Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.
Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States.
It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.
And welcome to The Dividing Line on a Thursday afternoon, 4 p .m. in the afternoon here in the Mountain West, even though we don't really have, we've got mountains around here, I guess, but we're still in the Mountain West, more like the Desert West.
For some reason, I lost my little weather thingy, Bobby. Oh, there it is. Seventy-seven degrees, folks. Seventy-seven degrees here in Phoenix. It hit 80-something yesterday, which is odd. Oh, it just dropped to 75.
That was quick. Well, anyway, it's sort of warm here in Phoenix. It's not like it's been for a while, but we are back on our regular schedule, having taken two weeks and moved this up a little bit so that we could accommodate a teaching schedule.
I have a couple of clips to play. I do need to get back to the Herb Revis audio today. But first, I wanted to play a clip of another Catholic Answers call. I guess Mr. Aiken does know that we're reviewing some of these because he took a completely unwarranted, bogus shot at me and some others today.
I guess that's how we respond to substantive critiques of things that are said. But anyway, the reason I play this one, though, is I'd like you to listen very carefully, very, very carefully to the kind of argumentation that is utilized in answer to a question to Mr. Aiken concerning the subject of grace and predestination.
And I have a feeling if you listen carefully, you may recognize this from, well, someplace else. We've done this before. I've played Carl Keating answering questions like this. But every once in a while, it's good to remind, especially our Arminian friends, who is standing next to them.
Okay, I've got two quick questions. The first one is, it's clear in the New Testament that God is our Savior. And on the other hand, and I'm sorry, I'm driving now, I don't have, like in John 6, it almost implies that not all of us do have a true choice.
So we almost have to be enabled to have a choice.
Sure. Now think, there's a good question. And how does a Roman Catholic answer that? Well, remember, James Aiken is a former Presbyterian. And if you've heard some of the debate that we did a number of years ago on KIXL radio, which was fairly short, but on related subjects, then you're going to hear a little something of that here.
But listen to the responses offered by Rome and see if maybe you've heard it someplace before.
It is an established teaching of Catholic theology that in order for us to come to God, he must first give us sufficient grace to enable us to come to him. So we cannot come to God on our own initiative.
The denial of that proposition is a heresy known as Pelagianism, which was common in the 5th century of the Church. And the Church definitively rejected it. So we must have God's grace in order to come to him.
However, when he gives us that grace, he doesn't override our free will. Instead, what he does is enable us to make a choice for or against him. And some people exercise that choice and others refuse it.
And so that will determine, or I suppose I should say some people exercise it positively and some people refuse to exercise it positively. And that determines whether or not a person then enters a state of sanctifying grace.
The grace that God gives us to enable us to make that choice is sometimes called prevenient grace. That term is used especially in Protestant circles, but it means grace that comes before or prevenes the decision to accept or reject God.
It's also, in Catholic terminology, called actual grace. You may have heard that term. God gives us actual grace in order to help us enter a state of sanctifying grace, which is what we mean when we say a state of grace.
The other question I had was, does everyone have grace? Ah, now this is the next thing I was going to go to. Further reflection in Catholic theology has established that God gives at least sufficient grace to everybody.
So everyone, at some point in their lives, is given sufficient grace to make a choice for or against God. Now, there is a question, though, of does, obviously some people seem to receive more grace than others, and that's God's right to determine, since it's his grace he's given out.
But he gives everybody sufficient grace to choose him, at least at some point in their lives. Now, there's a question of does he give some folks a special kind of grace that, without destroying the person's free will, results in their always freely choosing him.
That grace is sometimes called efficacious grace, and it is the contention of some, but not all, Catholic theologians that God does do that. Thomists are known for saying that God, in addition to giving sufficient grace to all, gives efficient grace to some, and those people to whom he does give efficient grace will invariably come to him freely.
Now, other people will say, well, how are they doing it freely if the results are invariable? And so that's a criticism that some folks mount of the Thomist position. But it is a question that's around in Catholic theology, and there are different opinions on it.
If you'd like to read more about it, I'd suggest you get a copy of my book, The Salvation Controversy, where I have a chapter about such matters. Well, there you go.
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, where have you heard that before? God's got to give grace. And so you see, everybody says, oh, that's sola gratia, grace. There it is. We all believe in grace, right?
And you've got to have grace. Well, how many times have I said it? How many times have I said it? The controversy has never been about the necessity of grace. The controversy is over the sufficiency of grace.
