James White and Tom Ascol - The Debate that Never Was

I'd like to introduce the next two gentlemen coming up, but first, after all the introductions with Pastor King, I think all this question of,

I don't know why he would bring me here to start off the conference, I think that those questions were answered, were they not?

Amen. Well, certainly

I think most people in the room are aware of the fact that there was a debate that was supposed to take place a few weeks ago in a place of maybe a little bit unfriendly to a lot of Reform folks, but we certainly want to be able to give an articulate answer to some of the things that were presented at Liberty in the time that the debate was actually supposed to take place.

But first of all, let me introduce two men that we bring to you tonight. I'll say that back in, when

I came out of Roman Catholicism back in the mid -90s, there were many reasons why that did happen.

One of which was the fact that there was a tremendous apologetic that was offered by a man that's here tonight.

I didn't think that there were a lot of folks that could answer a lot of the questions of our heroes in Roman Catholicism, such as Mitch Pacwa, got a chance to view a debate and my mind was changed.

There were a lot of things that really caused me to question the stances that I took. Certainly through some searchings and websites,

I can thank Phil Johnson's bookmarks for bringing me to Alpha Omega Ministries, knowing more about James White, and then inviting

Dr. White to my church back in 1999 to come and preach at that time, which was kind of a shocking experience for James to spend a week with me.

That's something we'll go on to in the cruise, but anyway. Also during that time in the year 2000, 1999 -2000,

I noticed there were some strange things. I'd come out of Catholicism, but come into what? In my large evangelical church of a certain large denomination that exists in the

United States, there was another gentleman that had a ministry that I was referred to.

All of a sudden, after being at my church, I thought, man, have I got three heads? Am I purple? Spotted or something?

Some reason why everybody is telling me I shouldn't be talking about doctrine and trying to stay so close to the

Bible and wanting people to teach scripture and so forth. I read this man's website that I was referred to,

Founders Ministries, and really affirmed so many things that I had been thinking.

I thought I was honestly going insane. I want to thank both of these two men. The first man is

Dr. James White, of course, who you know through Alpha Omega Ministries. I know that he's touched a lot of your lives and helped many of you to be able to build and sanctify your faith and to strengthen your faith, to be able to answer questions that many will bring to you and give you an effective witness.

And secondly, Dr. Tom Askell, who has been truly a ministering friend to me for a few years now, and who as well, his writings, his sermons that I've heard online, if you ever have the opportunity to go to Founders .org,

have really meant so much to me in my Christian walk. Well, let me not delay this any longer. Let's bring up Dr.

James White. And how is this going to go, James? You tell me. You go first.

We didn't do a coin flip, but okay. Mike always has to be in charge of everything, so you've got to let him relax, calm down a little bit, go have...sit

down. He works so hard, and he truly does.

I hope you realize that these cruises and the conferences, there are certain people behind the scenes that make all of these things possible, and I ain't him.

Michael Fallon, Rich Pierce, all these folks are the ones who make these things possible. Now I'm going to hurry a little bit because here's what

I want to do this evening. All of you are about to be made honorary students of Liberty University.

I know you didn't... Chris, they're even letting you in. So I'm going to borrow you this evening, and here's the story.

For those of you who have been living under a rock recently, or you do not have a computer, one of the two, it's about the same thing these days.

On October 16th, myself and Brother Askell were supposed to be engaging in a debate on Baptists and Calvinism at Liberty University with Ergin and Ymir Kaner.

Ergin Kaner is the president of the seminary there. Ymir Kaner teaches at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

And we were supposed to be having a debate. Well, it didn't happen, and we have documented to the hilt exactly why that is, and I'm not going to waste your time this evening rehashing those issues.

We didn't get a chance to do what we wanted to do, and during this period of time we were supposed to be discussing that debate, playing some clips from the debate and discussing what took place.

Well, since it didn't take place, what we've decided to do is instead present to you, as the students of Liberty University, what we would like to have said.

We're going to record this and then, as surreptitiously as possible, distribute the

MP3 to every single student who wants to hear it. Because I think they deserve to have that opportunity.

And so I'm going to present, in essence, what I would like to have started off by saying. Dr. Askell will then come and present what he would like to have had the opportunity to say.

And then I'm going to bring my multipurpose little gizmo gadget down there up here, and we're going to plug it into the sound system, and we're going to play some portions from the sermon that Ymir Kaner preached at the

Thomas Road Baptist Church on October 15th, the night before the debate was supposed to take place. We're going to play some clips, and Tom and I will respond to that.

And then I'm also going to play some clips of a sermon that Ergin Kaner preached also at the Thomas Road Baptist Church earlier in the year, titled,

Why I'm Predestined Not to be a Hyper -Calvinist. And so we will have the opportunity of responding to those things.

That's about as close as we can possibly get to an actual debate. And we're going to allow them to say what they have to say and then respond there, too.

Now, therefore, you are now students at Liberty University, and so what would I like to say to you?

Well, first of all, I'd like to say to you that I am a Baptist. I know you have been told that this is actually a debate between Baptists and Calvinists, as if a

Baptist cannot be a Calvinist. That is not the case. Historically, I will leave the demonstration of that to Brother Askell to expand upon.

But I come to you as a Baptist, as one who has defended the specifics of Baptist faith, even within the context, even recently, of debating a good brother of mine who is a

Presbyterian, the issue of baptism. I have written in defense of the Baptistic view of church government in published works.

I come to you as a convinced Baptist, but as one who is a Reformed Baptist.

And why am I a Reformed Baptist? First and foremost, I am a

Reformed Baptist because of the consistent exegesis of the text of inspired scripture.

