June 26, 2003

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. Well, good evening and welcome to The Dividing Line.

My name is James White. We're getting started a little bit later today, 6 .30 in the

Mountain West, and a little bit loud there, and the reason being we had a little something going on today, and hey, you know what?

We don't have to buy airtime, we don't have to worry about satellite uplinks, we don't have to worry about advertisers, we don't have to worry about the

FCC, and therefore we can pretty much do whatever we jolly well want to do.

And so we got started about an hour and a half later than normal because of the fact that I wanted to have sufficient time to go out and to have dinner with my lovely wife in celebration of our 21st wedding anniversary.

And for some strange reason, the people in the chat channel have been, well, bribing her to come on the program, and I admit with great fear and trepidation,

I understand that she has chosen to do so. So I don't know what's going on at this point, and I do have a full program to present to you this evening in response to a recent sermon by Norman Geisler, but I understand,

I don't know this, given that we just do this in an office, and it's not like we have one of those neat control room windows to look through.

I don't know what's going on over on the other side of the wall, but if anything is going on over there, now would be the time to inform me of that.

Hello, everybody. I just wanted to take a minute and say thank you for your support of the ministry, of James's work, of Alpha and Omega, and your bride did work,

Jim's, although, however, very scared that I might say something that I shouldn't. I promised him

I would behave, but I just wanted to say thank you. We did have a wonderful anniversary, although I will admit that we did have one of our probably best senior moments over the last 21 years that we've been married.

Dear, do you want to share that with everybody? Well, it said Monty's on the gift certificate.

I only know of one Monty's, so we went to the wrong restaurant and ended up having to pay all of it because we didn't have a gift certificate, but hey, you know, it was still good food.

We still have that huge piece of chocolate cake we haven't gotten through yet, so now we just get to go out again.

So we're going to remember our 21st anniversary with a senior moment. I'm sure there'll be more of those coming.

Yes, I'm sure, and I'm looking forward to them, so anyway, just wanted to say hello to all the folks out there, and it's fun getting to know some of you guys through the channel, and keep up the good work you're doing, and encouragement to James, because it really means a lot to me.

Oh, and doesn't this mean that you're supposed to get something, too, because you were bribed to do this?

Oh, yes, I think something about cookies and a Z. Cookies with a Z, that's right.

Okay, all right, well, thanks for putting up with all you've put up with for 21 years, dear, and hopefully we'll see you on number 22.

Okay. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thanks. Bye. Whew. Oh, man.

I can breathe now. I was worried about what might be said there, but other than you all know that we have senior moments now, we're not all that senior, actually, but, you know, it's a convenient thing.

Once you have a four at the beginning of your age, you can start talking about senior moments, and it's really a joke, because you really shouldn't have them until you're like, you know, at the beginning of your name, or something like that, but anyway, yeah, so I didn't look at the address on the gift certificate, you know?

What can I say? Now we just get to go out and do it again some other time. Well, anyway, it is a sad day, other than that, in America today.

I'm not going to talk about this today, but today is a day where the

Supreme Court of the land has officially moved us into the realm of basically needing to,

I guess, I don't know what's ringing over here, but we have a new phone system, and Mr.

AO Min is, you know, doing the phone system stuff, and I don't know how to operate anything anymore.

I don't know what any of the extensions are. It's got all these bells and whistles, and I just want to be able to pick up a phone and call somebody personally, but it now goes brrrr, so you're going to hear that now in the background.

I don't know why, but anyway, so I just thought I'd let you know it was ringing. Anyway, the

Supreme Court has now placed us officially in the realm of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is a sad day when we have to recognize that the six of the nine

Supreme Court justices have now explained to us very clearly why it is we must pray that God would give us judges who would fear

Him, because that's not what happened in the decision given today, and our children and our children's children will reap what was sown today.

It's a sad, sad thing, but we'll see if there's some more development in that that we might address at another time and in another way in the future.

What I'd like to do today, however, is dedicate the program to responding to a recent sermon.

I do not know the date. It was from, I believe, Hawthorne Gospel Church or Hawthorne Bible Church.

I heard the name, and I've heard, uh, I've heard the, um, uh, that's interesting, uh, the cookie lady wasn't even listening when

Shuey comes on, poor thing, and it's all reason she came on, too. Man, I tell you, that's just absolutely crushing.

Anyways, it was, I've heard the name of this church, Hawthorne Gospel Church, Hawthorne Bible Church. I've heard them advertising on WMCA in, um, in, uh,

New Jersey, and, uh, this was, I would assume, a recent, uh, sermon.

I would, in fact, I'm looking here to see if, uh, the individual, yeah, the individual who sent it, uh, is in channel.

Maybe, uh, that person will, uh, give me some indication here before long exactly what the date of this was.

I just lost the right channel of my headphone for some strange reason, and, um, uh, but, uh, it was interesting to listen to the, uh, presentation, and, uh, since there, since I did get mentioned once, and, uh, since there was a lot of, uh, interesting, uh, material presented,

I wanted to play sections of it for you and respond to it. Now, the beginning, uh, of, uh, the, the presentation was a lengthy, in fact, uh, come to think of it,

I don't think I even pulled any, uh, materials from the, um, the first, uh, sermon that was given on a

Sunday morning. It was fairly short, and, uh, it was fairly philosophical.

It was a portion of his, uh, uh, presentation on free will.

