Tim Staples

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. I was just sitting here looking at an article I saw.

I sent this to you, I don't know if you looked at it, but a fascinating article, LDS Church Growth Statistics, Anomalies Since 1970, roundlemike .com,

May 7th, 2013, and fascinating graphs in regards to the membership of the

LDS Church. What happened in 1990? A huge, huge spike between 1987 and 1990 that decreased just as fast down to about 1992, 1993.

It was really weird. What happened there? Anyways, it's interesting to see the growth rate decreasing, continuing to decrease, but still they're getting right near 15 million members now.

Now of course, I still think Jehovah's Witnesses are larger as far as influence goes, but fascinating article that I just happened to be looking at there when the music said that I needed to start talking.

So I started talking and oh man, I just got a bunch of new tweets here.

I was going to read, one of the people I follow on Twitter is called Honest Toddler, Honest Toddler, and just a few moments ago he had, we're at the health food store.

I can tell because it smells like loneliness feels. I can tell because it smells like loneliness feels.

You know, I've always wondered what that smell was, and now I know what it smells like. And then the next one is, ate a sample of nutritional yeast, can't stop crying.

Tastes just like cheese, earth cheese? They have sugar -free cakes, I guess for smile -free people.

Those are good, those are very, very good. Well welcome to the program. I'm just sort of sitting here ruminating about stuff.

I guess that's what happens if you get up at three o 'clock in the morning and you look at the thermometer, actually,

I just realized it was reading 95, 94 .5 when I left my house this morning in the dark around 3 .35

a .m., I guess. And I get outside and all of a sudden I go, wow, it's really breezy, this is weird.

I start riding, it's like right in my face and stuff, I get out on the canal and then I realize I'm riding in a dust storm in the dark.

And of course I've got my light on, so my light is just showing just massive amount of dirt.

And I'm going, oh, this is lovely, I'm breathing this, I'll be coughing for the next 14 days after this.

It was nice on the way out because all the way out to where I was going, it was right behind me, 25 mile an hour wind, then

I had to turn around. And that's when the ride got a little bit difficult. I've been listening to church history classes in case you're wondering what

I'm listening to at the moment. Anyhow, welcome to the program, got a couple of things to cover today.

Right before the program started, someone was kind enough or mean enough, depending on how you want to look at it, to drop an article into our chat channel.

And you know what, I'm going to hold off on that because it cues into something else. I'll look at it in a second.

A couple of weeks ago, before I went to Germany, I was over at Raising Cane's, anybody know

Raising Cane's? It's a place, they opened up a Raising Cane's over at Metro Center and it's a chicken fingers place.

They just do chicken, that's all they do. They do really good chicken. In fact, I hate to have to admit this, but if there was a

Raising Cane's next to a Chick Fil A, I'd be going to Raising Cane's every time because the chicken is just so much better than anything

I get at Chick Fil A, it's just the reality. So I was sitting in line at Raising Cane's and I turned on Catholic Answers and good old

Tim Staples was on, good old Tim. And I listened to this phone call and it lasted almost all the way home because I was going for the drive -thru.

And there are two little things, first, I just want to play this, I had saved the program and had waited for a couple of days before it got posted and all the rest of the stuff and I wanted to play it on the program and didn't get a chance to before heading off to Germany.

And then of course, coming back from Germany, we have the Supreme Court decision and I don't even call that a decision, the

Supreme Court debacle, whatever. And so here's the call, and let's listen to what

Tim Staples had to say on this particular subject. Well, it would help if I actually had the thing plugged in all the way.

Do either of you find that your non -denominational Christian friends, and I stress the word friends there, just really don't want to talk about theology?

I'll just tell you really quickly, my wife and I just spent a week in Canada with some dear friends.

He is the president of a Bible college there, and their spirituality is inspiring, really, frankly speaking.

But it's just sort of whenever you kind of start nudging the conversation in the direction of doctrine or theology, it's almost like you're kind of a killjoy.

Yeah, kind of being rude. Tim, have you noticed a shift? It used to be in the 80s when Carl Keating founded

Catholic Answers, you were dealing with the Iglesia Ni Cristo people and Dave Hunt, rest his soul, and Jimmy Swaggart.

They really were itching to engage us, and now there's a sort of a gentle, super -Iranic megachurch type of evangelicalism that really doesn't want to debate with the same fervor.

Have you noticed that shift? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I should have cued it up, but I need to have the sound file.

I just need to have a button that I can just and press it and play, phrase your crane going, what color is the sky in your world?

It's like, really? Seriously? Okay, there is an element of truth to this. There is an element of truth to this.

Obviously, the ecumenical spirit is everywhere, and there are lots of squishy, wishy, quote -unquote evangelicals who don't think

Rome preaches a false gospel. It's just a matter of taste. I'm just not really into candles and long robes and calling people father, but if that's what you're into, that kind of stuff.