It is not because I engage in hero worship. It is not because I woke up one day and said,

I want to have a picture of John Calvin on my wall. I think he looks really neat. That was not the case in any way, shape, or form.

I am where I am today because when I apply the very same methods of interpretation, the same methods of hermeneutics and exegesis to the text of scripture that I use to defend the

Trinity, that I use when I go to Salt Lake City and witness to Mormons to defend the fact there is only one true

God, when I witness to Jehovah's Witnesses and defend the deity of Christ and the person of the Holy Spirit, when I witness to Roman Catholics and defend justification by faith, when

I apply the very same standards by which I would defend the crucifixion of Christ and the resurrection of Christ against Muslims, when

I apply those same standards to the text of scripture in regards to the freedom of God and salvation,

I am forced to the conclusion that God is free in the matter of salvation.

It is not a synergistic, cooperative effort where God tries and man disposes.

God tries to save, but in some he is successful only because mankind aids him, and in other instances he tries and he fails because mankind does not.

No, I do not find that to be the message, the consistent message of the inspired text of scripture.

But of course in debates you have very little time. And so I would invite, and in fact

I would say, and I have said this and I will say it again, that if Dr. Ergin Kanner, the president of Liberty Seminary, would allow me to do so,

I would go to Liberty Seminary and I would walk into every one of his classes with nothing but this

Greek New Testament in my hand, and I would turn to John chapter 6, which is where I would invite you to go this evening, and I would invite you with me to sit at the feet of the

Lord Jesus Christ in the synagogue at Capernaum and listen as he addresses the very issue of this debate.

And I would go into every one of Ergin Kanner's classes with nothing but this Greek New Testament and I would defend what

I believe before all comers in that context. Will Dr. Kanner accept my invitation?

It has certainly been provided to him. In a few moments I would like you to listen to what our

Lord Jesus said, and I would say to you, I do not go to just one text of Scripture.

We could go to John chapter 10, we could go to John chapter 8, John chapter 9, John chapter 17, we can go to Romans 9,

Ephesians 1, and 2 Timothy chapter 1, there's so many texts that we can go to that speak with the same voice.

But many people when you go to Romans 9 or Romans 8 or Ephesians 1 say, well that's Paul and there's those difficult things, you know.

And so I have found that going to the synagogue at Capernaum and listening as the

Lord Jesus addresses each of these issues with such clarity and such force has been very helpful to the people of God.

And I will make this statement. Over the past number of years I have made a concerted effort to listen carefully to everyone who tries to explain what

Jesus said in these words in a way that would not promote the freedom of God and salvation, in a way that would defend a synergistic concept of salvation where God and man work together.

I have never, and I say this with all honesty, never heard an interpretation of this text, read an interpretation of this text that can allow for the grammar, allow for the original languages, allow for the context that does not teach the absolute freedom of God and salvation.

I have not found one. And if you have to run from this text, you have to run to another text without actually listening to what

Jesus is saying, I submit to you that means you're believing your tradition rather than what the

Lord Jesus himself said. I remind you at the end of this chapter all of those disciples who had sat upon the hillside, 5 ,000 strong, had left

Jesus with the exception of the 12. They had all walked away.

Why? Well, our Roman Catholic friends would say it's because, well, he was teaching about the Eucharist.

No. What is offensive is what Jesus said about man's incapacities and his centrality is the only source of salvation.

Beginning in verse 35, Jesus has called himself the bread of heaven.

He has said in verse 34 that they had said, Lord, always give us this bread.

And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. The one coming to me will never hunger and the one believing in me will never thirst.

He is the only source that can satiate and satisfy true spiritual hunger and thirst.

But immediately please note verse 36. As soon as he says this, even though he's talking to men who have sought him out, they are called seekers.

They've gotten into boats and traveled across the sea. We can't get people to get into a car and come to Sunday school.

They have sought him out, and what does he say to them? To individuals who are standing right in front of him who have sought him out, he says in verse 36, but I said to you that you have seen me and you are not believing.

You are unbelievers. Jesus could know this because he knows the heart.

But he also knew what they were seeking. He also knew what they wanted. And in explaining, please don't forget verse 36, in explaining their unbelief, the words that follow come forth from the

Lord's lips. All that the Father gives me will come to me and the one coming to me

I will never cast out. Now everyone loves the last part of that verse.

Everyone loves the promise of Christ that the one coming to him will no, never be cast out.

A strong form of negation in the original language. It's impossible that I would ever cast out the one coming to me.

Everyone likes that. But that's only half of a sentence. And we're never honestly dealing with someone if we only listen to half of a sentence.

The reason he will never cast out the one coming to him is because they have been given to him by the

Father. All that the Father gives me will come to me. Now there is no question in the original language.

There is no question in the English translation which action comes first. In our humanistic mindset, there are many people who would say, well, the reason that the

Father gives me to the Son is because he's looked down the corridors of time and seen that I myself will come.

That is not what the Lord Jesus said. And remember, that would not be an explanation of their unbelief.

Why are they not believing is what is being explained by the Lord Jesus in verse 37.

Why are they not coming to him? It goes back to the Father's eternal will.

All that the Father gives me will come to me. Not some of them, not most of them.

And the first action is the giving of the Father. It is the giving of the Father that results in infallibly those so given coming to Christ.

Now please notice something, my friends. Those given come to Christ. I have come to Christ.

I believe in Christ. But why do

I believe when someone else does not? Is it because I am better?

I am more intelligent? I am more spiritually sensitive? That is not the answer given by the

Lord Jesus in the synagogue pernium. He says, all that the

Father gives me will come to me and the one coming to me I will never cast out. Why not?

I know my heart. You know your heart as a believer. You know how often the very privileges you've been given as a believer, you've squandered them.

You know how often you have tested the very patience of God. Why will he not cast you out?