It was very philosophical in its orientation. When I say philosophical, you know, Dr. Geisler studied philosophy, that's his primary area of study.

Um, it was not based upon biblical exegesis, and, uh, okay, the date was, um, all right, there is the date, thank you very much, sir, uh,

August 18th, 2002. This was just sent to me, uh, so, uh, less than a year ago, and, um, uh, the, the assertions that were made are primarily philosophical in nature, but I'm not saying when, when

I say they were philosophical, I'm not saying that they were soundly philosophical. Um, it is, it does interest me that at least as I can, can, can see, uh, most of those who present this perspective simply do not take seriously any of the responses that have been offered to it from another perspective, especially if that perspective starts with, uh, the, the supremacy of the word of God.

That's just been my experience. And so there is a discussion of the necessity of free will for there to be responsibility and all the rest of this stuff, and, and, uh, the necessity of being able to be free for any, uh, any good work to be, uh, praiseworthy.

Uh, it's interesting, someone had, uh, uh, mentioned to me that they had approached

Dr. Geisser, I think it was, may have been on the program, maybe it was our friend up in Denver, uh, or someone else who had asked

Dr. Geisser at one point in time, so are you saying that God has to be free to sin for any of his works to be praiseworthy?

Because given the argumentation, um, that, that, uh, is presented, uh, it would seem to be consistent that for any work to be praiseworthy,

God would have to have the ability to do evil. If for man, that same freedom must be, uh, that same libertarian freedom must, must exist.

Uh, but anyway, that kind of thing isn't even addressed as far as, uh, uh, it's not even, there's no acknowledgement that that kind of argumentation is out there.

And, uh, as an apologist myself, I know that when I present the arguments that I do,

I am always assuming in some way, shape, or form that, uh, what

I'm saying is being recorded. Uh, I'm, I'm sort of, uh, applying a standard to myself to where I want to try to respond to the objections that have been presented, uh, to my own, my own position.

Um, that's just something I, I think are, you know, is, is necessary. But that doesn't seem to be the way most other people, uh, behave.

In fact, before I play the first cut, if I may announce something, um, as most of you know, the work is completely finished on the, the debate book with Dave Hunt, uh, a book titled, um, uh, debating

Calvinism, five points, two, five points, two views, five points, two views, or two views, five points, something like that.

Uh, the exact nature of the subtitle, I'm not 100 % certain on. Um, and unfortunately

I've been told that the pretty much very, very, very firm release date, uh, is

February of next year. Why? I do not know. Um, I'm going to ask, uh,

I'm going to, you know, write a letter and say, why so long? I did, you know, it just doesn't make any sense to me, but one way or the other, it's going to be out by February of, uh, of next year.

And as most of you know, I have been seeking to arrange a moderated public debate with Dave Hunt on this subject for quite some time.

I had mentioned it in letters to him, uh, while he was writing What Love Is This. Um, of course at that time he said that his, uh, his publisher would not allow it.

That was loyal publishing. There is no loyal publishing any longer, so that's not an issue. He did engage in a debate against, uh,

Dr. Piper, uh, in May of, uh, I believe last year. And, um, possibly the year before now.

Uh, and so he's been willing to engage us. He's going around speaking about it. And so now the book is done.

Uh, I contacted him and said, okay, now the book's done. Loyal no longer exists. So those issues aren't relevant.

Obviously a, a videotaped recorded debate, uh, lengthy debate on the subjects of the

Doctrines of Grace would be the perfect compliment, uh, to this written book. So let's, let's arrange it.

If you'd like to have T .A. McMahon as your second, uh, in the debate, that's fine. Let's, uh, you know, let's, let's do it.

Um, I think we've exchanged about four emails back and forth over the past couple of days.

And, uh, Mr. Hunt has made it very clear. He has absolutely no intention of debating on the subject of Calvinism.

He says the book is sufficient. I have pointed out to him a number of issues that the book does not address in the sense that it does not allow for cross -examination.

It does not allow for the pressing of a particular point. I gave examples from the book. For example, his adoption of the

New World Translations rendering of Acts 13, 48, In What Love Is This, which he does not acknowledge or retract, uh, in, uh, the debate book.

And I said in a debate, I would ask about that. Uh, I pointed out 1 John 5, 1.

In the debate book, he, and In What Love, In What Love Is This, he miscites it in the sense of he inserts a, a parenthetical comment that is directly contrary to the grammar and syntax of the

Greek language. I point that out. And I, I say, I would ask about that.

Um, he made no comments on those things. He ignored the majority of the refutation that was offered to his points in the written debate.

And, uh, therefore, um, uh, I, I simply kept pointing out to him to say that we have had our debate.

And he had agreed to a debate. He had agreed to a multi -session debate in St. Louis as we were staying there talking to say that that book fulfills that simply makes no sense.

I, I reject that. Um, and I think any rational person who would, who would read the exchanges back and forth would see that that, uh, that that, uh, would be the case.

And so, um, we have tried, we have, uh, as you know, we have extended invitations to Norman Geisler.

We have extended now invitations to Dave Hunt. These individuals who will write books, uh, against the reformed faith will not face a responsible representative of the reformed position in meaningful public debate.

They won't do it. Um, you need, will need to ask them why they will not do it.

