The Potter's Freedom Part 2

God's grace works synergistically on free will. That is, it must be received to be effective.

There are no conditions for giving grace, but there is one condition for receiving it, faith.

Put in other terms, God's justifying grace works cooperatively, not operatively.

Those are the words of Dr. Norman Geisler in his new book, Chosen but Free, and those words,

I think, sum up one of the main reasons that you should stay tuned today, that you should get your

Bible, and that you should invest a little brainpower today with me as we discuss some things that are very important.

I know it's a Saturday afternoon, it's a holiday Saturday afternoon, a lot of people are away, and those of us who aren't away are probably working in the yard or, by this time in the afternoon, hiding from the heat, but even though there's many things to watch on television,

I'd like to invite you to spend the next hour with me thinking about eternal things, thinking about things that I think have a tremendous impact upon the church today, have a tremendous impact upon what we believe, how we worship, and the message that we preach.

Is it true that God's grace works synergistically on free will? Is it true that God's grace must be received to be effective, that there is something a man must do, or a woman must do, to make

God's grace work? Is it true that, if we put it in other terms,

God's justifying grace works co -operatively, but not operatively?

That, my friends, was the fundamental issue of something called the

Protestant Reformation. You see, if we went back about 400 some odd years, we would discover that, at the time of the

Reformation, the primary viewpoint that was in vogue in Western Europe, under the

Roman Catholic system, was the belief that God's grace is absolutely necessary for salvation.

There are some Protestants that are downright shocked to discover that Rome did, and to this day continues to assert strongly, that you must have grace.

You must have grace to be saved. The Council of Trent even anathematized anyone who would say that, aside from God's grace, you can be saved.

That is not an issue. That has never been an issue. That is, never has the argument been over the necessity of grace.

At the time, Rome taught very clearly, God's grace is absolutely necessary.

The point was that it did not, in and of itself, save. Oh, everything that was necessary to be added to it could be traced back to it, but the simple fact of the matter was that, apart from some sort of human action, whether it be faith, or the sacraments of the church, or baptism, or whatever else it might be, aside from some human action,

God's grace, while necessary, was not sufficient. That remains the case today.

That remains the issue with Roman Catholicism, and that is, it is not whether grace is necessary.

The issue is, is grace sufficient? To put it in other words, does

God make us savable through a plan of salvation that we then work to gain salvation, or does

God save? Does God merely make salvation a hypothetical possibility for us, or does he actually, in and of himself, save anyone?

Now, you might say, well, if he's called the Savior, it's obvious that he saves, but while that's quite true, for many people, the reason he's called

Savior is because he made salvation possible, not because he himself actually has ever saved anyone outside of their quote -unquote cooperation, which normally means that he wants to save people, he tries to save people, but apart from their assistance, he can't do it.

That was the issue when Martin Luther debated Desiderius Erasmus in writing, the first great written debate of the

Reformation. The subject was not Sola Scriptura. The subject was not

Sola Fide, justification by faith alone. The first great written debate was on the will of man and the relationship of the will of man to the will of God, and in essence, the question was, is

God sovereign, or is man ultimately in control when it comes to this issue of salvation?

Luther, when he wrote to Erasmus, said, you of all my opponents have put your finger upon the real issue in this matter, and this matter was the

Protestant Reformation. The Reformers emphasized the sovereignty of God and the power of God to bring about salvation, not merely make it possible, but to actually save, to by his power, by his spirit, reach down and take a spiritually dead man and turn him into a spiritually living man who believes in Christ, repents of his sin, and has that kind of faith that we identify as being

Christian faith. That was the issue, not the necessity of grace, but the sufficiency of grace.

Now, obviously, if you're hearing what I'm saying, then that means that today the line of demarcation has moved significantly.

For while the time of the Reformation, the line of demarcation was fairly clear between the

Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church, that is no longer the case, especially on this, the key issue.

Today, the line is drawn well within what is called Protestantism, for the simple fact of the matter is, most

Protestants have never been challenged to even think about this issue, and even within those who have, when you look at denominations and all those that call themselves

Protestant, there are far more within Protestantism today who would stand with Rome against the

Reformers on this issue, than there are who would be faithful to the historical heritage that is theirs and say, no, man is dead in sin.

Man is an enemy of God. Man is incapable of doing anything in and of himself that is pleasing to God, because he is an enemy of God.

Something radical must take place within man before that person will willfully bow the knee before Christ, and that something is regeneration.

That something is God bringing spiritual life to a spiritually dead person.

So in essence, the dividing line is between those who say God saves, and those who say that God makes salvation a possibility, but leaves it up to man.

Saved or savable, done or doable, those are the issues, and they're vitally important issues.

And these issues are raised in this new book, Chosen but Free by Dr. Norman Geisler.

And since Dr. Geisler has such a recognizable name, it is my opinion that there will now again be an opportunity to address the issues, these very issues, in regards to salvation itself.

But when we do so, I hope we will recognize what the fundamental issue is.

Let me read just a couple quotations from the book. Whatever else may be said,

God's sovereignty over the human will includes his initiating, pursuing, persuading, and saving grace, without which no one would ever will to be saved.

Now you see, most folks are going to read right past something like that, because see, what your mind sort of hears is this initiating, pursuing, persuading, and saving grace, without which no one will be saved.

But that's not what Dr. Geisler says. He says, without which no one would ever will to be saved.

All through the book, salvation is presented as being ultimately the result of the free choice of man, a free act of man.

Indeed, without this concept of what I would call an autonomous will, it is

Dr. Geisler's position that there can be no salvation whatsoever. On page 95 of the book, we read, of course, in one sense, eventually and ultimately

God's will prevails, and that he sovereignly wills that those who reject his offer of salvation will be lost.

In this sense, God's overruling will is being done through their will to reject him. But with regard to his will that all men be saved, 1st

Timothy 2 .4 and 2nd Peter 3 .9, it is clear that it can be resisted.

In short, it is God's ultimate and sovereign will that we have free will to resist his will that all be saved.

There is God's sovereignty, that we have free will to resist his will.

That is the assertion. On page 81, we read, finally, that Christ's death made everyone savable does not thereby mean that everyone is saved.

Christ's death, the atonement, makes men savable. But it doesn't save anybody.

There's something that needs to be added to it, the act, the free act, the autonomous act of human faith, which everyone is capable of doing according to the

Armenian viewpoint, which is what Dr. Geisler is presenting historically. We also read

God chooses only to reveal himself personally to the willing.

God chooses only to reveal himself personally to the willing. That is, the very revelation of God is dependent upon man being willing to receive it.

Obviously, the idea that God sovereignly moves in a person's heart to give them a heart of flesh rather than a heart of stone, a heart that desires him, is rejected very, very strenuously in this work.

These are important issues. These are vital issues. You might say, driving around today in your car, how are these issues important to me?

They seem somewhat esoteric. Well, they're not. They're not. The simple fact of the matter is that these issues touch upon how we live our lives, how we worship

God, what we do in the church, how we view the church, the decisions that we make.

Really, it impacts everything. The Reformers believed that. They believed that a fundamental recognition of the sovereignty of God and the utter helplessness of man was utterly necessary to understand truly who

God is and who we are. I hope you will think with me today. I hope you'll take your

Bibles because today, what I would like to do, next week, before we go into today, next week, what we're going to do is

I'm going to be on the phone next week. I am teaching out of town this coming week, but I'm going to be here on the program.

And I am going to be joined by a very good friend of mine who has known me far longer than he probably wants to admit that he's known me, but Pastor Jeff Neal of Emanuel Covenant Church up in the

North Valley, actually up around, well, the church where they meet is out where I used to throw rocks for my dog

Daisy May and launch model rockets when I was a kid up around 59th

Avenue north of Bell Road back behind Costco there. And there used to be nothing there when we moved out here, but I will actually be speaking at Emanuel Covenant Church at the end of this month, last

Sunday this month. But Pastor Jeff Neal will be coming in with Mr.

Pierce, the president of the ministry, and we will be addressing one of the issues that is raised in this book, and that is the assertion that Calvin was not as much of a

Calvinist as Calvinists are today, specifically the assertion by Dr. Geisler that certainly, and I'm quoting

Dr. Geisler, certainly Calvin did not believe what Calvinists believe in regards to the

Atonement. Well, there are a whole bunch of us that don't think that's very certain at all.

And all sorts of scholars have written on that subject and Pastor Neal will be coming in and helping me in discussing that particular issue and some other issues in regards to Calvin's viewpoint on things to help clarify some of those issues.

But today what I would like to do is I would like to address probably the most fundamental issue that we can in dealing with a book such as this and a topic such as this.

If we are all believers in Sola Scriptura, if we all believe that the

Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith of the Church, then the question that must be addressed is simply this.

What do the Scriptures say? What do the Scriptures say? Do we engage in exegesis of the text, that is reading out from the text its meaning as it was communicated in its original form, or do we engage in eisegesis, reading into the text concepts and conclusions that are not a part of what the original author intended?

Dr. Geisler very frequently in his book accuses Dr. John Piper or R .C.

Sproul or Edwin Palmer or other people that he calls extreme

Calvinists, but which historically are simply Calvinists, of eisegesis, of reading into the text what they want to see.

He talks about how painful it is to watch the contortions that Calvinists have to go through to come up with their viewpoint.

The problem is, as I have read all through Chosen but Free and as I have spent a good deal of time cross -referencing and looking at quotations and checking things out,

I have found a tremendous amount of eisegesis in the text. That is, a tremendous amount of reading into the text things that are not there, or more commonly, reading out of the text things that are there but do not fit with the

Arminian perspective. And so today I would like to ask you to open your

Bible with me to some of these passages. We will look at the commentary that is provided, and then we will demonstrate that in point of fact the scriptural teachings on these particular issues has been somewhat watered down, shall we say, in Chosen but Free and not actually dealt with.

And the first one, anyone who knows me well could probably guess, that one of the very first things I looked for when

I began looking through this book and began reading it, was how does Dr. Geisler deal with a single passage in all the

Bible that I believe is the clearest in regards to the doctrines of grace.

John chapter 6, verses 35 through 45, I believe without question is the clearest presentation of the doctrines of grace that we have.

I have seen every kind of attempt. I have seen the most imaginative attempts to get around this passage of scripture.

None are able to survive a verse -by -verse examination, taking into consideration the grammar and the syntax and just simply what the text says.

I've never seen any explanation of John 6, 35 through 45 that did not require the person to ignore what the text was saying and run off someplace else and try to gain definitions from someplace else to read them back into this text.

And so I was more than just a little bit surprised to discover that there was very little discussion whatsoever in the book about these passages.

The scripture index is very, very brief and does not give you most of the scriptural citations as they occur, but even then, looking through the book and reading all of it and marking everything, there were only a few brief mentions of various passages in this whole context and there was no serious exegesis offered of any of the key passages in John 6, chapter 6, verses 35 through 45.

The lengthiest section is found on page 93 and I suppose we should first look through what

John chapter 6 has to say to give you the context, then look at the passage together so you can see what's going on.

Let me begin reading from the New American Standard Bible at verse 35. John chapter 6, verse 35.

Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.

But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All of the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me

I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

This is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him will have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up on the last day.

Therefore the Jews were grumbling about him because he said, I am the bread that came down out of heaven. They were saying, is not this

Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, I have come down out of heaven?

Jesus answered and said to them, do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

It is written in the Prophets, and they shall all be taught of God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the

Father comes to me. Well here's the passage, and the passage is so tremendously beautiful.

It is such a goldmine for any Christian to spend time considering the salvation that is ours.

Jesus begins, having identified himself as the bread of life, by saying in verse 36, there's this issue of unbelief.

They have seen him, they have seen the very bread of life. They've seen the one that they would believe in him, they would never thirst, and yet he says in verse 36,

I said to you that you have seen me, and yet do not believe. So Jesus begins to explain, why is it that there are those who can see the very incarnate

Son of God and yet not believe? Verse 37, all that the

Father gives me will come to me. Now think with me just for a moment, what does that say?

All that the Father gives me will come to me. That phrase is not addressed in this book. It can't be addressed in this book, because the fundamental presupposition of the presentation of the relationship of God's sovereignty and man's will in the book, is that God has no quote -unquote coercive power over the will of man.

He cannot decree something. Instead, he knows with certainty what's going to happen, but what's going to happen as a result of the free choices of men.

His presentation of the relationship of God's foreknowledge and predetermination is such that you cannot ask the question what came first.

The problem with John chapter 6 is, we are told what came first. We are given a direct logical presentation of the fact that the giving of the

Father to the Son, the giving of a people by the Father to the

Son, results in those people's coming to Christ.

All, Jesus says, that the Father gives me will come to me. Not some, not most, but all that the

Father gives me will come to me. He does not say, all that the Father has given to me, the

Father has seen through his foreknowledge, will choose me.

That's not what he says. He says, all that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me

I will certainly not cast out. So immediately we have the presentation, the sovereignty of the

Father. He can give a people to the Son, and the result of this is that all those who are so given will come to Christ.

Now who is free in this passage? It's the Father. It's God. God is the one who has the freedom here to give a people unto the

Son, and infallibly those who are so given come to Christ.

And then, as a result of that, he says, the one who comes to me, I will certainly not cast that one out.

Why? For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. What is the will of the

Father for the Son? This is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me, that's the same people again, that's the elect,

I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

Now how can that be? How can it be if God's grace does not work operatively, but only cooperatively, how can

Jesus guarantee 100 % success? Obviously what is not going on here is

God saying, well, I have certain knowledge of who's going to accept me, and therefore

I say to the Son, don't lose any of those who are going to do that. That obviously isn't what's going on in the passage, is it?

No. Who is the one that is active in all these things? It's God. And what is the will of the

Father for the Son? That of all that he has given me, I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

What does it mean to be raised up on the last day? To be given eternal life. The Father's will for the

Son is that the Son be a perfect Savior.

Perfect. No errors, no mistakes, not a 99 .9%,

100 % perfection as the Savior of whom?

Of those that the Father gives to him. For this is the will of my

Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him will have eternal life, and I myself will raise them up on the last day.

What action brings about what action? It is the giving by the

Father to the Son that infallibly results in those people coming to Christ, believing in Christ, beholding

Christ. If you're a believer today, and your faith has survived trial and difficulty, it's not because you're better than somebody else.

True saving faith is the gift of God. That's why it perseveres.

And the biblical order is, God decrees, man responds.

Move down to verse 43. Jesus answered and said to them, do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the

Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. We will read

Dr. Geisler's comments in the word draw, but what amazed me is there was never any discussion of the phrase, no one is able.

No one is able. No one has the capacity.

In this particular passage, no individual has the dunamis, the power, the ability to come to me except something happens.

But first realize there is an inability on the part of man. No one has that ability unless the

Father who sent me draws him. And someone might very quickly say, oh well, there's your answer.

God draws everyone. Really? The context says that he draws those that the

Father has given to the Son to him. Those are the ones who come to him. Remember verses 37 through 40?

And what is more, John 644 doesn't stop at that point. It says that those who are drawn by the

Father to the Son are what? Raised up by the Son and given eternal life. You see, the drawing of the

Father works operatively, not cooperatively.

It's absolutely necessary, but praise God, it is also always sufficient.

See folks, this is God's grace. And it's not just necessary, but God's grace actually saves.

That's why John 644 stands, I believe, unassailable.

I've seen every type of mental gymnastics to try to get around this, but it simply says what it says.

Well, how did Dr. Geisler respond to John 644? Well, we're gonna find out in just a couple moments, but first we need to take our break and we will rejoin you on the other side.

Welcome back to The Dividing Line, my name is James White, and this beautiful Saturday afternoon we are discussing eisegesis.

There is a term eisegesis, reading into the text or reading something out of the text, you don't want to be there.

In other words, just ignoring what the text itself is talking about. We were just looking at John chapter 6, beginning about verse 35, looking at what the text itself says, and I promised you

I'd let you know what Dr. Geisler says about the passage. In response to John 644, we read, beginning on page 93, second, and the first part was just you've got to determine what helcuso, which means to draw, means based on context.

Second, John 1232 makes it plain that the word draw cannot mean irresistible grace on the elect for one simple reason.

Jesus said, quote, but I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself,

John 1232. No true Calvinist believes that all men will be saved. Third, the word all cannot mean only some men in John 1232.

Earlier in John chapter 2, verses 24 through 25, when Jesus said he knew all men's sin, it was clear that he was not just speaking of the elect.

Why then should all mean some in John 1232? If he meant some, he could have easily have said so, end quote.

Now, this isn't the main portion of the response I want to deal with, especially today, but I do want to respond to this.

It is very common for individuals to, rather than dealing with the context of John 6 and following the concept of the sovereign giving of the

Father of a people to the Son, the charge of the Son that he lose none of those that are given to him, etc, etc.

Instead of following that through and using the immediate context to understand what's going on in John 644, it is very common for many people to leave

John chapter 6, ignore that context, and go to John chapter 12, where the same term to draw appears.

And there, Jesus does say, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw men to myself. And certainly, everyone has seen those words quoted all over the place with the assumption that it means that, well, the cross draws every individual.

But let's think about that for just one moment. Does the cross, according to the

Bible, draw men? What did the Apostle Paul teach about the cross?

Well, he taught it was a stumbling block. In fact, he taught it was foolishness. He indicated that to those who are being saved, it's the power of God, but to the

Jew and to the Greek, it's foolishness and a stumbling block. Hmm.

The cross seems to have a different attraction depending on whether a person is, in fact, well, saved or unsaved.

But even more importantly than this, if we go to John chapter 12, the question is not whether we should translate the word all as all or some.

It means all. The issue, obviously, is whether the word all means all individual people or whether the word all means all kinds of people.

And so, I ask a simple question. Does John chapter 12 talk about all individual people or does

John chapter 12 introduce us to different kinds of people? Well, if you look at John chapter 12, this entire discourse in the power of the

Lord is prompted by one particular event, and that was the coming of Greeks, Gentiles, to Jesus.

Actually, they came to the disciples seeking Jesus. It was this coming of Gentiles to the

Lord Jesus that prompted the discussion in John chapter 12. So, when

Jesus says, if I be lifted up, I will draw men to myself, is he saying that means

I will draw every single human being, even those who, interestingly enough, have never heard the gospel, never heard of the cross, and died in ignorance, or does it much more logically mean that he will draw all men,

Jew and Gentile, Greek, Roman, whoever, Egyptian, Scythian, American, thankfully?

Obviously, that's what Jesus is talking about in John chapter 12. And so, in John chapter 12, we do not have a passage that really helps us to determine the scope of John 6, but thankfully,

John chapter 6 does tell us what the scope is. All that the Father gives me will come to me.

But here is the comment that I really wanted to spend some time looking at, and I will read it exactly as it appears, and then go back and try to understand it.

Quote, finally, their being drawn by God was conditioned on their faith.

The context their being drawn, 637, was he who believes, 635, or everyone who believes in him, 640.

Those who believe are enabled by God to be drawn to him.

Jesus adds, this is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him, John 665.

A little later, he says, if anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God, or whether I speak on my own,

John 717. From this, it is evident that their understanding of Jesus's teaching and being drawn to the

Father resulted from their own free choice, and free choice is in italics.

Now, I'll be perfectly honest with you, I don't understand this.

Not only do I not see how any of this is connected to the text at all, but it seems to be absolutely, positively upside down from any type of exegetical conclusion you come to from looking at the text.

Let me read it again, and this time take it apart. Finally, their being drawn by God was conditioned on their faith.

Where does the text say anything about God's drawing being conditioned on anything?

The only condition of God's drawing is his giving of the person to the Son. The text says that no one can come to him unless the

Father who sent me draws him. So, are we to think that coming to Christ is different than believing in him? That's certainly not what the context indicates.

Coming and believing are the same thing. So, since coming and believing are the same thing,

John 644 is saying no one is able to do this, but this book says, finally, their being drawn by God was conditioned on their faith.

There's nothing like that in the text. The context their being drawn in John 637 was he who believes in 635 or everyone who believes in him 640.

No, it's not. No, it's not. Those phrases appear there, but the context their being drawn is the giving of the

Father to the Son, which is nowhere mentioned in this discussion. Those very words from 637 do not even appear on these two pages where this passage is discussed.

You could read this and never know that John 637 says, all that the Father gives me will come to me.

That is not the context. But then, this is the one sentence. It's in blue on my little phenom here in front of me.

I've outlined it and I've discussed it with friends and with others to try to see if they could make heads or tails of this.

Here's the sentence. Those who believe are enabled by God to be drawn to him.

There seems to be the idea that there needs to be an enablement by God of people to be drawn to Christ.

But the problem is, according to this, you have to believe first. Those who believe are enabled by God to be drawn to him.

Now, where does John 644 say that? Where does anything in John say anything even remotely similar to that?

The text says, no man is able to come to me unless the

Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day. So, the very ability of man or to believe is dependent upon the enablement of the

Father. And all those who are so enabled are raised up on the last day.

Dr. Geisler is not a universalist and neither am I. That's why I'm a Calvinist and not an

Arminian. Those who believe are enabled by God to be drawn to him.

Those whom God draws to the Son are enabled to believe.

That's the conclusion of the text. That's what the text says, but what we have here is 180 degrees opposite of what the text itself actually says.

And yet, as with so many of the biblical discussions in this book, it ends with, from this it is evident, a quotation is given from John 7, which is not even in the context of John 6.

It is a whole other incident. From this it is evident that their understanding of Jesus' teaching and being drawn to the

Father resulted from their own free choice. Where did that term free choice come from?

Well, it did not come from the text that we're examining. That's for certain. There are other passages that likewise give us a good example of what takes place in regards to biblical argumentation.

On page 183, in an appendix that is asking the question, is faith a gift only to the elect?

We have Philippians chapter 1, verse 29 quoted, which says, for it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him.

This is taken to mean that faith is a gift of God to certain persons, namely the ones who are elect.

Dr. Geisler's response says, quote, there are several indications here that Paul had no such thing in mind.

First, the point is simply that God has not only provided us with the opportunity to trust him, but also to suffer for him.

The word granted, Greek ekariste, means grace or favor. That is, both the opportunity to suffer for him and to believe on him are favors with which

God has graced us. Further, Paul is not speaking here of initial faith that brings salvation, but of the daily faith and daily suffering of someone who is already

Christian. Finally, it is noteworthy that both the suffering and the believing are presented as things that we are to do.

He says it is granted for you to do this. It was not something God did for them. Both were simply an opportunity

God gave them to use on the behalf of Christ by their free choice.

There's that line again there, free choice. Well, Philippians 129, where it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him.

We're being told that this does not indicate that faith is a gift from God. Even though it says it has been granted to you to believe on him, what we're told is that in point of fact, all that means is, is that God has provided us with the opportunity to trust him.

Is that what the text is saying? Well, let's take a look at it a little bit closer, but first we need to take a break and we'll be right back right after this.

Philippians chapter 1 verse 29, Paul's talking to the Philippians and he's talking very seriously about something called suffering, something that Christians don't like to talk a lot about, but it's all through the

New Testament. And there Paul says, because to you it has been granted, it has been given in behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him.

Now it seems that Dr. Geisler's perspective on this is that, well, this is, this is Christian faith.

This is, this is faith in the Christian life. Okay. But does that mean it's somehow different than faith in Christ?

That's is what we call initial faith. Are we being told that in point of fact, what we have here is that, that every man and Dr.

Geisler does say this, every man has the ability to believe in Christ for salvation without God having to give him any special gift.

But then once you become a Christian, you need a special gift. You need a special kind of faith to undergo suffering.

You mean the faith to trust Christ as your eternal destiny is somehow different than the faith to trust

Christ to be faithful during sufferings in life? Hmm. I don't think that's what

Paul had to say. Instead, the text is very, very clear. Something has been given to the

Philippian believers and it is not only to believe in him, that is the faith that they have in Christ at the beginning, in the middle and the end is the gift from God.

That's why it is persevering faith. That's the difference between the one who endures to the end and the one who does not.

It is the kind of faith. Oh yes, there are people who can quote unquote, create faith out of themselves, but it's not enduring faith.

It's not divine faith. It's not saving faith. It's that dead faith that James talks about.

He says it has been granted to you not only to believe in him, but also to suffer in his behalf.

Both are gifts and you say, whoa, man, I'm not sure I want that. Give me the gift of faith.

Yeah, but the suffering part, no, thank you. No, they go together. They go together and that is clearly what the text indicates to us.

Well, here's another example of eisegesis is found in Romans chapter nine.

In fact, pretty much all of the discussion of Romans chapter nine suffers from that, but that is a very common malady because Romans chapter nine, if you're not going to believe in God's sovereignty, and if you're going to be in the savable camp camp instead of the saved camp, if you're going to be on the side of the

Tiber river that says grace is necessary, but not sufficient in and of itself, then you've got to do something with Romans chapter nine.

And it is a chapter upon which many, the anvil of man has many, the hammer of man has failed upon this particular anvil.

Shall we say every kind of explanation has been offered, but specifically in dealing with Romans chapter nine, where it speaks of Pharaoh, I'll begin reading at verse 14.

What shall we say then there is no injustice with God is there may it never be for he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom

I have mercy and I will have compassion when I have compassion. So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

And we'll, we'll go through this passage later on reviewing this book, but just to give you an idea, the entire response to this is that this has nothing to do with individuals.

It's only nations. And that is the normal response. But I just simply remind you that verse 16, isn't talking about nations, is it?

Paul's conclusion, Paul's understanding of his own words is that so then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy, mercy on nations, no mercy on persons for the scripture says to Pharaoh for this very purpose,

I raised you up. Pharaoh was an individual to demonstrate my power in you.

And that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So then he has mercy on whom he desires and he hardens whom he desires.

Well, in commenting on this, and we can't go into all of the details at this particular point in time with the amount of time we have left in the program, but allegedly

Dr. Geisler says when God moved on his heart to accomplish his purpose,

Pharaoh could not resist is the comment that is given. I would correct that. Pharaoh did not desire to do so.

All through this book, God's sovereignty and his irresistible grace is pictured as if man is this innocent being pushed along and pushed around by the big bully

God. That's not the case at all. Indeed, I would assert to you that Pharaoh had been under the restraining hand of God for a long time.

That is God had restrained Pharaoh from committing even more egregious sins than he had.

Pharaoh was not being forced to do something he didn't want to do. And point of fact, most of the time,

I think God is involved in keeping us from doing the things that the evil nature that is ours would cause us to do, but we rarely thank him for that.

Anyways, this is the comment that I wanted to get to, quote, while it is true that God predicted in advance that it would happen,

Exodus 421, nonetheless, the fact is that Pharaoh hardened his own heart first and then

God only hardened it later. Now that's a very common response, but I want you to just think for a moment with me.

While it is true that God predicted in advance that it would happen, Exodus 421.

First thing I did is I went, hmm, just got done teaching a class on Exodus, Exodus 421.

I remember that. And so I stopped and I took out my scriptures and I looked at Exodus chapter four, verse 21.

I wanted to see this prediction, this prediction that it would happen.

Here it is. Exodus 421 says, the Lord said to Moses, when you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which

I have put in your power, but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Then you shall say to Pharaoh, thus says the Lord, Israel is my son, my firstborn.

So I said to you, let my son go away that he may serve me. But you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.

I don't find a prediction there. There is no prediction there. God says, this is what

I'm going to do. God doesn't predict the future. He controls it. And when God says, I'm going to do this, that's not a prediction.

That is an assertion. That is a promise. God does not predict that Jesus will raise us to everlasting life.

That is a promise. And God said, this is what I will do. And here's the purpose for which

I will do it. God had a purpose that he was working out, even to the point of making sure that all, all of the plagues took place all the way to the last one, the killing of the firstborn child, which was vital to the establishment of the

Passover. One of his greatest pictures of the coming of his son, that God had a purpose and he didn't predict in Exodus 4, 21, he was going to do it.

He said he was going to do it. God's freedom comes first.

That is really the issue. Who is free in the matter of salvation? God or man?

Man wants to be in control. I assert to you that there is no salvation unless God is in control.

God is the one that I want to be in control of salvation. If man's in control of it, he's going to mess it up.

But I am so thankful the scriptures are very, very clear in teaching us that God doesn't just make us savable,

God saves. That's why he's called the Savior. And I am so thankful that the scriptures are so clear on this, that I get to see people on a regular basis come to recognize, my goodness, it's all of grace.

It's all of grace and none of me. We're going to continue looking at that next week here on The Dividing Line.