If your standing before God was due to something inherent in you, then why couldn't you be cast out?

But Jesus says he will never do so. And he explains why. He says,

I've come down from heaven not in order to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me. I've come to do the

Father's will. I have voluntarily humiliated myself. I have come to do the

Father's will. I have come as a servant of the one who sent me.

And here for a moment the very veil of eternity is pulled aside and we are allowed to look into the very relationships of the

Trinity itself, the Father and the Son, when Jesus says in verse 39, this is the will of the one who sent me.

That of all that he has given me, and there he uses a different form in the original language which wraps up all of the elect into one whole.

Of all that he has given me, I lose none of it, but raise it up in the last day.

It encompasses all of God's people, throughout all the generations, and the will of the

Father for the Son is that he be a perfect Savior.

And if you have not thought of it, my friends, if you have not thought of it, Liberty student, this debate is about whether Jesus Christ is a true and perfect Savior or whether he lacks the capacity to save in perfection.

That's what this debate is about. Is Jesus Christ able to save the uttermost those who draw nigh unto

God by him or does he depend upon them to make him a

Savior? I submit to you that that cannot be the

Jesus Christ who spoke these words. Why will none of those given by the

Father to the Son ever be cast out? Because it is the Father's will that Jesus be a perfect Savior.

And if it is the Father's will that Jesus be a perfect Savior, then he must possess the capacity in and of himself to be a perfect Savior.

Salvation must be something he can accomplish. And yet as we will see, that is not the position of those we debate against this evening.

He then says to them, for this is the will of my Father in order that everyone who is gazing upon the

Son and believing in him might have eternal life and I will raise him up in the last day.

Who is looking to the Son? Who gazes upon the Son? Who is believing the

Son? These are present tense participles, ongoing actions. Who is coming? Who is seeing?

Who is believing? But those who are given by the Father to the Son. They are the ones that Jesus Christ himself will raise up in the last day.

Well, this type of teaching has always caused grumbling. The very first word of verse 41 is the

Greek word for grumbling. It's a wonderful Greek word, gungusmu. Doesn't that sound like grumbling to you?

They started to gungusmu. The Jews didn't like what they were hearing.

In fact, we need to hear these words in their original context because remember, we're used to hearing the

Son of God speak. These words could never have been put in the mouths of Isaiah or Moses or Abraham.

These are the words of deity. And Jesus responds and says to them, do not grumble amongst yourselves.

Look at verse 44. No one is able to come to me unless the

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

What an amazing way to respond to grumbling. Create more grumbling.

He does not satiate their objections. He adds to their objections.

He does not pander to his audience. Don't grumble among yourselves.

Don't you understand? No one has in of himself the capacity to come to me unless the

Father who sent me draws him. Now that's not how you make unregenerate people happy to talk to them about their incapacities.

And there would be no gospel if verse 44 simply said, no one is able to come to me.

But those are true words. No one has the capacity, the power to come to me.

Why? Jesus will say elsewhere. Because you're the slave of sin. He who commits sin is a slave of sin.

And slaves can't just free themselves. They must be set free. Thankfully verse 44 doesn't end there.

Because there we have the very fountain of salvation himself, the Father. Unless the

Father who sent me draws him. Now unfortunately a lot of people stop the text right there.

And they immediately leap out of John 6 way ahead in time in the narrative of the gospel of John to John chapter 12.

They go to another context where Greeks were coming to Jesus. And Jesus makes a statement, if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto myself.

They go, see? He draws everybody. When you have to abandon the synagogue at Capernaum to understand what

Jesus was saying that should be a clear indication to you you are not dealing honestly with the text.

John chapter 12 verse 32 is a beautiful text but placed in its context

Jesus is talking about Gentiles coming to him. And when he be lifted up on the cross he will draw all men

Gentiles and Jews to himself. But just ask yourself a simple question.

Doesn't the Bible teach the cross is repulsive to the natural man? It's the stench of death.

It does not draw every single individual. It repels outside the work of the Holy Spirit of God.

It is ridiculous to grab that text and bring it back into John 6 and try to avoid the text.

But it's even more ridiculous because we didn't finish the sentence in verse 44, did we?

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

Who is the him? There's only one him here. Whoever is drawn by the

Father is raised up by the Son on the last day.

Now who does Jesus raise up on the last day? We've already heard it. Go back to verse 35. Start from there.

All that the Father gives him. All those coming. All those believing. These are the ones who are drawn here in verse 44.

And no matter what you've got to do with this text, if one is drawn by the

Father, he will be raised up by the Son. Now you know what's so offensive about this to people?

There's no place in here for you and I to glory in anything.

We can never take pride in anything. We can never look at someone else and say, oh if you had just done what

I did. You had equal opportunity with me but you know I'm the one who did no.

The Father gives to the Son. He draws to the Son. The Son raises up on the last day.

This is all a divine act and that's why it's all only to the glory of God.

As I said before, Jesus' preaching didn't go over too well. And you'll notice later on, toward the end of the chapter, when the disciples go away, why do they go away?

Have you ever noticed why it is? There's all this grumbling. Jesus talks about his words being spirit and truth.

And then in verse 65 it says, and he was saying, and the original indicates, he kept repeating this.

Amazing how the Lord Jesus would keep repeating words that people don't like. And he was saying, it's because of this

I said to you that no one is able to come to me unless it has been granted to him by the

Father. Because of this many of his disciples the heart that has not been changed by the sovereign grace of God will always find this truth offensive.

But it's what Jesus taught. Jesus could have built a real big church right there in Capernaum.

But the problem is it would have been filled with nothing but dead wood. And that's not the church that Jesus builds.

All that the Father gives me will come to me. That's a perfect Savior and a perfect gospel.

