we cannot grow in our in our knowledge of Christ I? Mean there's a divine assurance that comes with regeneration

But isn't there also an an experiential assurance that comes when when for example

I can look back over my life, and I can see When I encountered certain situations that I responded in a godly fashion

Is is not my ability to look back over my life and see a growth in godliness over time does that not?

increase My My understanding of My own my own redemption

Seemingly that that he was saying that that's not the case Very strange theology held by by Dave Hunt very very strange all right one one more

Then we'll be able to sneak one one call in here a minute 40 on this one Here we go

John ends his well, it's chapter 20 verse 31 Near the end of his gospel gospel

John these things have I written unto you that you may believe You know

I've told you the miracles I've told you what he did I've told you his talk Teachings and so forth so that you will believe that Jesus is the

Christ the Son of the Living God and what and that Believing you will have life

Through his name sounds like I give you many other verses I'm running out of time we want to get to the Q &A, but you know the scriptures.

It sounds like you believe and then You have life But look what about this born

Not a blood nor the will of the flesh and the will of man look at that. That's the proof text I mean look at that you can't you can't get around that Well, I've read several hundred

Calvinists. I Couldn't find one Who acknowledged?

Verse 13 follows verses 11 and 12. I want you to hear that again. Just think for a moment

I've read hundreds of Calvinists Listen what Dave Hunt says I couldn't find one

Who acknowledged? verse 13 follows verses 11 and 12

Really not one Didn't read a commentaries did you Dave?

Well, I've read several hundred Calvinists. I couldn't find one

Who acknowledged? verse 13 follows verses 11 and 12

What about that? How come they overlooked that? Go back and see what it says he came unto his own and his own received him not

But as many as received him To them gave he the power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name

Which were born? Sounds like you have to receive him. You have to believe in him and then you are born the

Spirit of God Of course, I can't born again myself God must do it, but I must believe the gospel or he's not going to give me the new birth

Now notice a couple things first of all, it's just Reprehensible, it's dishonest.

It's a lie Either Dave is lying about having read those Calvinists Or he's lying about not having seen a discussion in exegesis of John chapter 1 verses 12 and following or it is

Glaring proof that he sees only what he wants to see on a page and hence he has a real serious problem

With his ability to interact with written material those are the only three options that I can see at this particular point in time because we all know that there are very

Serious exegetical works written by Reformed authors that deal with all of John chapter 1 not just those issues

Interestingly enough he quoted from first John before that and he likes to quote first John 5 1 which clearly presents

Regeneration as preceding faith. But again, he just calls it elitist to point out that that's what the Greek text says.

But anyways It amazes me He reads but as many as received him

Then they gave you power to become the children of God. Therefore see everyone has that ability. The text isn't even addressing that.

I Mean the very text goes on to address what being born of God means But he see Dave loves to squish together terms.

He for example throughout his books Against count the book against Calvinism and through this talk.

He makes saved and regeneration the same thing He'll squish terms together when it is convenient to do so and then say see those

Calvinist ignored that no, maybe we're list a little bit more careful than you are and recognize that regeneration and all of salvation are not necessarily the same thing the

Context may be using it that way it may not but we just can't assume it Which is what Dave does and Dave does so on what basis?

Tradition we need to come up with a song t -r -a -d -i -t -i. Oh, it's not long enough Well, you have to sort of stretch it out some

I guess but we'll come up with something tradition we need a Dave Hunt tradition song because it is the substance of his

Argumentation and if you're gonna be encountering folks Who are using?

his Material and information then you you need to be prepared to to respond to it.

So keep that in mind let's go ahead and Right as we're getting toward the the end of our time here sneak in one phone call and You can sing very funny.

Let's talk to Scott up in Kirkland, Washington. Oh Scott Hello Scott Did we get rid of Scott?

Hey Scott, I hear a phone being picked up Scott are you there? I Hear you breathing

Uh, Scott, can you hear me? Evidently Scott can't hear me and I bet you at speed.