There is an element of truth to that. But there's still a lot of us out here who would be more than happy to engage

Tim Staples in further debates without even having to put up banner ads about debates we did years ago that just sort of allegedly just slipped through the cracks and things like that.

So anyway. Yeah, I think it's the natural course, Peter, for Protestantism, because when you don't have someone who can truly speak for the

Lord, there's nowhere to go but down. Now, to get that, this is fascinating. Staples decides to make a theological point that unless you have one man who claims to be the infallible vicar of Christ, that the only way down, the only way to go is down, and that this is just the natural course and that Protestants will just continue to just slough off and fall away and stuff like that.

Now, I wonder what the answer for all the liberal Catholics is.

Why are there all these Catholic groups that are pro -abortion and all the stuff that the

Church says you're not supposed to believe, and yet they're not kicked out, exactly? They have someone who claims to have authority, and yet they've got these folks that they don't get rid of.

So how does that work? I'm just a little confused, trying to find the consistency here somehow, somewhere, in the midst of this type of argumentation.

There's nowhere to go but to more and more confusion and chaos. That's been the history of all the Protestant sects, is they start out with some charismatic leader, you know,

Martin Luther, John Calvin, Knox, Zwingli. We could go down to Amy Semple McPherson and the

Four Square, you know, in more modern times or... Yeah, now there's a real connection. There's a real...

You've got to love it when an Assemblies of God guy becomes Roman Catholic and then just tries to drag all that straight in.

Yeah, there's a real connection there. Chuck Smith of Cowrie Chapel, Dwight Moody, Dwight Moody, I mean, we could go on and on, and they have this fire, but eventually the followers of these people realize, hey, what authority do they have, you know?

I would like to ask the question, how come there have been so many renewal movements within the

Roman Catholic Church, if, again, the issue is having an ultimate, singular, one -person, unquestionable, infallible authority?

You know, the thing not mentioned in the Bible, where, you know, like when Paul speaks to the

Ephesian elders or he talks to Timothy, says tough times are coming, you know, that's when he said, follow the

Pope, right? Well, no, he didn't actually say that in Acts 20 or 2

Timothy 3. Immediately comes to my mind, okay, if you've got this individual with authority, who are you?

Yeah, that does. I mean, why are you on the radio? Why isn't he constantly doing, well, you know, he's kind of busy, you know?

Yeah, that's really all it is. He's busy, and it's this New Evangelism stuff. But he's the only one, according to what he just said, that has the authority to say what he's saying, but you're here.

Yeah, and of course the problem is that we then have to ask the question, how come so many different people interpret him in different ways,

Tim? You know, well, how come your way? You're not even a priest, are you? How come your way is the right way?

Anyway. I have a friend of mine who has a brother who is a Protestant missionary, and he went to France to establish

Protestant churches years ago, and when he came back, he told my buddy, who is a convert to the Catholic faith, he said, you know, we had absolutely no luck in France.

We couldn't get anything started. Now, he's an evangelical, this guy, but he told my friend, who is a convert to the

Catholic Church, he said, they said to us, we don't follow the real church. Why would we follow you?

Now, this came from an evangelical. That's all out together. It was profound in the sense that when you don't have secular humanists determining which the true church is, maybe the reason they're so secular and humanist is because they've reacted against the false church that was forced upon them for so many—well, we can't go into that.

Have any authority to really speak, thus saith God, will eventually die.

So you see, you can't say thus saith God without a pope. So I'm not sure what anybody in the New Testament was doing, you know, because they didn't have a pope in the

Old Testament either, but you've got to have the pope to say thus saith God, which is why we keep asking the question, and exactly what has the pope said that God has said with clarity over the past couple hundred years?

All God has said is the pope's infallible, the ematic conception, the bodily assumption of Mary. Hmm. Okay, thank you.

Doctrine becomes less and less important. It's more and more experience, and it becomes exactly what we see today in man.

Yeah, more and more experience. You don't have this within Romanism?

Of course you do! You've got it all over the place. You know, hello, wake up. It's right there. In line.

I mean, Protestantism, you know, with abortion, okay, you know, with homosexual marriage, with you name it,

I mean, virtually anything goes today, and we're not talking about small. In fact, I have a DVD we just put out here called

Truth and Consequences. I recommend folks to pick it up, because I chronicle in there 25 denominations that now accept homosexual marriage, and 18 denominations that accept abortion in various different scenarios.

So this has to do with not following a pope. I mean, I think that the pope is opposed to the

Gospel of Jesus Christ as a false leader and a false, you know, he's exercising authority that's not his, and all the rest of that stuff.