That is what Jesus taught in the synagogue in Capernaum. And that is why as a

Baptist, as a person committed to sola scriptura, I am a

Reformed Baptist. I accept the truth that God is free in the matter of salvation.

Now I probably wouldn't have had quite that amount of time to even have my opening statement, which is a sad thing.

I would like to invite my brother Tom Askell to come and to present to you what he would like to have shared. And then when he has shared his portion,

I will somehow manage to get up here with my computer and we are going to play some clips for you and be as fair and honest as we can, but we'll both be responding to what the

Cantor Brothers have said in public proclamations. So, Brother Cantor, if you would come please. Brother Cantor, yeah.

No, I meant that guy there. He looks just like him. Brother Askell, if you would come please.

See, what shocked me was the tie. It's so bright. You know,

I was told that you'd be bringing a kilt to this. Shopping.

This is the closest thing to a kilt I could find. That ain't even close, brother. Thank you, brother. Thank you,

Brother Hunt. Well, the much debated thesis of the debate was finally resolved into something that really wasn't a thesis, but it was a topic that was easier to live with than the first one.

I can't even remember how the first one was worded. It was the I don't remember. But anyway, the one that we finally settled on was

Baptists and Calvinism an open debate. And so one of the things that I hoped to have done, given the opportunity to participate in that debate, was to try to define historically and theologically terms.

Because terms have been bantied about in such a way that they've been used so pejoratively that they've basically become a void of any kind of real usefulness for meaningful conversation and communication.

And so one of the concerns that I had going into this was to look historically at Calvinism, Arminianism, and Hyper -Calvinism, and try to set before the students the fact that out of the

Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, there developed this recovery of the

Gospel. That's what the Reformation was all about. It was recovery of the glory of God and the salvation of sinners through Jesus Christ.

And those five solas that became slogans that we refer back to do give us a pretty good summary of what reformational teaching was all about.

It's the salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, taught to us by the word of God alone to the glory of God alone.

Now Calvin was the greatest systematizer of these teachings. In the 16th century he was brilliant.

We've heard much of his brilliance set before us in David King's exposition earlier this evening, and those were just little snippets.

God just gifted him wonderfully in teaching Scripture and then systematically explaining

Scripture in a theological way. But Calvin did not invent these truths.

Sometimes Calvinism is spoken of as if it's a formula that this 16th century preacher developed in a laboratory somewhere and then said, aha,

I've got it, and he comes out. He developed the teaching from the word of God that was systematized in his own mind but further systematized by those who came after him.

There are many things that Calvin taught that James and I and others who are Reformed and Baptistic do not agree with.

And so it's not right, it's not fair to label anyone who is a

Calvinist theologically as espousing everything that the Protestant Reformer of Geneva advocated.

He had differences with us on church state issues and certainly on how the sacraments are to be administered and other matters as well.

Out of the teachings of Calvinism developed a worldview and I really see

Calvinism as a worldview. It is a view of history and creation and providence and salvation where God is at the center, where the glory of God is the ultimate concern for his creation if we're rightly related to him.

Calvin said that all of creation is the theater of God's glory. He is created to display his glory.

The same is true in salvation. He saves to display his glory.

So Calvinism is primarily a shorthand reference that relates usually to the doctrine of salvation but beyond that to the glory and grace of God in salvation.

Well in the 17th century these teachings that emerged out of the Protestant Reformation were more further systematized through the controversy that resulted in the

Senate of Dord in 1618 and 1619. When Calvin died in 1564,

Jacob Arminius was four years old. So when you hear people talking about Calvin and Arminius fighting over these things, you know that they don't have a historical context for what they're talking about.

Arminius was just a boy. But he did grow up to become a student of Theodore Besa who was the successor of Calvin in Geneva.

He was given the responsibility to prepare a defense of his teacher's view of predestination and in the course of preparing that defense, he became convicted of the opposite position.

He went on to reject unconditional election and predestination and instead became convinced and began to teach that God elects on the basis of his foreknowledge that people will exercise faith in Christ.

By the time that he died in 1609, his views had been widely spread throughout the

Netherlands and the debate began to intensify after his death. There were a group of his followers who came to be known as the

Remonstrants who formed a series of statements that set forth their views that came to be known as Arminianism.

Arminian theology is basically this. It is a rationalizing of Calvinism and it attempted to remove the tension between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility by diminishing the significance of sovereignty.

And so the Synod that the Dutch Reformed Church called in 1618 that lasted until 1619 was given the responsibility of dealing with these

Remonstrants articles, these five claims that they brought against the current understanding and confessional position of the church.

And here they are summarized. These are the five points of Arminianism. First, God elects or does not elect on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief.

In other words, God looks through the corridor of time, says this one will believe, I will choose him. This one will not believe,

I will not choose him. Secondly, Christ died for every man, though only believers will be saved.

And so Arminians did not give over to universalism, at least not initially. They recognized only believers would be saved but the atoning work of Christ, they said, was universal.

Thirdly, man is not so corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him.

In other words, that there is this either prevenient or natural ability that exists within fallen man to believe the gospel when he hears it.

Fourth, God's saving grace may be resisted. It can be resisted by men.

And fifthly, those who are in Christ may or may not finally fall away. Arminians himself was not sure about the answer to that question but his followers became convinced they could indeed fall away.

Well, after seven months and 154 sessions, the Synod rejected the Remonstrant Articles and published their own view of the doctrines in question.

And these doctrines were published under five heads with the third and fourth head published together so that there are actually four segments to their statement.

This is what later became known as the five points of Calvinism. Let me give them to you in the order that the

Synod produced them and in much of the language which the Synod of Dort actually utilized.