Over and over and over again. That was the dividing line. And that dividing line is no longer between Protestants and Roman Catholics. That dividing line stands between monergists and synergists. And if you're a synergist, as it was just said, well, God gives you the grace, but then it's up to your free will, see, whether you positively utilize it or whether you don't, see.
That's where the synergism comes in. God's grace is there to help out. And what he was talking about there, of course, is the Augustinian controversy. Is there such a thing as the elect to whom specific grace is given that will result in their coming without any question?
Well, you know, if you're reading John 637, which is what the poor caller was talking about, John 637 talks about that. It talks about all that the Father gives me will come to me. And so, obviously, you're in that type of situation where you're up between the contrast between Roman Catholic theology and biblical teaching at that point.
But those of you who are synergists and yet you say, I stand firm against Rome, that's one of the things that got Dave Hunt so angry in our first encounter. I started off saying, hey, look, in reality, you're saying the same thing.
When it comes to the issue of the nature of grace and the will of man, you agree with Rome. Why don't you just admit that? They won't admit that. And, of course, what Dave has done instead is try to, well, you see, Augustine was the first Roman Catholic.
And since Calvin quotes Augustine and Calvinism is actually Roman Catholicism. And, you know, Roman Catholic apologists know that their most consistent critics that do the most exegesis and provide the strongest challenge to them are not Arminians.
They are not synergists. They are Calvinists. They know that. They recognize that. And there's a reason for that, because we're consistent. And they're not. So the others are not. So there you go. I hope that's a wake-up call to some of you.
I really, really hope that some of you who are Arminian in your outlook, even if you don't use that terminology, you're a synergist. You think God gives grace to everybody, but then he just sort of sits back and hopes that you use it properly, et cetera, et cetera.
I really hope you'll listen to that, and I hope it bothers you and bothers you to no end to hear a Roman Catholic saying the same thing you say about God's grace and about the will of man, because that's where the issue is joined.
That's why I started The Potter's Freedom and the way I started The Potter's Freedom and so on and so forth. So I think that's something that's very useful to recognize. Now, let's get back to the Herb Revis sermon we missed out last time.
I'm not saying that in a negative way. I'm very thankful. The phone calls, really enjoyed them. Really enjoyed our friend down in Australia, a Scotsman in Australia. That's funny. But anyway, if you missed last time, then you may not recall, but we are listening to Pastor Herb Revis from Florida preaching on Calvinism, and I believe that Pastor Revis has every right in the world to preach to his own people about Calvinism, and I believe that Pastor Revis has every right in the world to say that Calvinism is not to be preached in his church.
I would never, ever say that that should, because Arminianism ain't going to be preached in my church. Let's put it that way. There's no question about it. Now, of course, I would say one thing. I think I have a more consistent basis for saying that Arminianism is not to be preached at the Phoenix Foreign Baptist Church.
There's a reason for that, and that is we have a church constitution. We have a confession of faith. The confession of faith is very clear. The confession of faith teaches very plainly what we believe, and hence to teach Arminianism at Phoenix Foreign Baptist Church would be to deny the confession of faith that you said you believed when you joined the church.
The problem is the Baptist faith and message of the Southern Baptist Convention does not preclude teaching Calvinism. In fact, if you read the Baptist faith and message, you will see a number of Calvinistic statements.
Now, it's been changed a lot over the years, and so it's quite honestly self-contradictory on those points, but there is a reference to regeneration preceding faith in the Baptist confession, in the statement of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention, and that goes back to the olden days.
That goes back to the days when people understood these things, and so there's really no grounds, at least as far as the statement of faith is concerned, to say that Calvinism should not be preached, but he's the pastor of the church.
I don't know if he has a biblical organization of the church and has elders, but it may not work out that way, but they have the right to do that. My problem, of course, is there needs to be an accurate representation of anything you say when standing behind what I would call the sacred desk, and I know some of you just rolled your eyes, the sacred desk, but I do believe that the elder who stands before the people of God and preaches to them and opens the word of God to them, we should be the very standards of truthfulness in how we handle the word of God and how we represent others.
That doesn't mean we're going to be perfect. That doesn't mean that we're not going to make mistakes, but you know what, on this issue, honestly, there just isn't any reason why there should be so much misrepresentation of Reformed theology.
It's not like we don't publish books. It's not like we don't do webcasts and radio broadcasts and are really willing to talk with folks, you know. The only reason that there is the level of misrepresentation of Reformed theology out there is an unwillingness on the other side to engage in that kind of dialogue and to take the time.
