A Slightly Longer than Jumbo Radio Free Geneva!

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing.

I don't like Calvinists because they've chosen to follow John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. I have a problem with them. They're following men instead of the Word of God.

Our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing. Still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe. His craft and power are great and armed with cruel hate. On earth is not his equal. Did we in our own strength confide our striving would be losing?

Were not the right man on our side the man of God's own choosing?

Ladies and gentlemen, James White is a hyper-Calvinist. Now whatever we do in Baptist life, we don't need to be teaming up with hyper-Calvinists. But I don't understand the difference between hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism.

It seems to me that Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist. Right, I don't think there is typically any difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. Read my book.

And now, from our underground bunker deep beneath Bruton Parker College, where no one would think to look, safe from all those moderate Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re-read George Bryson's book, we are Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to save for his own eternal glory.

I like that. I like how that finishes up. I like that. That's great. Welcome to Radio Free Geneva. My name is James White. We have a lot to cover today. Yesterday, the troublemaker, who I will not identify for his own protection, the troublemaker directed me to a chart that was published at sbctoday .com, comparing Calvinism to SBC traditionalism.

This is part of this attempt to rewrite history, and that's what it is, to create two camps, the traditionalist camp. This is where a Southern Baptist has always been, see. And then this new-fangled Calvinism stuff.

It's a rewriting of the history, and when you have entire seminaries committed to rewriting history, then you can get away with it, at least somewhat. But a chart was published, and as I said, the date was yesterday.

On the one side, you have doctrine. In the middle, you have Calvinism. And on the right-hand side, traditionalism, the traditional Southern Baptist perspective, which, of course, is just the synergistic Armenian perspective, but they're just Biblicists anyways, so they don't want to use terms like that.

So I want to take a look at that, and then we're going to be diving into the Greek today to respond to Cheryl Schatz's articles on John chapter 6, or at least start on that. And then we've got a lot of Enyartianism to finish up on as well.

I think that Bob Enyart's probably moved on. We will eventually, too. But there certainly are some good things to be dealing with in that material as well. So we've got plenty to cover the Radio Free Geneva today.

So let's take a look at the chart. The first line is Providence. Going to want to zoom in on that like we had it before. There we go. There we go. Providence. Under Calvinism, all that occurs is ultimately caused by God.

Acknowledging God as the primary cause and human agents as secondary causes. And under Traditionalism, all that occurs is caused or allowed by God. Well, one of the reasons I've never personally found charts like this to be overly helpful is because this is as bad as Twitter.

I mean, every little box you put into a chart is... I would imagine probably each one of these, there might be a few exceptions, but each one of these could be a tweet. And so you never really get much in the way of depth.

The alleged benefit is the comparison, but if you're comparing superficial statements of both positions together, what does that really end up accomplishing? But certainly under Calvinism, all that occurs is ultimately decreed by God, not caused by God.

And I am thankful that there is at least an attempt to recognize the difference between primary and secondary causation that is noted here. But I'm left wondering, all that occurs is caused or allowed by God under Traditionalism.

What does that mean? It raises all sorts of questions, because we know that at least in the modern period, a Southern Baptist cannot be an open theist. The Baptist faith and message specifically denounces open theism.

So if you're an open theist, you're a Southern Baptist, you're not a Southern Baptist, at least not an Orthodox one. And so when it says all that occurs is caused or allowed by God, it sounds like there is no decree, or the decree is limited in its scope, and hence you have non-decreed events, which evidently are so irrelevant they don't change the direction of God's purposes, or there's no interaction with God's decree.

We're not told. It's just we want to have some sort of... There's got to be some room here for libertarian freedom, evidently is what that is allowing for. It's hard to say. Under Original Sin, people begin life guilty due to Adam's sin, even before they commit a sinful act.

Well, again, we've addressed this with Hankins and others. We've gone through Romans chapter 5, and we've talked about federal headship. We've talked about the union of the elect with Christ, the parallel that is to Adam, and our union with Adam, our federal head, and therefore the whole concept of falling in Adam.