First, election is the unchangeable purpose of God whereby before the foundation of the world he out of mere grace according to his sovereign good pleasure chose certain persons to be redeemed by Christ.

So election is unconditional. Second, the death of Christ and I'm quoting here, is of infinite worth and value abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

Now that's an interesting thing that maybe we might get into later to see that Dort itself acknowledges the sufficiency of Christ's death for the whole world.

But it goes on and it says that the saving efficacy of that death extends only to the elect because it is the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross whereby he confirmed the new covenant should be effectually redeemed out of every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and those only who are from eternity chosen to salvation and given to him by the

Father. As we just heard James wonderfully explain. Third, though man was originally created upright because of the fall, and again

I'm quoting, all men are conceived in sin by nature children of wrath, incapable of any saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin and in bondage thereto and without the regenerating grace of the

Holy Spirit they are neither able nor willing to return to God. Four, those whom God chose from eternity in Christ he calls effectually in time and confers upon them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness and translates them into the kingdom of his own dear son.

And this article goes on to say that God does this by causing the gospel to be externally preached to them and by powerfully illuminating their minds by the

Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God. By the

Spirit's work of regeneration he pervades the inmost recesses of man. He opens the closed heart and softens the hardened heart and infuses new qualities into the will which though heretofore dead he quickens.

And then fifthly, those whom God effectually calls do not totally fall from faith and grace, though they may temporarily fall into backslidings, they will persevere to the end and be saved.

Now the order of these contra remonstrance articles was changed somewhere after the

Senate of Dord and I've not been able to determine exactly when nor exactly when or where the acrostic of TULIP was developed but it's obviously a memory aid and that TULIP stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the

Saints and that's what is meant by the five points of Calvinism sometimes called the

Doctrines of Grace. Now, it's not accurate to reduce Calvinism to those five points but it can be helpful to recognize that those five heads of doctrine summarize what the

Bible teaches what we believe the Bible teaches about how God saves sinners and what is taking place in the work of the gospel.

They clarify the Calvinistic understanding of the gospel but they in no way say everything

Calvinism wants to say about salvation. Now that's Calvinism, that's historically definable, that is theologically definable in such a way that you can have a meaningful conversation if you agree on the historical record but what is happening in our day and what the opponents in this debate have repeatedly done is taken

Calvinism and they've confused it with Hyper -Calvinism and with all kinds of other odious false teachings and assumed that those teachings belong to this heritage out of the 16th and 17th centuries.

I'm reminded of what Martin Lloyd Jones said one time very derisively but very accurately.

He said the ignorant Arminian does not know the difference between Calvinism and Hyper -Calvinism and sadly that has been illustrated too often in our day.

So what is Hyper -Calvinism? I've heard Hyper -Calvinism confused with Calvinism so often by some who ought to know better that I'm left only to conclude that they do it intentionally.

They do it not because they're ignorant but they do it for reasons that are between them and God but have to be intentional.

Like Arminianism Hyper -Calvinism is a rationalistic perversion of true

Calvinism whereas Arminianism destroys the sovereignty of God in its pursuit of rationalism.

Hyper -Calvinism destroys the responsibility of man in its pursuit of rationalism.

The irony is that both Arminianism and Hyper -Calvinism start from the same erroneous rationalistic presupposition.

They are joined at the foundation. They just go in opposite directions and here is the rationalistic presupposition and by rationalistic

I don't mean reasonable I mean based upon reason alone. This is what makes sense to me regardless of what the text of God's revealed word says and here's that presupposition man's ability and responsibility are co -extensive.

That is that man can only be as responsible as far as he is able and to the degree that he is responsible he must be able and that's where they both begin.

If a man's held responsible for something he must have the ability to do it. If a man does not have the ability to perform it he cannot be held obligated to do it.

So the Arminian looks at that rationalistic presupposition and he says agreed that's true and we know that all men are held responsible to believe the gospel.

Now that's true. The Bible says that all men are responsible to turn from sin and embrace the

Savior. Even in the law all men are to know the true and the living God and have no other gods before him.

Paul said it to the people in Athens at Acts 17 .30 God commands all men everywhere to repent.

So the Arminian takes those truths of scripture about man's responsibilities but extends it from this presupposition that is rationalistic and then comes to a false conclusion that says therefore man every man must have the ability in and of himself to repent and believe.

The Hyper -Calvinist takes this premise that man's ability and responsibility are co -extensive and he says that's right and we know that in and of themselves men by nature do not have the spiritual ability to repent and believe which again is a biblical truth because the scripture says no man can come to me unless the

Father draws him and the carnal mind is enmity against God. It is not subject to the law of God nor indeed can be and that word can is a real stubborn word in the

Bible and we are told that in sin the carnal man cannot please

God, cannot obey God, cannot come to God through Jesus Christ unless something supernatural happens.

So the Hyper -Calvinist takes all those texts and he says see there ability is limited therefore responsibility must be limited so they start with this rationalistic presupposition and the

Armenians run that way and the Hyper -Calvinists run that way and it's the Calvinists who stand up and say you know guys you're starting at the wrong spot that's not what the text of scripture says.

The scripture teaches that we are both responsible and God is sovereign we're responsible,

God is sovereign and both of those are true, equally true, and true at the same time and the accusation comes back to us well that is simply irrational.

That's not reasonable. But that accusation has no more force against true

Biblical historical Calvinism than does the Arian or Jehovah's Witness accusation against our

Christology that our Savior is completely God and completely man.

Jehovah's Witness says that is irrational. We say no that is Biblical. It is suprarational.

It is revealed and until we get our minds and our capacities to think and reason submitted to the revelation of God then we're going to be jerked around by every false understanding that extends from rationalism.