And obviously, I oppose homosexuality, well, significantly more consistently than it seems

Rome does. So how did I get there? Or is that just, you know,

I just, you just choose to do that. But the, and you'll be shocked when you hear, these are not just small denominations.

I mean, if you think abortion, for example, we're talking the largest Methodist body in the United States, the largest

Lutheran, the largest Presbyterian. And by the way, what holds all of them together? What holds all of them together?

Remember Machen? You know, liberalism versus Christianity? But especially in this context, here's the funny thing.

Ask Tim Staples. What holds all of them together? None of them believe in Sola Scriptura anymore,

Tim. They don't believe in the inspiration of Scripture. They don't believe in the infallibility of the

Word of God. They don't believe in those things anymore. They have such a low view of Scripture, they can't even practice

Sola Scriptura. What does that mean, Tim? In the United States, all of them have caved on these and more issues.

So I think, Peter, that's kind of the way of things. And I think we, now, this isn't to say,

I mean, you still have fundamentals and you still have some hardcore evangelicals who I find to be the ones

I like to talk to. Hey! All right! Hey! All right! I'm going to take that as an open invitation, right?

That sounds like an open invitation. There's still some hardcore evangelicals. He likes to talk to them, and one of them's going to call in right at the end of the program.

We're going to play that. It'll be very interesting. It's very, to me, it's much easier to talk to an evangelical who's on fire than it is to some guy who doesn't, you know, that's indifferent.

How many times have I said, I would much rather talk to a believing Roman Catholic or a believing Mormon or a believing

Muslim than to some liberal United Methodist who's just, you know, like trying to nail gel to a wall.

Well, whatever your truth is, that's fine. Something tells me that he could take all the members of those denominations that he just mentioned, and if he compiled a list of Roman Catholics who are in good standing, we consider those groups apostate.

But he can't consider those people in Roman Catholicism who believe those very same things.

He can't consider them apostate because Rome still considers them in good standing.

I'll bet you'd find more people in his group than in any of those, and he has to consider them fellow

Roman Catholics. I don't know about the numbers, but I know that I'm sure his skin crawls every time he sees these liberal abortion -promoting senators and members of the

House of Representatives walking up to get the Eucharist, and there's your liberal prelate, hi, how are you, and I feel sorry for the conservative, but look, that just means you shouldn't be sitting on national radio making this kind of argument when it shoots yourself in the foot.

That's the problem. It's very difficult. Frenchmen. Yeah, I mean, if they don't care about the truth, well, then it becomes very difficult, because then you have to get back to evangelizing what is truth.

We got to answer the question of Francis Pilate before we can get to really bringing people to Christ.

But anyway, Peter, I'm going on a bit, but I do agree with you, Peter. I have seen the change to where today

I find it common, like on airplanes and traveling and such, when I encounter evangelicals, there is this sort of, oh, well, praise

God, you're Catholic, well, you love Jesus, and that's all that matters, you know, and that sort of thing, and then

I'm the one who has to say, well, you know, there's more to it than just loving Jesus. We have to love the truth, because Jesus is the truth, and the truth will make you free, so let's talk about truth.

And about what Jesus said, and obeying that. Peter in Bakersfield, thanks for the call. Let's go to David in Phoenix, Arizona.

Okay, then they went on to another caller where he started talking to him about the things that the

Pentecostal church, the 16 things you have to agree on, and it was sort of along the same lines as the previous thing.

And so I'm sitting here, like I said, I've got my chicken now, I'm heading home, and I'm just sort of chuckling a little bit.

Oh yeah, okay. The reason, okay, let me see if I understand this. The reason that you've got liberalism and the liberal denominations who are pro -abortion and pro -homosexuality and all the rest of this stuff is because of Sola Scriptura.

That's what we always hear, blueprint for anarchy, but those are the very denominations that reject and do not practice

Sola Scriptura. Okay, I'm sort of thinking to myself, is there anybody listening to this who hears this kind of stuff and recognizes that these guys are just, you know, they're throwing out the same old, same old, they never really think it through, they just throw it out there?

And maybe that's why they don't do nearly as many debates as they used to, is now they've got their audience, they've got their little radio network and they've got their audience and all's well, you know, maybe.

Right as I'm getting into my neighborhood, because Keynes isn't all that far off, they sneak one last call in, you can tell they're in a rush, one last call in.

And I was like, woohoo, because here's how it started. Not necessarily in that order.

Oh hi, I didn't expect to get on the air, but thank you for taking my call. Yes. I'm actually one of those passionate

Protestants who will defend my faith, and Tim, I know you should be aware that you've got a standing invitation from James White to debate the

Doctrine of the Mary, so. Oh sure. Oh sure. Woohoo!

I was like, yes, yes, there was somebody listening, and his question actually just had something to do with original sin or something along those lines, so I'm not going to complain to that.

But I was like, alright. They just sort of gave him the bums rush, though, at that point, because, here,

I'll just play it. Oh sure. You should thank him up on that, I would greatly love to hear that debate.

Mike, all of your bandwidth is being sucked out the door, what's your question for Tim? Because we're almost out of time.

Yeah, all your bandwidth is getting sucked out. Don't mention anything about debating that guy, no. I was like, yay, thank you very much, whoever it was who called in.

And mentioned that to old Tim. So see, there are people listening, and believe me,

I would love to debate the Marian dogmas with Tim Staples as well. I think that would be fascinating.

We can do it in that same big old place who did it beforehand, and this time we can have a contract about the videos.

And we'll go on from there. Anyways, I wanted to get around, and I don't even remember how I remembered to play that.

This was before. Anything that happens before trips where you have to go from Phoenix all the way to Berlin and back again,

I'm not accountable for anything like that. Alright, as I said, someone dropped a

URL into the channel, and it's to a website called sbcissues .wordpress

.com. I've seen it before. And SBC Issues evidently is run by Bob Hadley, pastor of the

Westside Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Florida. And I can tell by looking at this particular article that I do not need to be watching my email for any invitations to speak at this particular

Baptist church, because the article title is, Calvinism is an

Abominable Theological Position, posted today,

July 2nd, 2013. I'm at the end of the road with the issue of Calvinism in the

SBC. Calvinism is not capitalized for some odd reason. Maybe it's just meant later on.

Well, interestingly enough, once in a while he capitalizes it, and sometimes he does not.

So I'm not sure why. But listen to this paragraph. I do not believe the

Bible comes close to teaching that God handpicks who is and is not saved. I do not believe that the

Bible teaches that Jesus died for a select group of individuals and that eternity is reserved for God's four and no more.

I do not believe the Bible teaches that man is dead in his trespass and sin to the extent that he is totally incapable of responding to God's revelatory work found in the

Scriptures nor his reconciliatory work, rude and the convicting work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of an unbeliever.

I do not believe a lost person must be born again so that he may repent and then exercise believing or saving faith to become part of God's forever family.

I do not believe the Bible anywhere teaches that God's call to salvation is an irresistible call that the lost person automatically responds to, like Lazarus did when

Jesus called him by name to come out of the grave. I do not understand how anyone who reads the

Bible can come to conclusions similar to these. I really cannot understand that.

Well, then toward the end there is this interesting, well actually all of it is interesting, you might want to just look it up.

He says, the issue is the underlying theological position that Calvinism posits. It simply amazes me that anyone can read the

Bible and come to the conclusion that God requires repentance so an individual can be forgiven and be saved, but the only way one can repent is if God gives him the ability to do so.

It amazes me that anyone could teach that God requires faith and the power of the lost person to be saved, but the caveat here is that God is the only one who can give the lost person that faith.

If God does not give the faith to be saved, then he cannot be saved. So in other words, this pastor, this

Baptist pastor, just does not believe that we're dead and sin, and does not believe that we're slaves to sin, and does not believe that God is sovereign over all things, or God evidently knows all future events and that he does so because he determines such things.

No, it's, you know, that doesn't come out, but that is obviously the only possible way that this can be.

He says, this is like telling a dying man to drink, and of course, don't believe that men are dying men, they're dead.

So his position is telling dead men to drink, which doesn't really accomplish much, but I am holding the cup that has the life -giving water that he needs to live.

I do not give it to him, he dies. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone, especially God, could declare this kind of message is good news to the world.

So the whole world lies under the power of the evil one, whole world in slavery.

God is going to provide absolutely in an undeserved way a perfect salvation solely to his glory, but if it's not based on man, if it's not based upon man's free will, then it's not good news.

It's not good news, bad news. So evidently the good news is God's going to try, try, try as hard as he can and fail over and over and over again, but it's good news because man's in charge.

That's what makes it good news, you see. That's good news. That's the Arminianism of good news. But this is the paragraph.

One final note, if Calvinism were correct and God handpicks who is and is not saved, then

Christianity is reduced to being an extension of Judaism. The Jews believe then and still do that they are the chosen ones of God because they are born physically into the

Jewish family. God most certainly is the one responsible for a person being born a Jew. That is an undeniable fact.

If Calvinism is correct, then a Christian is born again because God chooses to save him, which is no different than God choosing to make someone a

Jew. Now think about that one for just a little bit. What's the underlying, what's the real objection here?

Fundamentally, through all of this, the entire objection is against the idea that God could possibly be in charge of salvation, that God has a purpose, that God has a plan.

It has to be up to man if it's good news. And by the way, not only did

God choose the Jewish people and said he did so graciously, but even within the

Jewish people there was a remnant that he said that he reserved for himself.

That's just Scripture. The Bible that Pastor Hadley says, if you just read it, says that too.

Now, do I think Pastor Hadley has given any even fair reflection to even the very good

Southern Baptist writings on this subject? It does not seem so. My guess is there's something more here, and I don't know what it is.

Some bad experience in the past with Calvinists or something, I don't know. But there certainly isn't anything fair there.

But what does concern me is this idea that for it to be good news, it has to be based upon man's activity, it has to be based upon man's choice.

And so I go back to the Calvinist call -in show with Michael Brown from a couple weeks ago.

Actually, it's a couple months ago now, I think. And we've been listening to portions of that.

And so I want to get back to that because that's sort of where we are there too. Now, of course,

Michael is significantly more nuanced in his presentation than what we just heard.

But there are many of the same objections. And we were in the middle of a lengthy all -and -every presentation.

So we'll get to the part that sort of dovetails with what

I just read a little bit in just a few moments. But remember, we were listening to one of these all -everythings.

And as I said, I was a little disappointed because I've heard so many of these all -every lists before.

And every single text has a context and has a meaning that needs to be examined.

And we have been listening to these. So let's just go ahead and dive back in and listen to what

Michael was saying. I'm going to back it up a little bit. And so we've got a little bit of a context. Okay, 1 .6

is way too much. We'll do 1 .2. But I was obviously queuing stuff up and 1 .6

is a little bit like this. And it's very difficult to understand. So we'll go a little slower. Okay, there's a bunch of them there.

Let's start with that one text there that, again,

I think is extremely important. And that is Titus chapter 2.

It is one of my favorite texts of Scripture, though I have this bad memory of having preached on it once and it just didn't work.

It was a tough sermon. There are days when it's just, it's hard, no twist about it.

But Titus chapter 2 is what was being referred to there. And so I would direct your attention to verse 11.

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and live sensibly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and appearing in the glory of our great

God and Savior Christ Jesus, who gave himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed and to purify for himself a people of his own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Now, evidently, the idea here is that the phrase, for the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, means that this grace and this salvation is a potentiality only.

I do not believe that for a second. And I do not believe you can come up with that in this text.

This is all one long sentence. And the grace that is referred to in verse 11 is grace that instructs us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires.

Now, has that grace been extended to every single human being? The Amorite high priest before Christ, the secular humanist today who has absolutely received the grace of God that instructs us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires?

That causes us to look for the blessed hope and appearing in the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus? No, of course not.

And so when people look at this text, it's the grace of God.

Now, you either have to end up with a grace of God that tries but fails, or you have to recognize that what you have here is the grace of God has appeared, it actually brings, not a potentiality, it actually brings salvation to all men, and as a result, instructs us to deny ungodliness.

And who is the us? Us are those who look for the blessed hope and appearing in the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus, who gave himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed.

Now you're going to tell me that the lost person in hell is going to be able to say these words?

He gave himself for me, it was his purpose to redeem me, it was the purpose of God's grace to teach me to deny ungodliness,

I frustrated the grace of God from the very parapets of hell.

Is that what's going to happen? No. There is a consistent way of reading

Titus chapter 2, and that when it says all men, this is not some potentiality talking about every human being on the planet.

It is a recognition that men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation receive the grace of God, and as a result are looking for the blessed hope and appearing in the glory of our great

God and Savior Christ Jesus. Because it was he who gave himself for us, for a specific people.

He gave himself for us for a purpose, to redeem us from every lawless deed and to purify for himself a people for his own possessions, else for good deeds, those phrases are straight out of the

Old Testament talking about Yahweh's redemption of Israel. And why is that important?

Because Yahweh's redemption of Israel was not Yahweh's redemption of the Egyptians. It was not

Yahweh's redemption of the Babylonians. Yahweh did something for the people of Israel he did not do for the nations around them.

And so to take those very same phrases, ignore their context, and turn this into a potentiality rather than an actual accomplished salvation is not what

Paul was saying. So you see, it's easy to grab these texts and just put them into a list and throw them out there, but when we actually take the time to stop and examine them, that's not what they're saying.

That's not what they're saying. Titus chapter 2 is an incredible text, an absolutely incredible text, because what it says is the grace of God actually accomplishes.

And the thing is, I know that Michael would agree with me, that if you're saved by grace, that grace teaches you to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age.

He emphasizes that if grace is saving grace, it's grace that teaches you to live a holy life.

And we agree on that. But you see, by turning it into a mere potentiality, he's undercut his own position.

Because that same grace, if it's just some kind of potentiality, everybody gets it, if it's that, we're not talking about here about the saving grace of God.

The same grace that saves teaches you to live a holy life. If that same grace fails because it's peanut butter grace given to everybody, then on what basis are you really going to say that it is going to necessitate a holy life in the part of the believer because it fails in the vast majority of instances?

You see, I say God's grace is powerful, God saves his elect people, and then his purpose is to conform those people to the image of Jesus Christ.

And that grace, therefore, will teach them to deny ungodliness. It will teach them.

Paijuusa, Hamas, teach us in the sense of, you hear the term

Pais in there, child. It's instructing, training. This is the very grace of God that saves us and sanctifies us.

That's what Titus chapter 2 is about. And you will hear in these all -in -every lists that's very common amongst our minions to throw out, if you just stop.

How many times have you done that on this program, especially on Radio Free Geneva? How many times have we just taken the list, it's just boom -ba -boom -ba -boom -ba -boom, and we stop, read it, examine it, consider it, and when you look at it, the list does not teach what the teacher has just said it teaches, at all.

By just taking it slowly and looking at what it says. God desires all people to be saved.

We know the big three, don't we? God desires all people to be saved. Well, is that 1 Timothy 2 .4 or is that 2

Peter 3 .9? Are the contexts being looked at? Is there even an attempt to deal with the exegesis of those texts that, once again, fairly, honestly, contextually, linguistically, and that's what

Michael's into. Look at the linguistics. Okay, let's look at the linguistics. Who is the audience in 2

Peter 3? Who is it? I mean, upon what basis, when it says, not wishing that any should perish but all should reach repentance, who is the any?

What's the immediate context? Who is the any? Who is the you? But is patient toward you?

Who's the you in 2 Peter 3? This interpretation means everyone.

It's addressed to every single human being. Is that what the preceding context indicated?

Who's the they? In the preceding context, if you is every human being. Ever thought about that?

I've never really gotten a chance to ask anybody about that. But think about it. When it talks about your notice beloved, 2

Peter 3 .8, is that different than the they who have mocked, who are saying in verse 4, where is the promise of his coming?

For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation. Is that the beloved saying that? Or is that someone else?

I mean, it's just so obvious that if the you is every single human being, if Peter is addressing every single human being, there's no room for the they because the they have to be a part of all of humanity.

So who's making the, who are the mockers? Who's following after their own lusts of verse 3?

If you is everybody, the text makes no sense, does it? No, it doesn't.

And so just have to listen to it. Just have to allow it to speak for itself. It becomes very clear.

But maybe it wasn't 2 Peter 3. Maybe it was 1 Timothy 2 .4.

Desires all men to be saved come to the knowledge of the truth, right? There it is. It's all men, except that if you just read the context, first of all, then

I urge that in treaties and prayers, petitions, thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men. Does that mean every single human being?

Timothy, when you gather in the church, remember to pray for the Amorite high priest who died a thousand years ago.

No, that's not what they're meant to be doing. Well, pray for every single human being alive in your day. All men is defined by the very next phrase.

For kings and all who are in authority, what, all men? Those are kinds of men.

Oh, yes. The phrase all has to be able to be used in the

Bible for kinds of men, doesn't it? For all men, for kings and who all are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

So Paul is reminding Timothy, even those who persecute you, even those who have authority over you and may not use it in a...

Pray for them. Pray for them, Timothy. For kings and all who are in authority.

This is good and acceptable in sight of God, our Savior, who desires all men. That's different. That's different all men. Okay, he just used it generically.

He just used it of a class. Okay, that's obvious in verses one and two. But he switches here to every single human being because, well, we aren't told why.

And I say to you, he doesn't switch, and he's going to be consistent, and I'll prove it. Who desires all men to be saved,

I say generically. All kinds of men, kings and those in authority, poor, army.

My goodness, he even, believe it or not, God even saves Californians. That's pretty amazing to me.

In fact, God actually saves people in San Francisco. That is shocking, but there's nothing beyond his power.

And how can I prove that? Who desires all men to be saved to come to the knowledge of the truth, for there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the man

Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, same group, the testimony given at the proper time.

So, you tell me, are you really going to suggest that the

Apostle Paul's teaching, that the Apostle Paul's teaching was that Jesus is a mediator between God and every single human being who has ever lived?

That that's his intercessory work? Now, I think

Michael's a little bit, I think Michael realizes this is a weak spot because this came up and he said, well, yes,

Jesus is a mediator, but it's a different kind of mediation for those who believe. What do you mean? Where's the parallel to where the high priest in the

Old Testament mediated the sacrifice differently for believers than for unbelievers, as if there was a sacrifice that was actually for all these people?

It's not there. It's not there. The high priest offers the sacrifice for those who drew near in worship and not for those who did not.

And where is there the picture in the book of Hebrews of Jesus's intercession for unbelievers, for those who are not perfected by his one -time sacrifice?

Where is it? I've never seen it because it's not there. It's not there.

There is one God. There is one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.

Either you're going to say that all have been ransomed and become a universalist, or you're going to have to recognize the generic use of all, speaking of classes here.

Not of every single human being. It makes no sense. You're reading it into Paul.

You're forcing it on Paul. It changes his theology. We've dealt with this many, many times before, and that is why there's an entire chapter in the

Potter's Freedom called the Big Three, Matthew 23 -37, 1 Timothy 2 -4, 2

Peter 3 -9. You can disagree, if you want, with the interpretation, but you cannot ignore that that interpretation exists, that it is grammatical, that it's linguistic, that it exists, that it's there, that it's there.

You've got to deal with it. So that's why these lists, again, don't really accomplish much.

That God desires all people to be saved, that Jesus tasted death for every man? Where is that?

So we've got to know where these are, because there's only a few of them. And after a while, you've just got to get used to where they are.

That's Hebrews 2 -9. Hebrews 2 -9, but again,

I'm not going to take time to do it right now, go through my sermon on Hebrews chapter 2, 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, remember, there's a textual variant here.

This is one of Bart Ehrman's favorite textual variant passages. He might taste death for everyone, by the grace of God, in behalf of all, he might taste death.

Now, does that mean Christ tasted death for every single human being who has ever lived, and therefore the wrath of God has been satiated for every single one of those individuals?

Or is there an indication, even in this text, of who the Pontos is?

For it was fitting for him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing what?

Many sons to glory. In bringing many sons to glory.

Wait a minute. Why in the very next sentence would you have limitations?

Well, because it's, you know, Jesus tries, but then why is it saying that he brings many sons to glory?

Shouldn't it be that he tries to bring everyone to glory? No, he brings many sons to glory to perfect the author of the salvation through sufferings.

The author of their, you mean the ones? This is all talking about those who are actually going to be perfected by the work of Christ.

God brings many sons to glory. 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. Does he call everyone brethren? Why is there a limitation here?

I will proclaim your name to my brethren in the midst of the congregation, I will sing your praise, and I will put my trust in him, and behold,

I and the children who God has given me. Sounds like the very same particularity that we have throughout the entire text of scripture, especially in the very old covenant text.

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death he might render powerless him who had power of death that is the devil, and might free those who, through fear of death, were subject to slavery all their lives.

For surely he does not give help to angels, but he gives help to the descendants of Abraham. The descendant of Abraham, what?

That's a real limitation. I thought it was everybody. I thought it was every single person. I thought it was the Amorite high priest. No, it's not.

Therefore, he had to be made like his brethren in all things, so he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God to make propitiation for whom?

For the sins of the people. He will save his people from their sins, et cetera, et cetera, once again.

Let the text speak for itself, and the all and every lists just don't do it.

You know that one, right? You know where that one's found, and one of the more entertaining discussions of that one found in my debate with Brother Barker from long ago, every time

I hear that one. 2 Peter 2 .1,

but false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the master who bought them bring upon themselves swift destruction.

So what's the assumption in Michael's use of this? Is that the terminology that is used there, that agrazo, as it's found in 2

Peter 2 .1, is to be taken redemptively, even though every other use of agrazo has a price attached to it, this one does not, that despotain, the despotase, that that is a soteriological use here rather than the use found back in Deuteronomy chapter 32.

It's amazing that we have to go to non -soteriological passages to drive our soteriological groundwork rather than those soteriological texts like Hebrews, because when you go to Hebrews and talk about the work of Christ, it perfects those for whom it is made.

It perfects those for whom it is made. See the rather lengthy discussion of that, 2 Peter 2 .1,

on our website. I really thought I was going to get a lot farther than this, but I've only got eight minutes left and I'm not even through this one section.

The Hebrews 10 .29 speaks of a believer turning away from the Lord and scorning, profaning the blood of the covenant that sanctified him.

And there we at least had the reference that you could look up and take a look at it.

Very, very common for people to take Hebrews 10 .29 in that way. How much severe punishment do you think you'll deserve?

Who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has regarded unclean the blood of the covenant by which he, and Michael takes that to mean the apostate, was sanctified and has insulted the spirit of grace?

So once again, I will direct you to the sermon that I gave on that. If I recall correctly, provided an extensive discussion of this particular text and suggested that the only consistent way to read

Hebrews chapter 10, if it's going to make any sense at all, is not to say, oh yes, the apostate, he was sanctified, the blood of the covenant, but it fails.

The one who is sanctified is Christ. The blood of the covenant is what sets him apart as holy. And that's what makes the sin of the apostate so bad, makes it so evil, is because what we have there in Hebrews 10, and this is in reference to Christ as the one who is sanctified by his own sacrifice as the high priest.

I don't know any way scripture could make it more clear. It speaks of all, it speaks of every, it speaks for the world. So it's very, very simple.

I don't know how the scriptures could make it any more clear because I've looked at every single reference that Michael gave and none of them, not a one, necessitated a denial of the plain teaching of scripture, that Jesus Christ, the perfect savior, that God, the father has an elect people and that Jesus never fails to save those who are given to him, not a one.

Looked at every single one in this list. But you see, the difference is

I didn't just line them up in a row. When we look at each text in its context, it does not say what was demanded of us there.

Jesus paid for the sins of every human being as an expression of the father's love. If you receive that gift, your sins are paid for, you have eternal life.

If you do not, your sins are on your own head. As Jesus said to some of the Jewish leaders, if you don't believe I'm he, you're still in your sin.

So he's died to make salvation possible for everyone and to infallibly secure the salvation of those who put their trust in him.

Now, there is the theoretical atonement enunciated. It was very clear. Did you catch that? He died.

Let me see if I can remember which one of these here, some of the Jewish leaders, if you don't believe I'm he, you're still in your sin.

So he's died to make salvation possible for there. He has died to make salvation possible.

He has died to make salvation possible. And the big dividing line, the reason that this does result in division.

I mean, I think just a little later on, I'm perfectly happy to have the discussion, the debate about Calvinism versus Arminianism.

But at the end of the day, it's the same. We bow our knees to an all powerful God and go out and do his work.

He says it's the same. But the division between us is that if someone comes up to me and says, why did

Jesus Christ die? I'm going to say to save his people from their sins, not to make it possible.

And I do not believe there will ever be any person standing upon the parapets of hell that can scream out his rebellion against God and say,

Christ died for me. I invalidated his work. Your wrath due to me fell upon him and now it's falling upon me.

You're unjust. You're unjust. I don't believe that will ever happen.

I do not believe that any person in hell gets to say what Paul said, the son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.

Don't believe it. Never heard a convincing argument to force me to believe it.

Every argument has been, well, but if you don't believe that, then our evangelism methodology has been off all along.

Your evangelism methodology is not what determines the truth for me.

And if you've got to adopt a different evangelism methodology, then you need to adopt a different evangelism methodology.

It's not going to change the teaching of Scripture. Now, we can go out and with passion proclaim the gospel, but I do believe that there is a fundamental difference between saying that God has made salvation possible and now it's up to you and saying that God saves perfectly and it's not up to you.

Well, then how can you call someone to repentance of faith? You call them to repentance of faith. It's your duty. Every creature under the sun, we proclaim the same message.

Repent and believe the gospel. But what if I can't? You're already a slave of sin.

I know you can't. It's only God's grace that's going to save you.

So you have to cast yourself completely upon him. And if you don't like a God who's actually in charge of his own grace, who's not free in this matter, well, then

I would suggest to you that you have yet to be truly broken. You seem to be thinking you can tell

God the grounds upon which you will accept his offer of forgiveness, and you haven't been broken.

You haven't been broken. So I think it does matter. I think it's vitally important.

Got to be consistent. And I think we are consistent. Anyway, let me see if I can sneak just one more little section in here.

Through the New Testament. But just a simple question. You mentioned in terms of fellowship, it shouldn't matter.

Of course, I totally agree with you on that. Really? See, fellowship in the sense of Michael and I can cooperate together in responding to homosexuality and debating non -genetarians, things like that.

Is that we're talking about fellowship? Or are we talking about fellowship, for example, in the church? I don't believe that Michael would want me to be an elder in his church teaching what

I teach. And he certainly couldn't be an elder in mine. In fact, couldn't be a member in mine. Because we have a statement of faith.

And the statement of faith defines what we believe and what we as a body are going to proclaim to the world.

And there is a bunch of stuff in the London Baptist Confession of 1689 that I don't think Michael could agree to.

And I'm not rejoicing in that. That's a shame. I wish that were not the case. But I think it's necessary that we have those statements of faith.

We have to tell the world clearly what we believe, don't we? So it does end up impacting issues of fellowship, doesn't it?

At least in the sense of fellowship within the church. And I don't think we can minimize that.

I think we mourn over it. Hence, we continue to debate the issues. Keep going back to the word of God. And recognizing we live in a fallen world.

And we have not yet reached a perfect state of sanctification. Well, thanks for listening to The Vying Line. We're going to be back again on Thursday.

Next week, we're going to have to figure out how to do stuff via Skype. Because I'm going to be in Santa Fe. Looking forward to seeing all you folks there in Santa Fe.

And hope that, actually, hope that we can work out talking with the pastor of the church in Santa Fe on Thursday about what we're doing there.

We'll see you then. 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.