You know, Pastor Rivas says he's got all these books on the shelf. Okay, but all that means is, did you read them recently? Because they contest in radio broadcasts and are really willing to talk with folks, you know.
The only reason that there is the level of misrepresentation of Reformed theology out there is an unwillingness on the other side to engage in that kind of dialogue and to take the time. You know, Pastor Rivas says he's got all these books on the shelf.
Okay, but all that means is, did you read them recently? Because they contest in radio broadcasts and are really willing to talk with folks, you know. The only reason that there is the level of misrepresentation of Reformed theology out there is an unwillingness on the other side to engage in that kind of dialogue and to take the time.
You know, Pastor Rivas says he's got all these books on the shelf. Okay, but all that means is, did you read them recently? Because they contradict what's being said here. And so, we went through, for example, Romans 9 last time.
We looked at the very odd reading of Romans 9 that he presented and the fact that he really didn't try to substantiate that and so on and so forth. And we had just finished up right around where he began talking about the invitation system.
And so, we'll pick up with it there.
And his thesis is that invitations are not biblical and they confuse people because people have equated salvation with walking down an aisle. Well, people have equated salvation with taking the Lord's Supper, so are we going to quit having the Lord's Supper?
They say invitations are unbiblical. That's what they say. Invitations were started by Charles Grandison Finney, the evangelist, adopted by Dwight L. Moody. They overemphasized human will and thought you can make people get saved just by sheer willpower.
Put pressure on them during invitation time. Well, folks, there are invitations in the Bible. I know invitations are misused. I don't get up here and say, Brother Tim, let's sing 49 verses of Just As I Am, and if we put enough heat on them, maybe we'll get somebody saved tonight.
I don't believe this thing is I don't believe I can manipulate people into getting saved. Did Moses in the book of Exodus not go to the gate of the camp and say, he that is on the Lord's side, come over here and stand with me?
Is that not an invitation?
I just pause it there. Do we really want to make that the parallel? I mean, do we really want a statement of what side you're on and that conflict that would end up resulting in people killing other people?
Is that really a parallel to what we're doing in the invitation? I grew up in churches that used invitations. The church that I'm in right now is the first church I had ever attended. I mean, the first time that service ended without an invitation, I'm like, what's going on here?
I grew up with it. So every service ended with Just As I Am or I Am Thine, O Lord, and so on and so forth. And I've seen how it works. And in the last church I was in, when a new pastor came in a couple years after I left, he got in front of those people and he told them, if I recall correctly, that he had been looking at the numbers and that of all the thousands of people who had been baptized, I mean, this church used to, at one point, baptize more than 1 ,000 people a year.
That was the big goal, 1 ,000 people a year. I think over the course of the preceding two years, they did not know where 85 of the people were who had been baptized in that church, 85%. They had no idea where they were.
They had no contact with them. They were not involved with the church. Fifteen percent, they knew where they were and there was some level of contact involved with the church, whatever it might be. Eighty-five percent.
And I knew that at a point in time in that particular church, there had been a fairly serious effort that had been made to try to disciple people who came forward in invitations. But there was one major problem.
And I was one of the people that wanted to be one of the disciples because I saw the need for that. I wanted to be one of the disciples. And it was called the encourager program. And you'd be assigned a new convert who would walk down the aisle.
But it takes two to make that work. And it was very discouraging to encouragers because of the fact that these individuals would come down the aisle and you know how they are on that first time you talk to them.
And they're taken off into another room. You have a word of prayer with them and all the rest of that stuff. But there's no follow through. It is so clearly the shallow soil stuff. Remember the parable?
The parable of soils is not the parable of seeds. It's not the parable of sowers. It's the parable of soils. And Jesus warned us. There are going to be those. You put the seed out there. And man, there is going to be a reaction.
And it's going to be fast. But it's not going to be real. And I saw that. I experienced that. I was there. I saw it. Now, I don't have any problem. I would not have any problem if we had a special sermon that was specifically for the proclamation of the gospel and encouraged you to bring people.
I would not have a problem in having a quote-unquote invitation in letting people know who they can come and talk to if they have questions about what it means to close with Christ, to believe in Christ.
I wouldn't have any problem with that at all. The problem is I went to a Southern Baptist college, all right? And I went through the homiletics class. I had to preach. I had to do the whole thing. And I read the book, and I went through the training.