And so the Bible teaches man is without spiritual ability but he's obligated to repent and believe.

Only by the powerful regenerating work of the spirit will man be given the ability to fulfill his duty to repent and believe.

And though that might offend the rationalist, both the Hyper -Calvinist and the

Arminian, the Calvinist says this is what the text teaches.

To this we submit our thinking and our articulations of theology. Well those things are important historically and theologically for the purposes that they have served in shaping our identity as Baptists.

All of us in that debate were Baptists or would have been or are I guess still Baptists. Though some of us have been accused of not being

Baptists, being Calvinists and that's just strange and wrong because Calvinists or Baptists began with two streams in England.

The earlier stream were General Baptists. They were Arminian Baptists. They published a journal called, a magazine called,

The Arminian. These Baptists published a magazine called The Arminian.

From out of that movement then, years later from the Separatist movement, the Particular Baptists emerged. They came over to America and there's a lot of history obviously that's very fascinating in how

General Baptists and Particular Baptists populated the colonies in the north and the middle colonies and the southern colonies.

In the middle and in the south particularly it was the Regular Baptists as they came to be known, the

Particular Baptists that gained the preeminence. What I would have done in this debate given the opportunity is to try to show how the early

Baptists in the middle colonies in the south and then even up into New England as well were strengthened through the understanding of the

Gospel that is Calvinistic. The three earliest Baptist associations in America, in this continent, were

Calvinistic. The Philadelphia Association that began in 1707, the Charleston Association that began in 1755

I think it was, and then the 1751 and then 1755 the

Sandy Creek Association. Now if you've kept up with any of the historical arguments you've probably heard this huge separation between the

Charleston stream of Baptist heritage and the Sandy Creek stream of Baptist heritage.

Indeed our opponents in this debate have loudly proclaimed their pride in being full blown

Sandy Creekers. Would to God that they were full blown Sandy Creekers because the implication is from their side that the

Sandy Creek tradition was somehow anti -Calvinistic. Well let me give you the historiography that operates in bringing that false conclusion out as a point of argument.

It goes like this the Sandy Creek Church and the Sandy Creek Association were incredibly evangelistic and they were.

I mean within 17 years there were I think maybe 42, 45 churches out of Sandy Creek where the 125 ministers had been called out of that church.

It was an incredible church planting evangelistic mission minded church that emerged out of that South Carolina congregation.

So it was evangelistic. We know Calvinism is not evangelistic therefore Sandy Creek couldn't have been evangelistic.

That's the historiography that operates by those who claim that Sandy Creek was anti -Calvinistic.

But there is overwhelming documentation for anybody who wants to take the time to read the records themselves to see that that kind of assertion that Sandy Creek was opposed to Calvinism is simply false.

I've got some of the documentation with me tonight. I'm just going to quickly cite a few things.

You know the separate, the Sandy Creek Church epitomized the separate Baptist stream or the separate

Baptist tradition. The separate Baptist came out of the Great Awakening in the mid 18th century.

The Great Awakening affected Baptist churches that already existed but it also affected congregational churches tremendously and so the congregational churches that came to life and those who were converted in them were known as the

New Lights and those that resisted the Awakening were known as the Old Lights. Well many of those New Lights went on into full -blown

Baptist convictions. In fact George Whitefield was instrumental in preaching much in North America during that time and so it was many of his converts in the congregational churches that went on to become

Baptist. He said one time it looks like my chickens are becoming ducks you know because they were going under.

And many churches were started, these separate Baptist churches they were called, having come out of a dead orthodoxy of congregationalism.

And perhaps you've heard the charge made that Baptists have this inherent fear or opposition or hesitancy about creeds and particularly separate

Baptists did. Well that's true but that doesn't mean that they were not confessional. What it means is they were fearful of a dead creedalism because they had had that in their dead congregational churches.

And so you have the general, the regular Baptists as they came to be known, the Calvinistic Baptists that came over in America who had generations of history and heritage of confessions of faith.

The 1644 Baptist confession, the 1689 Baptist confession of faith. But you had these separate Baptists that had generations of dead orthodoxy where the standard confession was just used as something you sign off on and you could be a full -blown church member and still be dead in your sins not born of God's spirit.

And so they were fearful of this use of creeds in a formalistic way whereas the regular

Baptists weren't fearful at all. They had a lively confessionalism. But as the separate Baptists and the regular

Baptists began to work together and come together, what we find is the separate Baptists, often example in Virginia in the 19th century 18th century

I think was or early 19th century saying we believe your confession more strongly than you do. And sometimes the separate

Baptists were hesitant to join with the regular Baptists because the regular Baptists weren't strict enough in what they believed and taught.

But there are other evidences that bear this out as well. And that is by simply looking at some of the leading teachers among the separate

Baptist movement, especially those from Sandy Creek. The Sandy Creek church was started by Schubel Stearns and his brother -in -law

Daniel Marshall. Daniel Marshall went on to plant the first churches in Georgia.

And one of the churches that Daniel Marshall planted is the oldest continuing Baptist church in Georgia today.

The Keokie Baptist church. It was begun in 1772. Let me read you the first article of that church's covenant.

It says this. According to God's appointment and his word, we do hereby in his name and strength covenant and promise to keep up and defend all the articles of faith according to God's word such as the great doctrine of election, effectual calling, particular redemption, justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone, sanctification by the

Spirit of God, believers baptism by immersion, the saints' absolute final perseverance in grace, the resurrection of the dead, the future rewards and punishments, and so forth, all according to Scripture which we take as the rule of our faith and practice with some other doctrines here and not mentioned as are commanded and supported by that blessed book, denying the

Arian, Socinian, and Arminian errors and every other principle contrary to the word of God.