Uh, but they will not do so. And so we have tried, we stand ready. I, I wrote back just not more than an hour ago,

I would say. Uh, and I said to Mr. Hunt, uh, here are the reasons why I, I reject your rejection.

Uh, my challenge stands. If you change your mind, we'll be, we'll be glad to do it. And furthermore, uh, if you're not willing to do it, maybe

T .A. McMahon would as your representative. And so I, I left that, uh, open, uh, as a possibility as well.

But in any, in any case, we have sought, uh, to, uh, allow for the, the, uh, open discussion of these issues.

Uh, but it does not look like it's going to be happening and it is not because we won't, it is because they will not.

And, uh, there have been many churches that have, have said, we will host it. We will, we will pay to bring you in and put you up and we'll, we'll do the whole thing.

And all over the United States, um, there's a tremendous amount of interest, but, uh,

Mr. Hunt will not do it. He has, um, uh, declined, uh, our open challenge to him to debate these issues and to add that as part of the, of the literature that is available.

And, uh, so I think once folks get a chance to look at the book and make up their minds there, uh, they will see the need for a public debate because of the fact that it is frustrating to see these issues raised and they are not addressed and, uh, or not addressed in a meaningful fashion that actually provides answers.

So we're trying, but, um, there seems to be an unwillingness on the, on the part of those who wish to attack the

Reformed faith, uh, to actually deal with the issues in a meaningful fashion. So there's the situation as it stands right now.

So let's go ahead and start, uh, with this response. Uh, now that I've, uh, talked about that, um,

I'm not sure that I'm going to get to all this, but, um, Mr., uh, Dr. Geisler presented seven verses that deny extreme

Calvinism. Um, seven verses that he feels demonstrate that God loves everyone equally,

I would assume, uh, and that, uh, Jesus died for everyone, even though it becomes painfully clear throughout listening to all seven of these that what he means by that, uh, is that God, um, that Jesus's death makes men savable, but saves no one.

That is very much a part of his, of his presentation. That is interesting. Twice, he will make a very true statement that, uh, of course he's making the accusation that it's

Calvinists who slavishly follow a system rather than the Bible, but as we listen to his exegetical errors, we discover that in fact it is, uh,

Dr. Geisler and the Arminians who are following after their system and specifically the ultimate dedication to libertarian free will, uh, that creates their, um, their situations.

Let's begin. Hopefully the computer's all turned up and ready to go. Let's, uh, begin with the first section from, uh,

Dr. Geisler. I'd like you to do with your Bibles tonight is to mark seven verses, seven very important verses because these verses tell us unequivocally that the strong or extreme

Calvinist view that denies free will and that says that Christ died only for some people is simply not biblical.

And since we believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God, we must go by what the

Bible teaches, not what our system of theology teaches. Well, certainly, uh, that is exactly the case.

We have to go by what the Bible teaches. Uh, the question is, of course, uh, is what

Dr. Geisler is going to be saying consistent with what the Bible teaches? Well, let's begin with his, uh, first verse.

This will be from Romans 5, 18, his presentation on the meaning of the word all.

Now, keep in mind that, again, a basic familiarity with reformed interpretation of Romans 5 would inform

Dr. Geisler, um, that what we're talking about here in Romans 5 are two humanities, the one humanity that is in Adam and the one that is in Christ.

All those who are in Adam only receive from Adam only what you can get from Adam, which is death.

All those who are in Christ receive from Christ what you receive from Christ, and that is life.

However, that basic interpretation found in many exegetical commentaries does not even make an appearance in Dr.

Geisler's confident statements here in this particular presentation.

It's about a minute and a half in length. Let's listen to what he has to say. And I want to ask you some simple questions as we read a few verses.

I'm going to read verses 18 and 19, and then ask you the question, according to these verses, for whom did

Christ die? Some people, just the elect, or did he die for everyone? Romans 5, 18.

Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one man's act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

For as by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

According to verse 18, how many people did Christ die for? Some people or all people?

It says all. My hermeneutics teacher, that's how to interpret the Bible, my hermeneutics teacher used to say, all means all, and that's all all means.

Christ died for all men. Now, if you deny in 5 .18b that salvation came as a free gift to all men, then you're going to have to deny in 5 .18a

that all men fell because of Adam's sin. In the same verse it says, when

Adam sinned all men fell, and when Christ provided salvation it was provided for all men.

If all means all in the first half of the verse, guess what all means in the second half of the verse?

It means all. So there's the presentation of Romans 5 .18 as one of his seven verses that prove that Christ died for all people.

Of course, as I mentioned, if a person would simply consider the fact, there's an entire phrase that for some reason

Dr. Geisler doesn't mention. Verse 18, so then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Dr. Geisler doesn't address that issue, because in essence what he would have to argue,

I of life to all men. But that's not what it says. The direct parallel is that just as the one transgression resulted in the condemnation of all men, so through the one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

This is one of the key primary universalist passages. And the universalist makes the very same mistake that Dr.

Geisler does. Does not recognize that the contrast is between the one

Adam and those who are in him, and the one Christ and those who are in him.

The all, and of course if a hermeneutics teacher actually said what was said there, that all means all, and that's all all means, that hermeneutics teacher has never examined the term all.

But as it may, if the position taken by Dr.

Geisler is to stand intact, he would have to adopt either a universalistic perspective, or admit that the parallel is not meant to be taken strictly.