And the whole thing was, look, you need to direct your sermon and create your sermon and write your sermon in such a way that you can transition into the invitation. The invitation is everything. That's how you grow your church.
That's how you get converts. That's how you get people saved. And every sermon has to be oriented that way. Folks, there are entire vistas of the New Testament that do not lend themselves in proper exegesis and application to an invitation.
So you have to twist the word. You have to make your, even if you're doing a good job in exegeting the text, you've got to abandon that text to get over to the invitation when that happens. So it's something I've experienced.
I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt, shall we say. So I know what's being talked about here. For some reason we lost the audio there. I'm not sure why. We'll have to stop it here, go back, see if we can get the audio fixed here.
Let's try it again.
Hmm. There it is. So they say Jesus died only for the elect because if he died for the whole world, these people over here that didn't get saved.
Now, hold on just a second here, because I want you to understand. I didn't do anything there. There's just like a dead spot in the audio here. And he went directly from the invitation back to particular redemption.
So if you're thinking I missed something, I'm skipping something, I'm editing something, I'm not. Okay, I'm going to play the whole thing. It's going to pick up right in the middle of something here. Then you're going to hear, this is how it happened.
So they say Jesus died only for the elect because if he died for the whole world, these people over here that didn't get saved really make Jesus look weak. I don't even understand that way of thinking.
Now, there's one problem.
Limited atonement is not in the Bible. Now, if you want to believe that. Now, I'd like to stop right there, because I'd like to explain that. Because I said that. I haven't used that particular terminology, but in my debate with George Bryson, I made that very assertion.
I said, I am so sick and tired of the presentation of Jesus Christ as a weak Savior. As a Savior who does not have the capacity and the power to save his own. I am tired of that. I am tired of the presentation of Jesus standing at the door, knocking.
And he's the milquetoast Jesus. There's no knob on the outside. He can't save anybody unless that person allows him to. I don't believe that. That's not the Jesus of John 6. That's not the Jesus who set his face to go to the cross.
And so, yeah, I will put my hand up and say, I agree. And I would like you to actually explain, please, how you are saying he's not. But he didn't do that because he just sort of moved on. You say, well, I'm still Calvinist.
Well, just one other thing. John Calvin believed in infant baptism. So when you adopt somebody's name, I'm assuming then that you believe in baptizing babies.
That's absolutely, positively ridiculous. And he knows it. He knows it. Of course, I got a chuckle out of Dave Hunt bringing that up against me. In a debate against me, in a written debate against me, he should know where I come down on that issue.
And, of course, I suppose there are some on the other side that will go, yep, you're right. That shows you're not really a Calvinist, even though it's normally the term reformed. They don't want to use of someone who is a Baptist, a person who believes in credo baptism.
But it is absurd to believe that we want to, quote, unquote, adopt a name. What we want to do is we want to be accurate in handling the Word of God. And I've said it many times before. Martin Luther said more about that issue of predestination and election than Calvin did.
The only reason Calvin's name gets attached is because he was such a systematizer. And so, no, it's not a matter of, you know, would it follow that we should then attach Arminius to his name and hold him accountable for everything Arminius said?
I mean, come on. Let's at least recognize these are just words we use to describe general systems of belief. This is where the argumentation started getting a little bit bad. Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
You said you're a Calvinist. So that means you adopt all the teachings of John Calvin. I don't want to be called a Calvinist. I would like to be called, I hope, a Christian. That's what I'd like to be called, a Christian.
Well, you say, Brother Herb, I just believe in limited atonement. All right. Let me read you this verse of Scripture and tell me what you're going to do with this. 1 Timothy chapter 4. Just let me read it.
Write it down somewhere. I've got to go quicker. 1 Timothy chapter 4 and verse 10 says, For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God. Now listen to this. Who's the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe.
Jesus died for the whole world, but His death and His atonement is effectual in those who have saving faith.
And where does that saving faith come from? And what does it mean to be Savior? These are all the issues that, again, I would ask Pastor Revis to actually take the time to address. And I did address them just briefly recently on the blog in response to a discussion of the atonement and so on and so forth.
These are not passages that are in a corner someplace. They are passages that have been addressed many times. But we don't hear those who are going to go against Calvinism taking the time to at least represent accurately the best responses that are offered to it.
What about 1 Timothy 2 and verse 6? Talking about Jesus who gave Himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time.
That wasn't even the best argument I've heard. Well, it wasn't an argument, was it? It was just a citation. Most start at 2 .4 and go through to 2 .6 and make 2 .6 the bookend argument to 2 .4. How many times do our regular listeners hear us deal with 1 Timothy 2, 4, through 6?
It's in the big three chapter in Potter's Freedom. We've gone over it a million times before. The books that were listed by Pastor Rivas beforehand would have discussions of these issues, would have exegesis, and would ask you the question, Is Jesus Christ the mediator for the same audience that you are proposing for verse 6?
And if He is, then does that bring us back to what we said before, that Christ intercedes for individuals the Father has no intention of saving? Or, even worse in my opinion, the idea that the Father and the Son and the Spirit can determine to bring about the salvation of person X, but they cannot accomplish the salvation of person X without His cooperation.
That, to me, is significantly more offensive than the previous option that I offered.
Well, what about 1 John 2? We've heard all these four, haven't we folks? Oh, a few times. And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Well, there does seem to be some folks in Chandler noticing this. There does seem to be a Southern Baptist way of pronouncing all and world. I was not taught that in Southern Baptist College, thankfully, but there does seem to be a consistency there.
And, of course, I would respond by saying, And what is all the world to John but Jews and Gentiles, Revelation chapter 5, verses 9 and 10? And what does propitiation mean? It would be interesting to ask if propitiation means what propitiation means.
And this is where these folks are so inconsistent, because I'm sure that Pastor Revis would agree with me as to what propitiation means. He's not going to be one of these folks who is going to buy into this liberal idea that propitiation just means expiation or it's just theoretical or whatever.
I'm sure that he would stand with me in saying propitiation is the strongest term we could use. It talks about the removal of not only the cause in the sin of God's wrath, but the wrath itself. It is propitiation.
It is a propitiatory sacrifice. Then why is the wrath of God being revealed from heaven? So that's what got me. That was the thing that hit me upside the head when I was a quote-unquote four-point Calvinist.
I didn't know what that was, but I was uncomfortable with the fifth point. Didn't know much about it. And it was reading, I believe it was Edwin Palmer, asking the question, did Christ's death provide atonement or not?
Yes or no? Not theoretical, real. That's what nailed me, and that's the question I would ask here, too. Is it a propitiatory sacrifice? If it's offered on behalf of somebody, then God's wrath is removed from them.
That's just important. That's just the way it is. Anyway, that's why I would love to be able to ask these questions, but we don't get a chance to do so. Are we going to be able to take a break here? Okay, all right.
I'm going to pick up with Pastor Herb Revis on the other side, and, of course, we get phone calls, 877 -753 -3341. We'll be right back right after this.
A godly man is such a rarity today. So many stars, strong and true, quickly fall away.
Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.
In their book, The Same-Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans.
Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law. In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people.
The Same-Sex Controversy, Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message about Homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at AOMin .org.
Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co-redeemer with Christ, elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.
In his book, Mary, Another Redeemer, James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic. He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant, and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed Queen of Heaven, viewed as co-mediator with Christ and now recognized as co-redeemer by many in the Roman Catholic Church.
Mary, Another Redeemer, is fresh insight into the woman the Bible calls blessed among women, and an invitation to single-minded devotion to God's truth. You can order your copy of James White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer, at AOMin .org.
This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.
The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m., and the worship service is at 10 .45.
Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday, and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26-GRACE.
If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at PRBC .org, where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.
And welcome back to the dividing line, 877 -753 -3341. I want to remind you, I haven't mentioned anything about it for a while, but I want to remind you that over there on the website, sometimes you sort of get used to it.
You probably need to change the picture just to wake folks up a little bit. But it's 2005, and it's January, and we're only talking August of this year. The very end of August is when we're heading up to Alaska, and you don't want to miss this trip.
You don't want to miss this particular opportunity to not only be equipped to respond to the constant attacks upon the sufficiency of scripture that are a part of our society, but you don't want to miss the opportunity of seeing what we're going to get to see on this trip.
So make sure to get to the website and get in touch with the folks you need to talk to who would like to talk to you and answer any questions that you have, explain how everything works, and you want to do that.
So don't forget, hit the website right over there on the right-hand side. I know the blog attracts your attention all the time, especially when there's something interesting there. But over there on the right-hand side, click on the pretty picture of the pretty ship that's not going anywhere at that particular point in time next to the glacier, and that's what we are going to be seeing ourselves.
Those are real pictures. I put a real picture on my blog of one that I took in Glacier Bay. Glacier Bay is just absolutely positively gorgeous. It truly, truly is. Some of you, of course, freezing away in the cold right now, may not want to be thinking about Alaska, but realize this is in August, and I can guarantee you we're going to be looking forward to it, having suffered through it.
Well, August is the hot, humid time here. I know some of you are thinking you don't have humid in Phoenix, but we do. So it's going to be a wonderful, wonderful opportunity, and so make sure that you do that.
I guess we'll go ahead and take a phone call and continue with Pastor Revis, and let's go ahead and talk with Frank in Arkansas. Hi, Frank. Doctor, how are you today? Doing all right. Okay, here's my question.
I know why you do what you do, but what do you think the limit should be? Oddball theories on how to read Scripture. Well, you know, that obviously is going to be dependent upon the individual and the individual's personal level of patience.
I mean, there obviously comes a time in any conversation where you're not accomplishing anything any longer, and it is one of the favorite techniques of many people to drag any conversation out to that point, knowing that eventually any rational person is going to just throw up their hands and say, Look, you're not listening.
Go, See, see, you can't answer. And you have answered repeatedly, but they then have the satisfaction of walking off going, See, he couldn't. I refuted him. You know, I've experienced that many, many times.
There's all sorts of people that have written things that say, See, he didn't respond to me, so I've refuted him. And I've just tried to get used to the idea that I help people to have happy lives, and they're going to need that because they're generally heading into eternal doom.
But at least in this life, they, for a while, had a little joy. And, you know, there's just nothing you can do about it. You can't just keep going around around the same issues. And so, you know, that's how I view it.
And as to yourself or somebody else, well, you know, you can sort of determine when the time drain is sufficient to where it's causing problems, and you just move on from there. So, you know, that's the best advice I can give.
I think a lot of folks really end up burning out concerning their involvement in such things, simply because they don't know when to move on. And if you don't see a positive response to what you do, you can eventually go, You know, I'm just completely wasting my time.
This is not accomplishing anything. Not realizing that even an encounter with someone that doesn't seem to go anywhere may be equipping you for an encounter later on. It may be equipping you to teach something later on that will help somebody else.
All those types of things are possibilities. I've certainly seen that, and I try to keep that in mind as well, especially when you encounter some of the wild and wacky responses that I get from the Dave Armstrongs of the world and the non-response responses and things like that, and the very, very, very poorly drawn cartoons.
It's nice to have a professional on your side. That's all I can say. But anyway, all right? Yes, thank you, Doctor. I appreciate your time. All right, thanks for calling, guys. All righty, let's return to the sermon here with Pastor Rivas talking about basically the big three.
We're at 1 John 2 .2 and arguing against. You'll notice that the arguments are not specifically against particular redemption here, but they really go back to unconditional election. Most objections against particular redemption do actually go to unconditional election.
But anyway. Somebody's saying, well, Brother Herb, the Bible says in John 3 .16, For God so loved the world. But you know what Five Point Calvin is saying about John 3 .16? They say that world there doesn't mean world.
That means just the elect. For God so loved the elect.
Well, boy, we've heard that one before. Remember, I mentioned a week ago today that I was informed that after this sermon, the pastor began, I don't know if it was through the church's bookstore, because they seem to be a fairly large church, or just how, but distributing or recommending to people the reading, of course, of Chosen but Free by Norman Geisler.
And we've gone over John 3 .16 many times on the program. The delimiting word there is believe, those who believe. And that's the important issue there is that Jesus is the one who put that there. And there is no whosoever in the sense of some unlimited concept that destroys the idea of believe or promotes some idea of universal capacity and the like.
And we have gone over this over and over and over again. But it is one of those indications, of course, that either nobody is listening to us or there is no desire to hear what the other side has to say and hence to interact with it in a meaningful fashion.
Now, the amazing thing about that, the Greek word for world in John 3 .16 is the Greek word cosmos. And it's funny to me it means world everywhere except in John 3 .16. See, when you begin to look through a theological system at the word of God, you begin to start bending verses to try to fit your system.
Yeah, like you just did. So, every use of cosmos by John means every human being that's ever lived. That is, I'm sorry, but somebody should have said, eh? What? There are so many uses of world in John.
John 17, 1 John 2, love not the world. I do not pray for the world. Those are getting me out of the world. I mean, come on. Shouldn't somebody at that point go, wow, maybe you might be missing something there, pastor.
But that's probably not happening. And I'll tell you why it's not happening. It's not happening because the fact that in large churches like that, a powerful pastoral figure rarely gets challenged on the issue of what he preaches.
In fact, your faithfulness to that church is measured not by your faithfulness to the word of God, but by your faithfulness to the word of God as interpreted by that particular individual. That's one of the reasons I believe in the necessity of the plurality of elders.
That's why you need to have plurality of elders. It really, really is. So, anyway, let's go back.
They say whosoever only refers to the elect. Okay, so now what you're telling me is we have to redefine all the terms of the Bible. No, of course.
Whosoever, as we've pointed out many times, is an English term that comes from a number of different Greek constructions. And in John 3 .16, it comes from all the believing ones. That is, every believing one without distinction.
Whoever is doing the action that is believing. It has nothing to do with the fact that here, once again, we see tradition determining exegesis. We have tradition determining the meanings of these words rather than the text itself.
So, world doesn't mean world.
And whosoever doesn't mean whosoever. So, maybe saved doesn't mean saved.
I'm sorry. This is grossly fallacious argumentation because world does mean world. It's just that John uses that in 14 different ways in his writings. And that is easily established when you can have a dialogue.
And whosoever, as I just explained, has different meanings depending on what Greek construct it has been derived from, etc., etc. But, here's the problem. When you've got the bully pulpit, you can say this.
And now think about the situation that those Reformed folks are in, in Florida. In this area, who are doing their Bible studies in that area. When they want to try to speak to someone, when they want to try to honestly address John 6 or something, for many of the people listening to this, this is the man who delivered the message and they believe they were saved by that.
And so, there becomes almost a pastoral, well, a pastoral idolatry. It's a power that comes from that position. And it's natural to understand why you want to trust someone in that position. But there's the reason for the necessity of being so careful as an exegete of the Word of God.
We stand before the people of God. Because when you allow your traditions to become the Word of God and you preach it that way, then you become guilty of placing your traditions in the minds of the flock as if they're the Word of God.
And that is a tremendous responsibility.
Are you following what I'm saying here? Folks, the Bible does not support limited atonement. So, we've got 2T. We've got a 2 up here. We've got total depravity, unconditional election, limited to irresistible grace.
That's I. Which means that these folks that God predetermined in eternity past, because they're dead, cannot respond, God predetermined this select group to get saved. Jesus died only for them. They're going to get saved even if they don't want to get saved.
I've even heard guys say, God will pull them in and kick it in screaming.
I don't know if over real audio you can hear what I can hear in the background of this. But whoever it is that sits close to the pulpit is very loud and likes to laugh a lot. Again, I don't understand the mindset that says present the worst possible picture you can.
I mean, I see it all the time. I see it especially in this area, but I don't understand it. We're talking here about the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit of God. We're talking about the power that brings dead sinners to life.
We're talking about the power that takes out a heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh. And yeah, I got to admit, at times like this, I can understand those who say, Man, anyone who would question the propriety of God himself having the freedom, the freedom to raise undeserving sinners to spiritual life, anyone who would, in essence, mock that, must just be completely out to lunch.
But here again, we have the power of tradition. Because if we were to take this same subject out of the context of a polemic against Calvinism and take it into the context of just a particular passage of scripture, I bet you anything that Herb Revis would do exactly what I've heard other preachers do.
And that is when they're actually dealing with the text and they're not even thinking about Calvinism. They will contradict themselves. They will talk about the power of the Holy Spirit to regenerate and to cause a person to be born again, and then the tradition will kick back in.
But they'll speak the truth when they're just working with the text. It's when the context of, Ah, that's Calvinism, that all of a sudden they have to protect their traditional position.
Well, what about verses like this? I don't have time just to look at all of them. But what about this here in the book of Proverbs chapter 1? Let me just read this to you.
Now, some of you, I want to watch the channel here when you all see that he's going to quote Proverbs chapter 1.
That's going to be interesting. Proverbs 124, because I've called and you refused, I thought you couldn't refuse if he really called you.
Now, can I just stop there? I suppose I should let him continue on. This has got to be one of the worst arguments I have ever, ever heard. Now, some of you know about the comedy feature we had on the dividing line last year sometime when we had a non-debate with someone whose entire ability to respond to John 6 was to quote Proverbs on 29.
But folks, in context, this is wisdom calling. This is wisdom calling to people. This has nothing to do with irresistible grace. Irresistible grace, we're talking about the power of the Holy Spirit to take dead sinners and bring them to regeneration, not the call of wisdom to individuals to walk with wisdom.
I've never seen anything quite this bad. And it certainly does not reflect well upon Pastor Revis' reading of Reformed materials.
Because I've called and you've refused, I've stretched out my hand and no man regarded. He says, then they shall call on me, and I'll not answer. They shall seek me early, but they shall not find me, because they hated knowledge and they did not choose the fear of the Lord.
Folks, just in case you missed it, if that's the best that can be presented against irresistible grace and the resurrecting power of the Holy Spirit, I wonder what happened to Lydia. That opening the heart stuff, you've got to be careful of that free will.
You can't get rid of that free will thing.
If you carry irresistible grace to the extreme, then we're just robots. I don't even see a need for evangelism. I don't see a need for soul. If it's so fixed and they're going to get saved anyway, and that's why the five-point cabinet, why not give an invitation?
How can you foul it up? I mean, they're going to heaven or hell, you can't do nothing about it anyway. You need to think about all this before you embrace this. Then peace stands for perseverance of the saints.
Okay, let's stop there for a second. Why evangelize? Why preach? If God has the power to raise rebel sinners to life through the use of the preached word and the ministry of the people of God, then why?
Oh, that answered the question, didn't it? God ordains the end of the means. Oh, well, don't you think that was mentioned numerous times, many, many times in all those books that Pastor Revis, at the beginning of his sermon, said he had sitting on his shelf?
I think it probably was. And so why not represent those accurately? What's accomplished in misrepresenting other than just simply deceiving the people you're talking to? I don't understand it. I really don't.
These things are important, are they not? Isn't the gospel important? Doesn't that deserve our most...
The problem with that, it means that those that God saves, he keeps saving, they will persevere to the end. That's the tulip. See how fast that went? I love that. I love that.
I love that. You come to the end of the system, and if you've denied everything that's come up to that point, you have absolutely, positively no basis for believing what you just said. If you've got...
Didn't we just hear someone talking about robots? So does that mean that God makes us robots? Once we're saved? Don't you still have your free will? How can you start saying that Christ won't lose any of those who come to him if he couldn't get them to come in the first place, and if it's their free will that brought them?
It's just amazing to me the ease with which these people will take the final point, which can only have meaning as it flows from these other divine truths. I mean, John 6 .37b, I shall never cast out the one coming to me, is only understandable in the light of John 6 .37a.
All the Father gives me will come to me. But somehow they can take the tail's side of the coin and not the head's side of the coin. The inconsistency is so striking and so obvious, and yet they don't see it.
They don't see it. They don't embrace it.
They don't understand it. It's amazing. Now, you say, Brother Herb, where do you stand in all this? As if we don't know by now. Well, having studied this seriously since 1974, having read books, pamphlets, having spent many a night in a dorm room with my little nasty dirty feet cocked up there arguing all night long.
Okay, now there, folks, what have I said before? What have I said about Norman Geisler? What have I said about Herb Revis? What have I said about almost all these men? They encountered this stuff in Bible college when they were literally kids.
And they made up their mind, and that's the last time there's been any serious analysis at all of the conclusions they came to that long ago. That's where this is coming from. They're not listening to anything new.
They're not open to conversation. Nothing has happened that has caused them to want to be able to do that. And that's why they hold a position. It's not because they're continuing. They haven't studied this for 30 years.
They studied it 30 years ago, and they've just dropped it at that point, and they're holding to their conclusions. That's what I'm hearing. And, folks, if you've been listening to Divine Line, this ain't the first time we've reviewed this kind of thing.
Well, there's just a little bit more to go on this, and, yes, we are going to get back to the Paige Patterson stuff. Hey, we do the best we can with the time we've got. Keep an eye on the blog. I've got seven articles queued up ready to go between now and Monday already, and some announcements and things up there.
So keep an eye on the blog. Thanks for listening to Dividing Line. We'll see you Tuesday. God bless.
The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries. If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O. Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the World Wide Web at aomin .org.
That's A-O-M-I-N dot O-R-G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks. Join us again next Tuesday morning at 11 a .m. for The Dividing Line.
Some radio broadcasts and are really willing to talk with folks, you know. The only reason that there is the level of misrepresentation of Reformed theology out there is an unwillingness on the other side to engage in that kind of dialogue and to take the time.
You know, Pastor Rivas says he's got all these books on the shelf. Okay, but all that means is, did you read them recently? Because they contradict each other.