And it's so strange that these traditionalists, and I use the open and close quotes there. Let's just be honest. These Arminian synergists are willing to say that we have a nature that does not reflect our reality.

Because what does it say? People begin life with a sinful nature due to Adam's sin, but become guilty only when they become morally responsible and knowingly commit a sin. Now, you see what's going on here, and it's important, I think, to recognize this.

You see, from our perspective, the issue is God, and the issue is man's relationship to God. And so the question is, is man pleasing to God or reprehensible to God in his fallen nature in Adam? That would explain why death passes on to all.

That's why little babies die. If you don't believe there is any moral responsibility, a culpability, or even a fallen nature, what's the difference between a fallen nature and a sinful nature? So are infants fallen or unfallen?

They have a sinful nature, so are they fallen? If you're fallen, are you pleasing to God? But if you're sinless and not guilty, how can you be fallen? And why would they die? And why would there be any disruption of a relationship?

It seems like someone's really straying at a gnat here to try to avoid something. Because you recognize, obviously, that if the federal headship view of Romans 5 is true, this whole system falls apart.

Because you're either in Adam or you're in Christ. But become guilty. So you can have a sinful nature. You can be a guiltless individual with a sinful nature. And so you can have a sinful nature before you're morally responsible.

There you go. That's the Armenian synergistic. And most Armenians wouldn't want this either. That's part of the problem, I guess. Okay. Spiritual death. Calvinism. Unsaved people cannot respond to the gospel unless God first regenerates them.

Unsaved people. One of the problems that we have with our synergistic friends is that they just aren't careful in language. They just are not careful in the terminology that they use. And all of us. But if you're going to publish something, maybe it's one thing, a tweet or an offhand comment.

That's one thing. Salvation is a big term. And it encompasses many things. You could be more accurate if you say unregenerate people cannot respond to the gospel unless God regenerates them. Which seems like a bit of a tautology, doesn't it?

But that's the point. What is the capacity and ability of the unregenerate person? What does Romans chapter 8 say? Those according to flesh, can they do what's pleasing to God or can they not do what's pleasing to God?

Can the unregenerate person come to Christ or can the unregenerate person not come to Christ? These are the questions. And so, yes, Calvinists definitely say that if you are spiritually dead, you're an enemy of God, you are in the flesh, not in the spirit, then you cannot...

Well, and when it says cannot respond to the gospel, positively, everybody responds to the gospel. An apathetic response is still a response to the gospel. So there needs to be more specificity there.

Obviously, they're assuming cannot respond to the gospel. Oh, well, the only response to the gospel is a positive response. No, it's not. Every rejection of the gospel is a response to the gospel. Every apathetic attempt to maintain neutrality is a response to the gospel.

So unsaved people do respond to the gospel, but they cannot respond positively to the gospel unless they are raised from spiritual death to spiritual life. That's what Calvinists actually believe. Under the synergistic Arminian position, or Arminian synergistic position, if you'd rather that terminology, unsaved people can respond to the gospel.

I would assume that that means can positively respond to the gospel. God desires all people to be saved, and by his grace enables all people to hear the gospel, who hear the gospel, to freely accept or reject Christ.

So there is a full-on assertion of the concept of prevenient grace, which I've never found any of these people to even try to provide a meaningful biblical defense of this concept. I've just never seen it.

There may be some folks out there who try, but there just isn't anything in the Bible that even looks anything like prevenient grace. It's a nice, you know, peanut butter means of getting around everything.

You just sort of slather some on, and it sort of covers over the holes in your theology. But that's unsaved people can positively respond to the gospel. Why? Well, evidently, by his grace, all people who hear the gospel are enabled to freely accept or reject Christ.

So with the gospel proclamation comes prevenient grace that creates this, I don't know how to describe it, but creates this strange middle position where you're no longer the enemy of God, but now you're at a moral neutral point, or are you in the flesh or in the spirit?

I don't know. There's just no biblical categories for this. It's just made up. It's just a way to sort of get yourself out of the impossibility of the biblical position. But, you know, there it is, is your prevenient grace stuff under spiritual death.