That was the preamble of the first article in the covenant of the church started by Daniel Marshall who was the co -founder of the

Sandy Creek Church. When the Sandy Creek Association penned their own articles of faith, the clerk of that association was

Basil Manley Senior. Basil Manley Senior had argued that no one should be allowed to join your church, and indeed he practiced this, if they didn't agree with every point of the 1689 confession.

He was the clerk of the Sandy Creek Association and here's the preamble to that Sandy Creek affirmation.

Holding believers baptism, laying on of hands, particular election of grace by predestination of God in Christ, effectual calling by the

Holy Ghost, free justification through the imputed righteousness of Christ, progressive sanctification through God's grace and truth, final perseverance, continuance of the saints in grace.

They also added later when they adopted an article of faith in 1816, an article on total depravity, and then article four, we believe in election from eternity, effectual calling by the

Spirit of God, justification by imputed righteousness and we believe that all who are elected and effectually called and justified will persevere through grace to the end.

Well, there you have even in those articles four of the five points of Calvinism when you add it to Daniel Marshall's teachings in Georgia, you have all five points of Calvinism.

There are other streams of evidence that can be brought to bear upon this as well, but that in and of itself is enough to put to the lie this statement that Sandy Creek somehow was evangelistic and anti -Calvinism and Charleston was simply

Calvinistic and the argument usually goes not very evangelistic and that's equally untrue. So when we talk about Baptists and Calvinism, let's be honest and let's acknowledge that from this movement of God in the 16th century and the recovery of the gospel, there sprung a variety of denominations

Baptists being among them in the next century. And from that tradition down to the very present, particularly in my own southern

Baptist convention, we find our roots firmly embedded in those doctrines of grace that show the sovereignty of God and salvation.

In 1845, when those 293 delegates gathered in Augusta, Georgia to form what would be called the

Southern Baptist Convention, every one of them came from churches or associations that had adopted either the

Philadelphia or the Charleston Confession of Faith, both of which are the 1689 Confession of Faith.

Every one of them. Now to suggest that somehow Southern Baptists came from this amalgam of some

Calvinistic and some anti -Calvinistic streams that just happened to flow together in quirks of history is a misreading and misrepresentation of the historical evidence that is readily available.

And it's time for people who handle these subjects, especially those in the academic arenas to be honest and to recognize that the way that it's been popularly taught in recent generations is simply not true.

I love gadgets. Alright. Fascinating.

I honestly did not know a large portion of that myself, so I'll be very thankful to have had

Dr. Askell with me on that evening to be certain. Now, what we want to do is we want to give the other side their time.

And so I have put together some clips. The first will come from the sermon preached by Emir Kanner at the

Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia on October 15th, the night before we were supposed to debate.

Now the debate had already come to a gruesome end at that particular point in time, and so I was not at all surprised to discover that the sermon was on a gospel worth proclaiming, and hence it had a lot of material in it.

So let's go ahead and start. Hopefully we'll get all the sound right here first time off. Let's listen to Dr.

Kanner asking, I think, one of the key questions. It's one of the main objections that Dave Hunt makes as well.

Let's listen to what he has to say. Furthermore, if one admits somehow that election is done without our volition, without our receptivity,

I have just one further question. If God could have saved all mankind apart from man's decision, why didn't

He? If it didn't take a response from us, why did

God, in His sovereignty, in His providence, if it is independent of us, and He would place faith inside of us and change us, and we couldn't say no, why did

He do it with all mankind? Does He somehow get more glory by us burning in hell?

I would submit to you that our Lord loves us enough that He allows us to be receptive or to reject.

Now, that kind of objection is extremely common. If God can save all people, then why doesn't

He save all people? There is an implied assertion coming from their background that God wants to save every single person equally, that if He then had the capacity,

He would save everyone. One of the problems with Arminianism down through its own history is that it has found itself upon a very slippery slope, and has often ended up developing into universalism itself.

Now, the question really is, if God could save everyone, then why doesn't

He? I had a professor in Bible college by the name of Dr. D .C. Martin, a

Southern Baptist and a Southern Baptist school. He placed on the board one day three options.

God could save everyone, that's universalism. God could save no one, I'm not sure if there is a name for that, and God could save someone.

He asked us all, and he was almost old enough to go back to the Sandy Creek stuff himself, but he asked us all, he said, in which one of these three options does

God have any freedom at all? I would like to suggest that to dismiss the issue that is raised in scripture itself in Romans chapter 9, quoting from Exodus 33 and from the

Exodus account of Moses, that the demonstration of God's power is totally lacking in the theology of many denominational leaders today.

It's all centered on man, rather than being centered upon God. And the demonstration, even, yes, of His wrath.

Folks, don't we live in a society that is blind to the wrath of God? The demonstration of His justice and wrath is vitally important, and in only one instance, please note something.

These folks will tell you, what you've got here is either God giving mercy to everybody, or injustice.

No, God never gives injustice to anyone. Salvation is always of mercy and grace, and if you do not receive that, what you receive is justice.

Never injustice. The question of why isn't everyone saved is not a Calvinistic problem.

This is a problem that is born of reality. Not everyone is saved. Why does

God create people who will not be saved? And they salve their conscience with this notion of a free will that has libertarian powers to it, as if that somehow gets

God off the hook, but you just push the question back one step further. Why did God do it that way? Why didn't

God create people with such a freedom that they would inevitably choose Him so that all would go to heaven? You don't get

God off the hook by Arminianism at all. Another thing that concerned me with that quote was the comment that if election is somehow not tied to or dependent upon man's volition, well that raises all kinds of concerns, one of which that is repeated throughout all that you'll hear in these excerpts that we've heard in leading up to the debate, we hear from other people that want to argue against these views, is the confusion of biblical categories as it relates to the doctrine of salvation.