In either case, we have eisegesis. And so, just looking at the text, allowing those words, their resulted justification of life to all men, either has to mean all men will be justified, that's what universalists believe.

All men can be justified, which would then mean that all men can be condemned, but are not necessarily condemned, which

I don't know of anyone who believes that. Or, as Reformed exegetes have pointed out, the consistent interpretation is talking about the two humanities, the one in Adam, and the one in Christ.

Now, again, it amazes me that Dr. Geisler is not aware of these issues.

And in fact, one of the common things I'm going to have to repeat over and over again during the course of this program, is my firm conviction that Dr.

Norman Geisler has never read the Potter's Freedom. I do not believe he has ever read the Institutes of the Christian Religion.

I do not believe he has ever read much by B .B. Warfield, or any of these other individuals that would provide an exegetical foundation for the

Reformed faith. I just don't believe he's done so, because if he has done so, then he is desperately dishonest.

And I just don't think that he is. I think he's simply repeating a tradition that he learned a long time ago, and he simply has not taken, he has no respect for Reformed exegetes.

He does not believe, and there's something else that feeds into my conclusion at this point.

And that is, I had a conversation with Dr. Geisler about presuppositional apologetics once, at the

Evangelical Theological Society's meeting in Dallas. And I was simply shocked at his representation of Van Til's position.

It was not accurate. He seemed to believe that it was, but it wasn't. And so, my feeling is,

Dr. Geisler, here's something. He comes to a conclusion, and pretty much after that, it's all over with.

There's no further, there's no question that he is, whether he has or has not accurately interacted with the information.

Let's put it that way. And I understand that. I understand that kind of a mindset, and what presses you that direction.

But I've come to a conclusion. He's never read my book. He gives absolutely no indication whatsoever in any of these comments that he has.

He does not refute any of the refutation that has been offered. And I don't understand how a person could stand in front of a congregation, present these things, knowing that refutations have been offered, and not even try to present the material in a stronger fashion.

I just don't understand that. So, that's verse number 1, Romans 5 .18. And we have to conclude that he is in error in his use of that, and that he is engaged in eisegesis.

So, so far we are 0 for 1 of the big 7. The next one is 2 Corinthians chapter 5, verses 14 through 15.

This is another about minute and a half segment. And let's look at verses 14 and 15.

Now, this verse that Christ died, this trend that Christ died only for some people, has been popularized by a number of well -known

Christians today, is not rooted in Scripture. It's rooted in a system of theology, a system of theology that is man -made.

Look at what the Scripture says in 2 Corinthians 5 .14. For the love of Christ constrains us, because we judge that if one died for all, then all died.

Now, we have the same dilemma as we had in Romans 5 .18. It says all died because of Adam's sin, and how many people are provided salvation because of Christ's death?

All. Same verse. The word all in half of the verse, according to the extreme

Calvinist, has to mean some. So they have to read this verse literally to say that if one died for all, if one died for some people, then all died.

But the Holy Spirit doesn't make mistakes. These are Spirit -breathed words. The Holy Spirit knew the word some.

It's used in the Bible. He uses the word some where it means some. And He uses the word all where it means all.

And it says if one died for all, Christ died for all mankind, then all had died.

Again, we have the same problem. If all have died in Paul's theology, then the penalty of their sin has been paid in their stead.

Again, the problem with this argumentation is that he is assuming a context that the

That is, you look at verse 15. There is this union with Christ.

This is the same language that Paul uses in Galatians 2. I have been crucified with Christ, but now Christ lives in me.

Here you have the exact same type of situation. He simply doesn't even make an attempt to establish that the context of 2

Corinthians 5 is meant to be a universal context rather than the context of believers themselves.

It's just an assumption on his part that once you see the word all, then we can automatically import all these other presuppositions as to what's being discussed.

That isn't accurate either in Pauline theology in general or in this particular context specifically.

Again, it's wishful thinking, but it's not overly accurate thinking as it occurs.

That's 0 for 2. There's still 5 more to go. Of course, we end up with some of the

Big Three. Remember this next one, 1 Timothy 2, verses 4 -6. I won't spend a lot of time on it because, obviously, in the

Potter's Freedom, I wrote an entire chapter called the Big Three that deals with 2 Peter 3 .9,

1 Timothy 2 .4, and Matthew 23 .37. I do not see any evidence whatsoever that Dr.

Geisler has even glanced at the comments that are placed here.

Again, people say, wait a minute, he wrote a response to your book. No, I think his students did. That response, and we've documented this in Dividing Line, was so bad, was so misrepresentational, was so sophomoric in its material that, again,

I just cannot believe that Norman Geisler wrote it. I continue on that assumption even today.

Now that I look at the clock, I notice that it's probably a good time before we play the next one to go ahead and take our break and then come back as we continue looking at this sermon and responding to Dr.

Norman Geisler. We'll be right back. Answering those who claim that only the

King James Version is the Word of God, James White in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true

Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .aomen

.org. Incorporating the most recent research and solid biblical truth, Letters to a

Mormon Elder by James White is a series of personal letters written to a fictional Mormon missionary. Examining the teaching and theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day

Saints, the book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style.

James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity.

With well -defined arguments, James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the Book of Mormon, the prophecies, visions, and teachings of Joseph Smith, the theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism, and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the

LDS Church. This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons, Letters to a

Mormon Elder. Get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at www .aomen

.org. What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free?

A New Cult? Secularism? False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Potters' Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, But The Potters' Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself.

In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the

Reformers is the very one taught in the The Potters' Freedom, A Defense of the

Reformation, and a Rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at aomen .org.

...a sermon

Dr. Norman Geisler gave in August of last year on the subject of Calvinism.

We are looking at seven verses that he offered that he feels proves that there is a...

What he means by that seemingly is God loves everyone redemptively, but he will later sort of modify that.

There's a lot of inconsistencies here. That's been one of the key problems. Now he's going to address 1 Timothy chapter 2.

This is a little longer because he goes over something about Spurgeon. I went ahead and left it in. Spurgeon did not take the classic

Reformed view of this passage. And we'll address that when we listen to it.

We make our way through the New Testament in 1 Timothy chapter 2 and verses 4 and 6.

Actually, these are two references. 1 Timothy 2 .4. Who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth?

How many people does God want to be saved? Some people or all people. According to this verse, he wants everybody to be saved.

2 Peter 3 .9 says he is long -suffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth? Charles Spurgeon, who himself was a strong Calvinist, what's called a five -point

Calvinist, from TULIP to ULIP, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints.

Charles Spurgeon, when he came to this verse, had great difficulty.

On the one hand, he believed that Christ died only for the elect. On the other hand, the Bible says he desires all men to come to a knowledge of truth.

Spurgeon had to come to this painful conclusion. I would rather be consistent with the scripture than to be consistent with my own theology.

And so when he preached this verse, he preached it as though Christ died for everyone, even though he believed

Christ died only for some. That's exactly what the verse says, that God desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Look at verse 6. Christ gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time.

He paid the penalty for the sins of everyone in the world. Now we're told, how could he pay the penalty for everyone without everybody being saved?

The same way you can get a pardon without receiving it. There are cases on record, somebody was telling me this morning of a case in Maryland, where somebody had been given a governor's pardon and knew about the pardon and turned it down and went to the electric chair.

Just because the pardon is given doesn't mean it's received. Just because salvation is given, is provided for everyone, doesn't mean it's received.

Christ died for everyone. Everyone was officially pardoned by God.

But if you don't accept the pardon, you're not going to be out of prison or avoid the chair.

It is amazing to me that he would make the assertion that those who will be in hell have been pardoned.

Their sins have been forgiven. They have been paid for by Christ. Obviously that then raises the very issue that Charles Haddon Spurgeon himself raised.

And that is, if that is true, if the pardon is real, then there's no basis upon which to punish these individuals.

All of this, of course, results in the atonement being completely theoretical. And Dr. Geisler is very clear upon that.

In his book, Chosen But Free, he says, The death of Christ saved no one, it made men savable. It is hypothetical, but we need to understand this.

And I would think that he, recognizing that this is a key issue of the response that has been given to his book, would wish to explain and to address the fact that it is this mere potentiality that is so very much a problem in his theology.

But again, I do not believe that he respects Reformed theologians enough to listen to what their assertions actually are and to what their concerns are.

And I've addressed that. If you want to go back in the archives, you can see on straightgate .com. You can find where I think we did a nine -part series in response to Chosen But Free when it first came out.

Address those issues there. Address 1 Timothy 2 .4 in the book. In that, I just point out, he doesn't deal with verse 5, especially in reference to the idea of Christ's mediation.

That part doesn't come out. The context of kinds of men doesn't address any of that. Just simply says, well, how much plainer and clearer can it be than this?

And so, he just simply presents it in that particular context.

Well, the next one is a little bit shorter. This is his discussion of Hebrews 2 .9. With me to Hebrews 2 .9,

a verse tucked away here often neglected on this topic. But we see

Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.

And that he, by the grace of God, and what does the next phrase say? Might taste death for the elect.

Now, my Bible says that he might taste death for everyone.

Jesus did not just die for some people. He just did not die for the elect.

He did not just die for the church. He tasted death for every man.

God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.

And if you think that that verse refers to the Christian world,

I remind you that in the very next verses, he talks about the condemnation being on the world, and it's not just on the

Christian world. Well, again, that isn't the response of Reformed exegetes.

But we do see him, who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely Jesus, because of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God, he might taste death for everyone.

Everyone whom? For it was fitting for him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one

Father, for which reason he is not ashamed to call them brethren. Well, who is it that's sanctified?

Look at Hebrews chapter 10. There's a full discussion of it there. But you'll notice that the very next verse identifies the everyone and the many sons that he brings to glory.

Again, you would think if you're going to make these kinds of assertions, and do so within the context of saying that it's the

Reformed folks that are ignoring context, and they're following after a system and all the rest of this stuff, you would think in that context that you would be a little more careful in at least listening to how they respond to these things.

But again, I find no evidence that he listens to any of what we have to say whatsoever.

I don't think he would ever take the time even to listen to this too. Well, let's continue with the next verse.

So far we've swung at everything and missed everything. The seven verses are disappearing quickly.

Let's see what the next one's about. Turn with me to 2 Peter chapter 2 and verse 1.

Very painful text for an extreme Calvinist who doesn't believe in human free will or in Christ's death for everyone.

2 Peter chapter 2 is clearly talking about people who are lost, about the apostate.

They're called false teachers. It says in verse 17, These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest, to whom the gloom of darkness is reserved forever.

That's not talking about a believer. And in the very first verse of 2

Peter chapter 2 verse 1, it says, There were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you who secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying the

Lord who bought them and bring on themselves swift destruction. That says that people who are going to hell, people who are totally apostate, for whom the eternal darkness is reserved, were bought by the blood of Christ.

Christ shed his blood not just for a special select group, but he shed his blood for the entire world, even those who are going to hell.

Christ died for. You know, it amazes me the strength of tradition, yet once again, that would cause a person to find that to be an attractive thing.

And again, remember, the only reason that Dr. Geisler finds it attractive to say, Jesus Christ shed his blood for every person who will be in hell, the result being that Christ's blood saves no one.

Christ tries to save, fails in his saviourhood, the spirit fails, the

Father fails, God fails all over the place, but why do we have to believe this?

Because we must have the philosophical underpinning of libertarian free will.

This is the tradition. And it just amazes me. And again, you look at the lengthy article that is available on our website by Simon Escobedo on the subject of 2

Peter 2 .1, and you just ask basic things. Well, Dr. Geisler, have you ever dealt with the meaning of despotas, despotese?

Have you ever considered the difference between kurios and what this means? And have you considered the idea of redemption with a price and no price?

Are you even aware of the works on this subject? And I don't get any feeling that there is any awareness of this.

I mean, wouldn't he have to assume that at a church this size, and it seemed to me that it seemed to be a fairly decent sized church, like I said,

I've heard them advertised on WMCA in New York, New Jersey area, doesn't he assume that maybe, possibly, there might be some individuals in that audience who are familiar with these things and who might challenge him on these things and who would be expecting to hear at least some familiarity with the responses?

I would think so, but that doesn't seem to be the case with those individuals who present this kind of material.

It just doesn't seem to cross their mind. Well, I think, let me see here, we've had six of the seven, and we've found problems with all six of the seven so far, so let's see if maybe number seven will be able to provide

Dr. Geisler with a foundation. And the last and seventh verse has to be seven because it's perfect, a perfect argument.

1 John chapter 2 and verse 2. 1

John 2 says, And he himself is the propitiation, satisfaction, that is, when

Christ looked at his death for us, when God looked at Christ's death for us,

God was satisfied with what he did on our behalf. And it says,

He himself is the satisfaction for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

Now, I ask you, what could be clearer than that? What could be clearer? Christ did not just die for us.

He didn't die just for believers. He died for the entire world. Now, if you're a five -point strict extreme

Calvinist, you have to say that this verse means this, that Christ didn't just die for us apostles or us in our group.

He died also for the whole Christian world. You have to read the word Christian in it.

Unfortunately, John defines world in this very chapter, verse 15.

Love not the world. Does that mean we shouldn't love Christians? No, we're commanded to love one another.

Or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

World couldn't possibly mean elect, because the love of the Father is in the elect. But then he defines the world, verse 16.

All that's in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life is not of the

Father, but is of the world. The same author in the same chapter defines world as non -Christian world, as sinful world.

And in the same chapter he says Christ died not for our sins only, sins only, but for those of the whole world.

There are seven reasons why I am not an extreme Calvinist.

There are seven reasons why I believe that God loves everyone and has given everyone free choice to accept or reject his love.

Well, unfortunately, all seven fail. Most folks who are familiar with the discussion of 1

John 2 recognize that the majority view, I would say, of reformed individuals have recognized that the term world does have multiple meanings.

And in fact, if you think about it, what Dr. Geisler mentioned there in 1

John 2 about cosmos and how we are not to love the world and the things of the world actually refutes the common use of John 3 .16,

does it not? Is that not one of the 14 different ways that the

Apostle John uses the term cosmos, the term world? And is he going to say that in that passage, where we are not to love the world, that that means all individuals?

That this somehow is even addressing the issue of all of mankind who have ever lived, now live, and ever will live?

Isn't it understandable that 1 John 2 is talking about Jews and Gentiles, all the world, as Jews would understand it?

That is, that Christ's sacrifice is not just a Jewish thing, but it is for all the world in that sense?

He makes that point and yet doesn't seem to see that in so doing, he is refuting his own common arguments elsewhere.

As I listened to that, I just sat there and, you know, your head sort of goes to one side and you go, okay,

Norm, don't you see that? Aren't there people around Dr. Geisser that would make him go, well, wait a minute, what you just said seems to be contrary to what you say elsewhere.

But maybe that's why these debates don't take place, because that would then raise these issues.

Well, I need to press on because time is fleeting. Later on, there is this discussion, and again, it brings out the issue of contradiction.

He's trying to talk about the love of God, and he does raise the issue of the reality of the fact that there are different kinds of love, that the love

I have for my wife is a kind of love that I am not to have for anyone else.

It's unique. And doesn't God have that same kind of ability? But listen to what ends up happening when that reality runs smack dab into tradition.

A special love for my wife that I don't have for anyone else. I love all people, men and women, adults and children, but I have a special love for my wife, and Christ had a special love for the church.

That's not the question. The question is this. On the analogy of husband and wife, of bridegroom and bride, does

God want everyone to be in his bride so that he can give special love to them?

And the answer is yes, he does. We just looked at seven verses that say that he loves everyone, that Christ died for everyone.

Christ wants everybody to be in his bride so they can have that special love. And if you're not in the church, if you're not in the beloved, you're not the recipient of that special love, of those special intercessory prayers to the

Father because he's pleading the efficacy of his blood on our behalf, our advocate in heaven.

No way does that verse or any other verse in the New Testament, however, say that God doesn't love everyone and Christ didn't die for everyone.

Well, that sounds to me like a little bit of desperation. I think he was attempting to get around Ephesians 5 and say, well, but God wants everyone to be in the bride and in the church.

I don't know about you. It didn't make a whole lot of sense, but be that as it may, I found it fascinating. God wants you to be in the bride so you can have that special love.

Well, so God's love for you changes when you by your free will add yourself to Christ's bride?

Is that what's being said? I honestly at that point went, what?

Well, this next one, again, some of you who've read The Potter's Freedom know that I dealt with the issue of Romans 9 and Dr.

Geisler's many scattered comments on Romans 9. I point out the fact in Exodus chapter 4,

God, before Moses ever appears before Pharaoh, says, I am going to harden his heart.

And I point out this was not dealt with by Dr. Geisler at all in his book.

And so I have presented this. It's been out for a number of years. Listen to the commentary that Dr.

Geisler gives. This is very brief. It's only about 26 seconds. It's the best commentary on the

Bible to the context where that is given. I want you to note several verses.

When it says, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, I want you to listen to these verses and then ask yourself this question.

Who hardened their heart first? Pharaoh, or did God harden

Pharaoh's heart? So there you have the presentation. I mean, he went on for a long, long time, read a bunch of stuff.

But the point, and of course he did the Romans 9, his nations, and all the rest of that stuff. Except when he gets into the hardening of the heart, he goes back to the personal stuff.

Again, find no consistency whatsoever in non -reformed exegetes in regards to this particular issue.

But be it as it may, he goes, see? Pharaoh hardened his heart first. And he hardened it and hardened it and hardened it.

He hardened it five or six times before God ever hardened it. And God was just simply bringing punishment to bear upon him.

He did it himself first. Even though the book written in response to his book points out he's not dealing with Exodus 4 and the fact that as God sends

Moses, God says, this is what I'm going to do. And I did this for a specific purpose. He doesn't deal with any of that material whatsoever.

He just simply continues the same traditional type responses that we've all heard over and over again.

And again, I have to ask the question, why is this? Why won't people deal with these issues?

Looking at the clock, we're going to have to go a little bit long this evening. I apologize for that. But it wouldn't make any sense holding the rest of these quotes over to the next program.

It would cause the next program to be sort of non -understandable.

So we'll just go a few minutes longer. Hopefully none of you will collapse from exhaustion from so doing.

We have four more clips I want to play. This next clip is very interesting. He uses the illustration of the wax and the clay.

And I don't know about the rest of you, but if you listen to what he's saying, it very clearly shows that for Geisel anyways, those who are elect are better.

They are more sensitive than those who are lost. It makes the difference between those who are elect and those who are non -elect exist solely and completely within the individuals.

It is not God's grace. It is not God's mercy. It makes men to differ. No, the elect were simply better.

They were more sensitive than the non -elect. See if that's not exactly what this illustration results in.

Six times the Bible says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart by an act of deliberate, stubborn free will.

He hardened his heart against God. Then it says in chapter 9, verse 12,

But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart. Of course God hardened his heart because the more he spoke to Pharaoh, the more

Pharaoh stubbornly refused. Let me illustrate. The same sun that melts wax hardens clay.

Why is it that the same sun that melts wax hardens clay? Because wax is receptive to the softening influence of the sun and clay is not.

Why is it that some hearts get hard against God? Because of their rebellious, stubborn refusal to accept

God's softening work on their heart. God's work on them hardens them.

Not contrary to their free will, but according to their free will. There is no contradiction in this passage with the belief that God never works irresistibly on the unwilling.

Never works irresistibly on the unwilling. Well, if that's the case, not one of us will ever be saved.

Not one of us ever could have been saved. That is, as I pointed out in The Potter's Freedom, the fundamental rejection of biblical revelation on Dr.

Geisler's part is that he simply cannot accept the idea. And in fact, eventually ends up somewhat mocking the idea that God must act in such a way as to take out a heart of stone and give us a heart of flesh.

I would love to see him interact with that particular passage. Now, this next cut, I must admit, just blew me away.

And I will take it as a great honor to be named with the three other names with whom

I am named. It is, I think, more of an indication of the very shallow amount of reading in Reformed theology that Dr.

Geisler has done than anything else. Because I do not deserve to be named with the men with whom my name is associated in this next quotation.

But I smile and just sort of chuckle because it really doesn't mean anything.

But listen to this next clip from Dr. Geisler. And that's the way God works on hearts.

But according to extreme Calvinists, that's not true. According to people like Jonathan Edwards, John Gerstner, R .C.

Sproul, James White, and the people who are running around the country like chickens with their heads cut off because I wrote the book

Chosen but Free and challenged the whole premise. According to them,

God changes you against your will. It's called regeneration.

That you are given divine life against your will. So you're on this road to hell.

You're opposed to God. You hate God. You don't love God at all.

You're dead in trespass and sins. And he zaps you with divine life apart from your will, irresistible grace, regeneration.

And then you're able to believe. So you're saved first and then you're able to believe. It amazes me.

Again, it is a demonstration that Dr. Geisler is primarily a philosopher.

Certainly, soteriology is not his strong suit because at the end of this quote and then at the beginning of the next quote you have this idea of...

Well, actually I didn't include that. He goes on and on and on about confusing regeneration and all of salvation.

And it is almost directly parallel even in wording to what Dave Hunt does.

And what Dave Hunt does in our debate book, what Dave Hunt did in What Love Is This shows no sophistication in understanding the ordo salutis.

No sophistication in interacting with the discussion of regeneration and faith and repentance.

I mean, it just seems... It's difficult for me to understand. I know that Dave Hunt has probably never read

Murray's tremendous work, Redemption Accomplished and Applied. But you would think that Norman Geisler has.

But if he has, then he's ignoring it here. And I choose to believe that he hasn't.

He just simply hasn't taken the time. That guy was a Calvinist and therefore we really don't spend a whole lot of time listening to what

Calvinists have to say. Anyway, it's just amazing.

Notice something else. This next one is very short. It's only a 17 second clip. I know that Dr.

Geisler in his book tries a little bit to differentiate between a hyper -Calvinist and an extreme

Calvinist. He's not overly successful. It's obvious that in his own thinking he does not follow that distinction.

Listen to what happens here when he gets rolling. Now you notice, did you hear that?

Hyper -Calvinist. He doesn't say extreme Calvinist. And this is in the same context as the previous quote.

So he's calling us all hyper -Calvinists. He doesn't know what a hyper -Calvinist is. Dave Hunt doesn't know what a hyper -Calvinist is.

Adrian Rogers doesn't know what a hyper -Calvinist is. Again, it's all just distinctions.

It doesn't really matter. And then again, the failure to understand the difference between regeneration, salvation, the ordo salutis, all the rest of this stuff.

And let's face it, folks. These folks don't care that for those of us who are concerned about these things, this just makes us go, you've got to be kidding.

I mean, you're obviously not attempting to even impress me. You're not attempting to communicate with me.

Because you haven't taken the time to seriously think these things through. Now, last quote, and then we'll wrap things up here.

Romans chapter 9. On the contrary, who are you,

O man, who answers back to God, the thing molded will not say the mold, or why did you make me like this, will it? Or does not the potter have it right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

Verse 22. What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy which

He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Beautiful passage. It is so strong, it is so clear. But listen to what happens.

Remember, Dr. Geisser could look at passages like Romans 9 .16. So that it does not depend on the man who wills, the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

And say, see, this teaches free will. He can do the same thing with verse 22.

Listen to what he had to say. Interesting. You see what you want to see. When you've got your mind made up, when you have a system of theology made up, you can look right at the

Scripture and not see it. Now did you hear that? I'm going to replay that. Because he's exactly right.

Except he's describing himself. I'm going to play that one section again, then the illustration.

Interesting. You see what you want to see. When you've got your mind made up, when you have a system of theology made up, you can look right at the

Scripture and not see it. It's there in verse 22. What if God, wanting to show

His wrath and to make His power known, enduring with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

What was God enduring? What was He longsuffering about? 2 Peter 3 .9.

He's longsuffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Can you believe that?

It just leaves me breathless. Absolutely breathless. I mean, the preceding verse talks about the potter and the clay, one vessel for honorable use, another for common use.

The verse itself talks about the demonstration of His wrath. The very next verse says, and He did so, here's the purpose, to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy.

And what does Dr. Geisler do? He leaps out of the context of Romans 9, a context that he's already murdered in saying it's about nations, but now he has to recognize at this point it's not.

Leaps out of the context over to 2 Peter 3 .9, ignoring the context of 2

Peter 3 .9, ignoring every response on 2 Peter 3 .9, and just quotes it in its traditional way and says that's what's actually...

Romans 9 .22 is actually saying God wanted to save the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.

He wanted to, He tried, and He failed. What do you say?

What do you say to that kind of eisegesis? And again, this is why there needs to be discussion that goes back and forth because I can guarantee you

I would ask that question in a debate. Dr. Geisler, how can you not see the context?

What do these words mean? And maybe that's why they won't engage the debate.

Maybe that is. I don't know. Well, there you have it, folks.

Our brief response to the presentation at the

Hawthorne Gospel Church August 18, 2002 by Dr.

Norman Geisler. This is a number of years after his book came out, a number of years after the Potter's Freedom came out. In fact, it's even after the publication of the appendix to Chosen but Free, which allegedly provided a response to Potter's Freedom.

I don't understand it. I confess. I throw my hands up in the air and go, I do not know how someone can do this.

I really don't. But there it is. We provide a response. We pray that God's people will hear, they will see, and they will be edified.

Well, I know that next Tuesday it's going to be impossible for me to do the morning edition of the

Dividing Line because I have my civil duty of jury duty to do. And so I don't think we're going to be able to do it unless we record something beforehand and I don't have anything that I would be recording beforehand.

So it will probably be a week from this evening before we'll be able to do our regularly scheduled

Dividing Line. So with that, I thank you for listening this evening. That's where the music is supposed to start up there. Mr.

Control Man person, I'm sitting here doing the stretch thing. Because we're wrapping it up.

Thank you for listening this evening. There we go. Thank you Mr. Camp for bringing in the music.

And we will be back here Lord willing. Again, just a warning. If there's some big long trial

I end up stuck in, that could cause a problem too. I don't think that's going to happen, but you never know.

But we'll do our best to let folks know through the chat channel as to what's going on with the Dividing Line next week.