Okay, under election. From eternity, God chooses certain individuals to be saved. Non-chosen people cannot and will not be saved. You can tell a non-Calvinist without a whole lot of real knowledge of the system wrote these things.

From eternity, God chooses a specific people. That is what Ephesians 1 teaches. That is what Romans 9 teaches. There's a question about that. And he chooses them to be saved, and that includes all aspects.

So Romans chapter 8, golden chain, their effectual calling, their justification, their glorification, Ephesians 1, their adoption, their forgiveness, their redemption, everything, because it's all in Christ.

So there is a very personal aspect of this. There is a group, but the identity of the people in the group is very plainly a part of God's purpose. That's true. Non-chosen people cannot and will not be saved.

Well, non-chosen people will not be saved. And from an eternal perspective, cannot, in the sense that they cannot save themselves. But what's not taken into consideration here at all is that not a single one of them would ever want to be or seek to be saved.

So I don't want to go there because then that, again, that sort of takes you back up to spiritual death and to falling an atom and, you know, all that biblical anthropology stuff that's sort of depressing to people because, you know, what it points out is that man is not some, you know, good creature that's just trying to get to God and God's being mean and saying, no, I won't have you.

It's so much easier to maintain anti-Calvinist derangement syndrome when you promote that idea than if you actually admit that, well, what they're saying is is that everyone's a rebel sinner and that unless there is a radical change where God takes out that heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, that heart of stone is always going to be in rebellion against God and that there is nobody.

Now there's all sorts of non-elect people who are religious because there's all sorts of religious ways to suppress the knowledge of God. That's what Romans 1 is all about. When people suppress the knowledge of God, it's not just that they do so as atheists or via drunkenness or whatever else it might be.

One of the primary ways that men suppress the knowledge of God is religiously. So when it says non-chosen people cannot or will not be saved, non-chosen people will be left to justice, to God's justice.

They will never seek salvation. They will never desire salvation. Now they may desire the benefits of God without seeking God. That's extremely common. But that would be the appropriate way of describing this particular thing.

Under election for the Armenian Synergist, from eternity God chooses to save anyone who believes in Christ. Anyone who hears the gospel can be saved. So in other words, though they don't want to point this out, this is some sort of corporate election.

We get to fill in the names. God chooses to save anyone who believes in Christ, but he does not decree who that's going to be. Election is of a group, a nameless, faceless group. It is not of individuals.

It is not personal on that level. It becomes impersonal just as the atonement becomes impersonal. This is just the way that it works. Anyone who hears the gospel can be saved. So despite all of the many references, why do you not hear my words?

Because you don't belong to God. Oh, no, no, no. Anyone who hears the gospel can be saved. So there you go. You can be a traditionalist or you can believe John. Whichever one you want to go with there.

But there you go. God's salvific will. God's salvific will. God desires to save only those whom he selected from eternity for salvation. Only they will repent of sin and believe in Jesus. Well, if you want to talk about the specific content of God's decree, I don't know why you all keep acting as if we're hiding something.

If you've read the Westminster Confession of Faith, if you've read the London Baptist Confession of Faith, there's this line in there about whatsoever takes place in time, as God has decreed, ordained, whatsoever, that immediately follows the primary and secondary causes and the will of the creature and all that kind of stuff.

So, if you will allow, and you must allow, but you won't, unfortunately, that you have God's decretive will, which determines everything that takes place in time, and then you have God's prescriptive will, which expresses his law and his character, if you don't recognize those two different aspects of how God's will interacts with his creation in time, then you're going to end up perverting the testimony of scripture by putting one over the other.

So, the hyper-Calvinist will take the one and dismiss the other. And the hyper-Arminian will go the other direction and get rid of the decree. But if you simply allow everything the Bible says, and you don't force God down to just being a big, exalted man, and say, well, he's got to function the same way we function, so his will has to be the same kind as our will, and hence is temporal and time-bound and depend upon all these things for fulfillment and everything else, as long as you don't do that, then you can recognize how to understand what the Bible's saying at this point.

That, yes, the specific individuals who would receive God's grace, known to God, not passively, but actively because of his decree from eternity past. He didn't just take in knowledge and go, oh, those people are going to believe in me.

Okay, well, I'll select them. That would be passively taking in knowledge, learning, and being impacted and changed by your creation, which is, again, the open theist stuff we'll be looking at later on.

But again, these are Southern Baptists. They can't believe that. They can't be open theists. It would be more consistent for them, but they can't go there because of the Baptist faith and message. So God has a specific salvific will that is in harmony with the decision of the Triune God as to the specific identity of the elect, obviously.

And just as God chose the people of Israel and not the Egyptians and not the Babylonians and not the Assyrians, etc., etc., in those contexts in the Old Testament, that concept remains true today. So if you're talking about God's desire in light of his decree, if you're talking about the desire that he will accomplish through the work of Jesus Christ, yes.

If you're talking about God's prescriptive will so that the desire you're talking about there is the desire that is expressed by God's holy nature in his law so that it is God's desire that no one kill, that no one murder, that no one kidnap or sell others into slavery or murder innocent people.

Those are all expressions of God's nature that come through in God's law. And yet you can't avoid the fact that in the Bible, God sent Joseph into Egypt through kidnapping and selling people into slavery.

And God intended that to happen. He had a perfect and righteous intention in that act and hence it's holy. The men involved had non-perfect sinful attitudes and hence it's worthy of punishment. But you just can't get around it.

You can't escape it. It is a fundamental revelation of biblical truth. You can dodge it. You can just simply try to dismiss it all you want. But facts are facts. You got to deal with the facts. So under the Arminian Synergist for God's salvific will, God desires to save every person.

He will save only those who repent of sin and believe in Jesus. So God's desire to save is universal, but the fulfillment of his desire is limited and determined by man's actions. So I've often wanted to ask, does it follow, therefore, that eventually God will be, you know, will God's salvific desire ever end?

Because these folks couldn't, I don't think conditionalism is a valid theological possibility for Southern Baptists. So you can't have annihilationism. You can't have conditionalism. And so those who do not repent of sin and believe in Jesus, who end up under God's wrath, then will God's desire to save them ever end?

It's just a question I'd like to ask these folks. Because are you saying that God has chosen his own eternal unhappiness, his own eternal unfulfillment? That's the question I would ask, as if there's going to be an answer given anytime soon.

But it's a question I think is worth considering. Under atonement, Calvinist, Christ died for the sins of the world, meaning the elect among all kinds of people. Why don't you just, I could have done a whole lot better with even the, about what, 110 characters in that, maybe 80?

It's short. Christ died for the sins of his people, the specific people who would be joined to him, the specific people who the Father, Son, and Spirit have covenanted together to save, the specific people the Father gave the Son, and as a result of being given, as we will see once again, back into the breach to defend John 6 -37 from those who would seek to hijack it and make room for man's almighty will.

We'll get there a little bit later on. By being given by the Father and the Son, this is why they come to the Son. As we're going to see later on, we're seeing a little more Pelagianism coming from certain corners, where the idea is, well, what you've really got in John 6 is that those who are given by the Father and the Son are those that he sees already believe in him, which would then make believing and coming two different things, and that doesn't work either.

But we'll see that in a moment. So, God desires to save only those, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Christ died for the sins of the world, meaning the elect among all kinds of people. Well, Christ died for a specific people who are the elect, the atonement and God's decree are in perfect harmony, the Father, Son, and Spirit are in perfect harmony, those whom the Father elects, gives to the Son, are those for whom he dies, those the Spirit comes, takes out the heart of stone, gives the heart of flesh, grants faith, brings to spiritual life, there is a perfect unity in the Godhead, in the actions of the Godhead, the idea that the Godhead could cease to exist, that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit could get into a big old fight, and the Godhead could cease to exist, and the universe explodes out of existence, and all the rest of that kind of stuff, is the science fiction for heretics, but it's not theology for Christians.

So, furthermore, the interesting thing here is, and this is the real problem with the David Allens, and all the Arminian Synergists, and Southern Baptist Convention, and everybody else, again, rather than looking at atonement biblically, and seeing where it relates in the work of the Son, in regards to the Father, in regards to the Spirit, and seeing that the intention of the atonement must be dealt with first, before you deal with the scope.

They just focus solely upon scope. What was the intention of the Triune God in the death of Christ? This just simply ignores all of that. Just ignores it. Christ died for the sins of the world, meaning the elect among all kinds of people.

No, Christ died to provide a perfect means of salvation for all those who are united to Himself. And therefore, the scope can be determined from that. If you're a universalist, then that will answer the question for you.

If you think everyone's going to be saved, then there you go. But again, universalism isn't a possibility for a Southern Baptist either. And therefore, they're left with a conundrum. Then Christ's death does not actually accomplish anything.

It doesn't accomplish the salvation of anyone. It just makes salvation a possibility. So under their perspective, Ah, so you've blown it up for better reading now, I see. Even I can read that now. Christ died for the sins of the world, meaning all people.

And so you have the inconsistent universalism. It's inconsistent because it doesn't ask the question, why did Christ die? It starts with scope and then has a muddled, incoherent response in regards to reason.

So what does Christ's death actually accomplish? Well, it makes salvation a possibility rather than an actuality. And this is one of the fundamental differences between us. God's grace and human response.

When God calls people to be saved, they cannot and will not resist that saving call. Well, that's a true statement. When God calls people to be saved, there is the effectual call. And that is simply the acknowledgement that when the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit choose to bring about the regeneration of an individual, and notice again the lack of specificity in the language when God calls people to be saved, you mean when God calls people to be regenerated, they cannot and will not resist that saving call.

Correct, because they're spiritually dead. And once they're brought to spiritual life, they're recreated in the image of their Savior. And that slavery to sin is broken. And as Jesus says, if you want to be free indeed, then the Son knows how to do that.

We can't do that. True freedom only comes from God, only comes through the Son. There's no other way. And just as the Jews got really upset when Jesus started talking about being set free, a lot of people got upset about that today.

So when God calls people to be regenerated, because they're dead, like Lazarus in a tomb, they cannot and will not resist that saving call any more than Lazarus could have said, no thank you, I'm staying here.

Even though, theoretically, I would say that these folks would have to say that Lazarus could have done that. That Jesus could have said, I'm doing this to glorify you, Father, and to demonstrate that I was sent by you.

Lazarus, come forth. No thank you. You don't know what it's like living with those women. I'm staying here. I suppose the open theists and folks would have to say that, yeah, yeah. But anyway. The synergistic Arminian, Arminian synergistic response is when God calls people to be saved, they may accept or reject His invitation.

So the person in the tomb, the person in the grave, the heart of stone has a choice as to whether to become a heart of flesh. The valley of the dry bones was up to the bones where they wanted to become living beings.

It wasn't up to God. It was just an invitation, you know. And that's your good synergistic semi-Pelagian Arminian understanding. Order of salvation. People believe in Jesus because they are saved. I've got to admit, it's sort of hard to really take this overly seriously.

Because, you know, is this seriously meant to... Were the people writing this actually seminary graduates and things like that? I mean, it's... That's just so sad. People believe in Jesus because they are saved.

People believe in Jesus because the Spirit of God raised them to spiritual life and grants them the gift of faith. Not because they are saved. Again, why can't this side get up to speed, read a few books, discover that there is a certain language that has been used.

And it's not so that we can just keep the conversation amongst a few select people. It's so that we can actually communicate things, honor God's truth, get past straw men. That's why the language is there.

Because it was so reprehensible about Norman Geisler's book. I think I'll just redefine everything. Yes, unconditional election is true from one perspective, but not from this perspective. And, you know, irresistible great doesn't really mean...

I'm just coming up with all these new terms on my own. That's really disrespectful. You say, oh, you're referring to tradition. We're going to hear Enyart saying that. He did that, his program yesterday, Day for Yesterday.

Oh, he's just referring to... He just believes in tradition. He doesn't believe in the Bible, What we're saying is that we aren't the first people to discuss these things. And it's arrogant to think that we are.

Very arrogant. And if there's language that accurately represents what the categories in the discussion are all about, that other people have already hammered these things out, then use them. Because generally, if you're not, it's because you really don't want to deal with the issue anyways.

People believe in Jesus because God, by His Spirit, raises them to spiritual life and grants them the gifts of faith and repentance at the very point in time and by the very means that God has decreed from eternity past.

That's why they believe in Jesus. Order of salvation, for the Synergist Arminian, people are saved when and because they believe in Jesus. Well, that's a completely failed attempt to deal with the issue of the nature of regeneration, the role of the Spirit, what spiritual death is, what the capacity of man in sin is, what the effectual call is, why the Bible describes faith as the gift of God.

It's just ducking all of it. Ducking all of it. Because I don't think they have much to say about that kind of stuff. Really don't. Finally, gospel invitations. The Calvinist says, all should be invited to repent of sin and believe in Jesus because we are commanded in the Great Commission and we don't know who is elect.

Well, there is a germ of truth in there. But what they don't want to allow for is the idea that any Calvinist could ever have any kind of evangelistic zeal. We're just automatons. We're just doing what we were told.

We're commanding the Great Commission. We don't know who the elect are, so we just sort of do what we're told. I guess that's what's being communicated. The Armenian Synergist, all people should be invited to repent of their sins and believe in Jesus because we are commanded to do so in the Great Commission and anyone who hears the gospel can be saved.

Okay. The only thing wrong with that is and anyone who hears the gospel can be saved. Anyone who hears the gospel and turns in faith and repentance to Jesus Christ will be saved. But don't you see you're just completely missing the point if you emphasize this?

I mean, I can proclaim the gospel to anyone. I don't have to worry about their elect status. I don't have to, you know, I'm not a hyper-Calvinist who looks for evidences of regeneration and well, you know, has there been a proper preparation and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

No, you proclaim the gospel. The Spirit of God is the one who makes that gospel, who is the one who provides that gospel with power. And if the Spirit of God is not working in the heart of an individual, you're going to find out real fast and they're going to mock you and they're going to deride you.

But anyone who turns to Jesus Christ and seeks forgiveness of sins will be saved. There's no question about that. The issue is, does the Bible address who can and cannot do that? This is basically saying everybody can do that.

Problem is, there are numerous biblical passages that say otherwise. Jesus taught otherwise a number of different times. And one of the reasons we only get a monologue out of these folks rather than a dialogue is because they sort of have a hard time defending that stuff.

So there is the Calvinism vs. Traditionalism from Connect 316. And evidently, this says, this chart with the original labels Calvinistic Southern Baptist and Non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist. Well, that's nice.

Was provided by Dr. Adam Harwood, McFarland Chair of Theology, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. So why change what he had? I mean, that was better than saying Traditionalism, but I guess they're trying to really push this Traditionalist thing.

Maybe he gave permission. I don't know. I didn't ask. But there you go. There you go. So, interesting, interesting stuff. We move on as we, oh, I'm going to have a hard time getting very far here. I guess I'll just do one of these.

The website is www .mmoutreach .org www .mmoutreach .org. The www .mmoutreach .org. It's called The Giving. It's at the top of the page. And this is from March 5, 2013. The last one that we want to get to eventually on John 6, 44 was published two days ago, which is why Bea the Calvinist sent this to me.

And so, it obviously doesn't make any sense to try to deal with the John 6, 44 comments until you've dealt with what comes before them. So, going back to the John 6, 37 All the Father Gives Me Will Come to Me article.

Again, www .mmoutreach .org www .mmoutreach .org www .mmoutreach .org www .mmoutreach .org www .mmoutreach .org. There's a fair amount of parallel in this material with some of what we saw. It's a little more nuanced than what we saw with Kerrigan, Skelly.

And as I keep forgetting to look, has Kerrigan Skelly even acknowledged the reputation of his sermons and stuff? I last time I checked, there wasn't it was like, no, I haven't heard anything about James White guy, never heard about it.

So I'm just sort of surprised at me because he's a. He's a rather go get him type guy. So I would expect that there would have been some kind of response. But how long ago is now? It's been months since we did that.

So, oh, well. Here we have Cheryl Schatz. And my recollection is that Mrs. Schatz has. Is, in fact, there's a DVD coming soon. Yeah, the giving DVD coming soon. I just wanted to interview me on John Chapter six, and I didn't I didn't choose to to go there.

I figured it would be best to respond once the argumentation came out. And and I guess this is what we're going to be seeing. What concerns me about this presentation? Is that once again, you you have a lot of reference to the grammar of the Greek.

But what you don't have is a knowledge of the syntax of the Greek. There are a lot of folks that, you know, today with the technology that we possess. Anybody can post citations from BDAG and Low Anita and Wallace and everybody else.

I won't post much from Wallace, because that's where you got to know some syntax, nobody's talking about. But you can throw all sorts of Greek on the screen and lexicons. And my concern is that I see a lot of folks.

They'll come popping into the chat channel and they'll go, hey, somebody over here says this and they quoted a lexicon. As if somehow there you go, it just must be true. And after a while, you sort of start recognizing you can start seeing certain kinds of argumentation for what they're really all about.

If we look at this particular text, John 637 is brought up. And here's I don't have I'm not feeding you this particular article. The print's really small. You have to blow it up really, really big. But using accordance was probably fine.

There's a lot of true things said here, but it's the final get around that I want to deal with here. We all know John 637 says all the father gives will come to me and whoever comes to me, I'll never cast out.

And as we point out and respond to Kerrigan Skelly, if if you don't see how the language is relating to itself, if you don't see how tenses and modes and voices and participles and finite verbs, how they all relate to each other in a context, then it is very easy to overthrow the actual meaning of a text by saying, well, this is a present and the present means this.

Well, a present. Finite verb. And a present participle, and whether it's articular, that is substantival or not substantival, and and the interplay of presence and heiress and and paraphrastic constructions and all these other things come into play.

And if you don't recognize those things, the result can be a royal mess. Now, the problem that is presented to synergists by John 637 is that its obvious meaning and the meaning that is established by meaningful exegesis is that the father is the one who saves without fulfillment of conditions on the part of mankind, and all of man's religions has to rebel against that.

All that the father gives me will come to me. It is natural in English, and it's very plain in the original language. What the relationship between the giving of the father to the son and the coming of the individual in faith is.

It's the father's giving that determines the coming, not the coming that determines the giving. And we need to remember, notice what's the direct context is verse 36. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

So there is the context. As soon as he says, Kai u piscuite, pan ha dido sinmoi, ha pater pros eme hixai. So there's nothing in between it. Might as well put that back up since I'm reading it. There's nothing in between the statement, but I said to you that you have seen me and are not believing all that the father gives me will come to me and the one coming to me I will never cast out.

So it's amazing, and we point this out with Kerrigan-Skelly. Why don't people see that the context here is the explanation of the unbelief of these people who are going to walk away? He's explaining why they're unbelievers.

So let me just get down to the here's the idea. At the bottom of the article, the consistent message of scripture. The consistent message of scripture is that those who fear God will come to Jesus and they will continue to come to Jesus as the coming ones.

Now you're thinking about fearing God in here? No, she's got to go back to the Old Testament to pull these things. That's what Michael Brown did too. You go back to the Old Testament and say, well, actually this is a fulfillment of these texts.

So to try to explain that, let's see how this works. Gives. She breaks it up into various words and then tries to explain that. So one of the problems is that if you come at it from that perspective, you normally miss syntax.

Since all is that which is given, what does it mean the term gives? The grammar will help us to understand. The term gives in Greek is the present active indicative. The present means that the action is in process without an assessment of the action's completion.

I stop immediately. Mrs. Schatz may be a very experienced professor of Greek. I don't know. I don't know. But when you have to explain the basic meaning rather than the contextual meaning, because there are all sorts of syntactical categories as to the function of the present again, especially as the present interacts, whether it's a finite verb or whether it's being used in a participle, and aorist participles with present tense verbs, and all the things that go together with that.