Well, no I'm not sure why Scott can't hear us, but We'll we'll maybe put him back on hold and work on figuring out a way of getting

Scott on the air here for in a second because if he's not on hold then he's on the air and he doesn't know he's

On the air and he might start singing he might start singing You know Elvis tunes or something and that would be very embarrassing and be very bad it might scar him for life, and that'd be a very bad thing and So so when yeah when you've got

Scott and Scott can hear us coming back to the direction I hear something. It's got you there.

Yeah. There you are. Yeah, I wouldn't sing either. Don't worry about that. Okay. All right Yes, someone mentioned that last week that we need to find the wave file that have

Tevye Sing a sing something for for Dave Hunt. That's that's true And I think Dave Hunt has read hundreds of Calvinists in the same way maybe maybe he read the cliff note version or well

I've never seen those cliff notes offered But it's it's certainly the the version that allows you to read them really fast because you're only seeing about three or four words a page

And they're only what you want to see. Yeah. Well, I my question for you James was

I Go to a small similar to God College up here in the

Pacific Northwest and I took I'm taking a systematic theology class and We were talking about The Trinity and and the professor made the point of how the

Trinity is never in conflict And so my I happen to have one friend who's a Calvinist in the class with me, and he brought up the point that If you if you believe that You know first Peter 2 -4 is saying that Christ is is you know

The goddesses are in the salvation of every single individual and you don't carry out carry that out of the mediation

Or if you do carry that out that he's mediating for every individual then you have a conflict in the Trinity Mm -hmm, and he just kind of ignored that point, but he did continue to maintain

That Christ is mediating on behalf of all hmm And I'm just wondering what is the because all my responses to one that just seemed to kind of fall

By the wayside, and I'm just wondering if maybe there's a more meaningful response. I can offer well obviously when we say to someone well, you're saying you're introducing a conflict in the

In the Godhead at that point the only only place where that would not carry as much weight is for a person who says no

Christ mediates for them And the father is in agreement in Regards to their salvation, but the work of the father and the son the spirit is

Insufficient outside of the work of the human being to bring salvation about anyways and so in other words

They might say well look the there is no disagreement because both the father and the son desire the salvation of that individual for whom

Christ mediates But they are incapable of bringing it out there. They're incapable of actually bringing about the

Salvation of that individual the dissonance would come in if what you have is

Christ mediating for an individual and By the way, you're you I think you said first Peter 2 for its first Timothy 2 for that We're talking about here

And if because I was looking in the chat channel someone threw that up there, and I thought I had heard Peter, too But sometimes

I don't know anyways if if a person is saying that the father can save and that the father can and announce the judicial Sentence of justification and that he can bring about the eternal life of an individual

But does not do so while the spirit is plea or the son is pleading for that person Then you'd have dissonance in the

Godhead, but that arguments only for those who recognize that God has at least some of the final say in the matter of salvation if a person doesn't believe that and Believes it's all in the hands of man, then they could maybe consistently say yeah

Christ mediates the father the father decrees the salvation of the spirit tries to apply

But all of it the entire work of the triune God collapses in light of the

Almighty will of the creature So essentially what you end up with is they have to change the nature of the mediation and the nature of the atonement

Oh, yeah, I mean Hebrews 7 24 and 25 Why is he able to save the uttermost those drawn?

I go to God by him because the ever live is to make liveth to make intercession for them So the work of intercession brings about salvation

But yeah, you have to in essence make the work of mediation something less than what actually brings about redemption to do that Hey, that's music in the background saying we are out of time

Thank you Scott for the phone call today and thank you for listening to the program. I'm not sure what we're gonna do next week

Might do something more toward the Subject of the season still have a few cuts to do on the hunt.

Don't know we'll find out But anyways, thanks for listening to the dividing line. God bless. We'll see you next week I believe

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 0 3 1 8 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org.

That's a o m I n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks