June 26, 2003

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 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States.

It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. 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 and started a little bit later today 630 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 that she has chosen to do 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 window Control room windows to look through.

I don't know what's going over 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 brides did work Jim's although However, very scared that I might say something that I shouldn't so 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 moment of the 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 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 that we slept. We still have that huge piece of chocolate cake. We haven't gotten to yes, so.

Now we just get to go out again. So we're going to remember our 21st anniversary with a senior moment senior. I'm sure there'll be more of those coming. Yes, I'm sure I'm looking forward to them. So anyway, I 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.

Oh, and and and doesn't this mean that you're supposed to get something too because you were you were bribed to. Oh, yes I think.

Something about cookies in a Z cookies with a Z. That's right.

Okay, all right well. Thanks for 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. Thank you. Thanks. Bye. Yeah, I can I can breathe now who I was worried about what might be said there.

Other than you all know that we have senior moments now, we're not all that soon senior actually, but you know. It's a convenient thing. Once you have a for 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 have a six at the beginning of your name or something like that. But anyway, yeah. So we 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 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 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 we have a new phone system and And mr. Aomin is 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 so you're gonna hear that now in the background. I don't know why but anyway.

So I just thought I'd let you know it was ring anyway. The 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 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 happens in the decision given today and Our children and our children's children will will reap.

What was the 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 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 I've heard the. That's interesting. The cookie lady wasn't even listening when when shoe he comes on poor poor thing and it's all reason she came on to man I tell you that's that's just absolutely crushing.

Anyways, it was hot. It was I've heard the name of this church Hawthorne Gospel Church Hawthorne Bible Church, I've heard them advertising on WMCA in in New Jersey and This was I would assume a recent Sermon, I would in fact I'm looking here to see if the individual.

Yeah, the individual who sent it Is in channel, maybe that person will 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 But it was interesting to listen to the presentation and since there since I did get mentioned once and Since there was a lot of interesting material presented.

I wanted to play sections of it for you and Respond to it now the beginning of The the presentation was a lengthy in fact come to think of it. I don't think I even pulled any materials from the the first Sermon that was given on a Sunday morning.

It was fairly short and It was fairly philosophical. It was a portion of his 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. It was not based upon biblical exegesis and okay. The date was all right. There's the date. Thank you very much, sir August 18th 2002. This was just a sent to me. So less than a year ago and 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. It is it does interest me that at least as I can can can see 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 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 the necessity of being able to be free for any any good work to be Praiseworthy it's interesting someone had Mentioned to me that they had approached dr. Geisler.

I think it was may have been on the program. Maybe it was our friend up in Denver. Or someone else who had asked dr. Geisler 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 That that is presented 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 that frame same libertarian freedom must must exist but anyway, that kind of thing isn't even addressed as far as It's not even there's no acknowledgement that that kind of argumentation is out there and 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 What I'm saying is being recorded.

I'm sort of applying a standard to myself to where I want to try to Respond to the objections that have been presented to my own my own position. That's just something I think or you know is is necessary but that doesn't seem to be the way most other people Behave in fact before I play the first cut if I may announce something as most of you know the work is completely finished on the the debate book with Dave Hunt a book titled debating Calvinism Five points Who is five points two views five points two views or two views five points something like that?

The exact nature of the subtitle, I'm not 100 certain on and Unfortunately, I've been told that the pretty much very very very firm release date is February of next year why I do not know I'm going to ask I'm gonna you know write a letter and say Why so long it just doesn't make any sense to me, but one way or the other it's going to be out by February 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 while he was writing What love is this? Of course at that time he said that his 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 dr. Piper in May of I believe last year and Possibly the year before now and so he's been willing to engage this he's going around speaking about it. And so now the book is done.

I Contacted him and said okay now the books done loyal no longer exists, so those issues aren't relevant obviously a videotaped recorded debate. Lengthy debate on the subjects of the doctrines of grace would be the perfect complement to this written book.

So let's let's arrange it if you'd like to have TA McMahon as your second in the debate. That's fine. Let's you know let's let's do it. I think we've exchanged about four emails back and forth over the past couple of days and Mr.. Hunt has made it very clear.

He has absolutely no intention of debating on the subject 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 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 1348. In what love is this which he does not acknowledge or retract?

In the debate book, and I said in a debate. I would ask about that. I pointed out first 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. He made no comments on those things he ignored the majority of the refutation was offered to his points in the written debate and therefore 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 a great 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 reject that. And I think any rational person who would who would read the exchanges back and forth would see that that that that Would be the case and so We have tried we have as you know we have extended invitations.

Norman Geisler. We've extended now invitations. Dave Hunt these individuals who will write books against the reformed faith will not face a responsible representative of the reformed position in meaningful public debate.

They won't do it. You need will need to ask them why they will not do it. But they will not do so and so we have tried we stand ready. I wrote back just not more than an hour ago. I would say. And I said to mr. Hunt to hear the reasons why I reject your rejection.

My challenge stands if you change your mind. We'll be we'll be glad to do it and furthermore If you're not willing to do it. Maybe TA McMahon would as your representative and so I left that open as a possibility as well.

But in any in any case we have sought To allow for the the open discussion of these issues 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 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. There's a tremendous amount of interest, but mr. Hunt will not do it. He has declined our open challenge to him to debate these issues and to add that as part of the literature that is available and So I think once folks get a chance to look at the book and make up their minds there they will see the need for a public debate because the fact that it is frustrating to see these issues raised and they are not addressed and Or not addressed in a meaningful fashion that actually provides answers.

So we're trying but there seems to be an unwillingness on the on the part of those who wish to attack the reformed faith to actually deal with the issues in a meaningful fashion, so There's a situation as it stands right now.

So let's go ahead and start with this response now that I've talked about that. Not sure that it gets all this but Mr. Dr. Geisler presented seven verses that deny extreme Calvinism. Seven verses that he feels demonstrate that God loves everyone equally I would assume and that Jesus died for everyone even though it becomes painfully clear throughout listening to all seven of these that what he means by that is that God The 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 statements that of course he's making the accusation. 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 dr. Geisler and the Arminians who are following after their system and specifically the ultimate dedication to libertarian free will.

That creates their their situations. Let's begin. Hopefully the computers all turned up and ready to go. Let's begin with the first section from 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 that is exactly the case. We have to go by what the Bible teaches. The question is of course is what dr. Geisler is going to be saying Consistent with what the Bible teaches. Well, let's begin with his first verse.

This will be from Romans 518 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 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. 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 confidence 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 died 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. Now according to verse 18 how many people did Christ died for some people are all people it says all. My Hermeneutics teacher, that's how to interpret the Bible.

My hermeneutics teach used to say all means all and that's all. All means Christ died for all men. Now if you deny in 518 be That the salvation came as a free gift to all men then you're going to have to deny in 518 a 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 518 is one of his seven Verses that prove that Christ died for all people. Of course as I mentioned if if a person would simply Consider the fact there's there's an entire phrase that for some reason dr. Geisler doesn't mention Verse 18 so does 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 am assuming is that the justification of life to all men means the Possibility of the justification of life to all men, but that's not what it says the direct parallel.

Is that just as the one transgression result in the condemnation of all men so through the one act of righteousness? The result of 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 yet 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 Exegesis and so just looking at the text allowing those words there resulted justification of life to all men.

Either has to mean all men will be justified. That's what universalist 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 we formed 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 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 Institute's the Christian religion. I do not believe he has ever read much by BB Warfield or 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 He simply has not Taken He has no respect for reformed exegetes.

He does not believe. And in you know, there's a read there's 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 Antilles 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 it's all over with there's no Further there's no question that he is 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 of a mindset and and what what presses you that direction.

But I've come to the conclusion. He's never read my book. He's 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 I just don't understand that. So that's a verse number one Romans 5 18 and we have to conclude That he is an error in his use of that and that he is engaged in eisegesis. So so far we are Oh for one of the big seven.

The next one is 2nd Corinthians chapter 5 verses 14 through 15. This is another about minute and a half segment segment.

I've and let's look at verses 14 and 15 now this verse that Christ died that this Trend that Christ died only for some people as being 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 2nd 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 dilemmas 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 That 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 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 that the problem with this argumentation is that he is assuming a context that the text itself does not offer to us.

That is you look at verse 15 and he died for all so they who live might no longer live for themselves. But for him who died and rose again on their behalf. There is this union with Christ. This is this is the same language of 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 second Corinthians chapter 5 is meant to be a universal context rather than the context of believers themselves.

It just it's just an assumption on his part that once you see the word all Then we can automatically import this 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.

So again, we it's you know, wishful thinking but is is not overly accurate thinking as it's as it occurs. So that's 042. There's still five more to go. And of course we end up with some of the the big three now remember this next one now the first Timothy chapter 2 verses 4 through 6.

I 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 2nd Peter 3 9 And 1st 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 that are placed here Again and 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 in its material that I again I just cannot believe that Norman Geisler wrote it.

So I continue on that on that Assumption even even today, but now that I look at the clock I noticed 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. It's all Righteousness, you know. 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 .a o min 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 a o min 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 potter's freedom. James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's 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 pages of Scripture.

The potter's 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 a o min org.

How the pilgrims progress? It's not an easy way. It's a journey.

And welcome back. We are reviewing 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 there is well.

Interesting he he says it proves that God loves everyone 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 first 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 when we listen to it make our way through the New Testament and first Timothy chapter 2 and verses 4 6. Actually, these are two references. First of the two for 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 are all people according to this verse? He wants everybody to be saved. 2nd 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 the five what's called a five-point Calvinist. From tulip to UL IP. Total depravity.

Unconditional election. Limited atonement. Irresistible grace and perseverance of the Saints. Charles Spurgeon When he came to this verse had it 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. And 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 hadn't Spurgeon self-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 of the response that has been given to his book Would wish to explain and and to and to address the fact that it is it is this 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 into 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 first Timothy 2 for in the book in that I just point out he doesn't deal with verse 5 especially in reference to the idea of Christ 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's a little bit shorter.

This is his discussion of Hebrews 2 9 with me to Hebrews chapter 2 and verse 9. 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 is the next phrase say? My taste death for the elect. Now my Bible 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 is made for a little while Lower than the angels namely Jesus because the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone everyone who?

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.