Election is not salvation. Election is a part of salvation. It is a subset of the whole, as is justification and regeneration and glorification and atonement, all of those things.

But there's such a confusion and interchange of categories that is made by those who argue against the doctrines of grace, we just heard one, that it becomes almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation.

But more than that, that view that says if election is not dependent upon man's volition or tied to man's volition somehow, then basically

God is unjust, listen to how that sounds and how it contrasts with this statement. Election is

God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life, not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ, in consequence of which they are called, justified, and glorified.

Now I've just read to you the statement on election from the abstract of principles that is the oldest Southern Baptist confession of faith that was penned in 1858 for the purpose of Southern seminary's professors signing to teach in accordance with, not contrary to.

Southeastern seminary also uses the abstract of principles, unless I'm mistaken I think Dr. Kanner, taught at Southeastern seminary, signed this confession of faith.

So, we will move on from there. And furthermore. And furthermore. The reason why, hear me, the reason why

Agrippa will go to Hell is not because he's a sinner, but because he rejected the

Lord Jesus Christ. Perfect justice is demonstrated in the last book of the scripture, in Revelation chapter 20 in verses 11 through 15.

Now, what you just heard, in case you didn't catch it, the sermon was about Agrippa. And we were just told that Agrippa will not go to Hell because of his sins.

He will go to Hell because he rejected Christ. Now I'm not sure how rejection of Christ is not sinful.

I'm not sure how unbelief is not a sin. I certainly hope that Christ's death covers unbelief, because you and I experience it every day.

But it almost sounds to me as if because of a universal doctrine of atonement, sin basically has been wiped out, and the only thing left is a discussion of whether you will or will not accept

Jesus. But there's a problem there, because there have been millions and millions of people down through the ages who died without ever having heard of Jesus Christ, and isn't it amazing?

Once again, this becomes the seed ground of universalism. Those who today are promoting inclusivism, for example, will come out of these very groups, they'll have that kind of background, and they'll point to these things as they see

God's justice would allow for these individuals maybe a post -mortem opportunity of salvation, or whatever else it might be.

Interestingly, that's exactly what happened to the Armenian Baptists of the 18th century. They moved into Arianism, into universalism, and ultimately lost all aspects of the gospel.

And until they were reformed under a new connection in the 1770s, they just went into basic nothingness.

If the reason one goes to hell is because God doesn't elect him, then we have a problem with Revelation chapter 20.

Think it this way. If the reason why someone goes to hell is because God decided not to give him loving election, then

Revelation 20 is a problem passage because God is not judging the one standing before him,

God would actually be judging himself. The reason that anyone goes to hell is not because of non -election.

These, again, confuse all sorts of categories. And remember, we're talking about men with PhDs in theology who are saying these things.

It is not non -election that sends one to hell. You receive justice unless, in mercy and grace, you receive that grace and mercy from God.

But he has to be free in giving mercy and grace or it's no longer grace at all.

If it can be demanded, it's no longer grace. And yet we have here this assertion, non -election is what sends you to hell.

Yeah, and it's a straw man. Who is saying that?

I don't know anybody who teaches that. And so I would say amen. So nobody's teaching it, exactly.

Dr. Cantor finished with some questions. We're going to run through his questions before we go to Dr. Ergen Cantor's sermon.

Let me ask you a few questions of how you witness and pray. And perhaps you would wish to write these down.

Number one, do you believe that the person you are witnessing to has the ability to repent?

That seems to go directly to the issue that you raised in regards to abilities. Yeah, it's not a question of what

I believe about what this person can or can't do. The question is, what does the Scripture say? It's as if unless my rationalistic presuppositions can be satisfied to my own liking, then

I don't have any basis on which to evangelize rather than saying, on what basis does the

Scripture instruct me to go and preach the gospel? And it's on the basis that God in sending forth the gospel grants life.

The analogies in Scripture are very clear. Jesus stood before the tomb of Lazarus. Did Lazarus have the ability to come forth?

If he'd had the ability to come forth, he wouldn't have needed Jesus to tell him to do it. He could have just done it.

But it was in the communication of the Word. It was in the command. The power was granted and he was able to obey.

That's the perfect analogy to what happens when we preach the gospel to sinners. God often owns that proclamation in granting life through the

Word by the power of the Spirit calling men, enabling them to repent and believe. Please note the consistency, however.

Everything that Dr. Cantor is going to say, his objections are always based upon a man centered examination of the gospel.

Never the question is asked, do you believe that God has the ability to take out that heart of stone and give a heart of flesh?

That should be the question because that's the only way anyone has ever been saved. But that's not what is asked.

Question number two. Number two. Do you believe that the person you are sharing Christ with, that in that you are actually sharing the good news?

For I would submit to you that if you are a double predestinarian, if you believe God elects someone to hell, that you're not sharing any good news with the non -elect you're only sharing their damnation which is the opposite of evangelism.

Well I'll allow you to first of all point out the category error that is clearly presented by Dr.

Cantor there while I queue up the next one. I'm sorry, I'm thinking down the road.

Specifically It's that kilt thing that got you. Specifically, elected to hell.

Election is an act of grace. It is always to life. They want to create these folks and if you go and read the website, if you go and read both of our blogs, if you go and read the huge correspondence files you will know we tried.

We've attempted to bring some kind of light to this issue. If you go and read these things we have made it very very clear that to try to create this equality, elected to life, equal to election unto damnation.

Those are two separate categories. One is a category of grace and mercy undeserved.

The other does not require any extension on God's part of any power to reprobate someone.

They're already under his just wrath. The wrath of God abides upon the sinner.

To try to make the two equal is a canard. It is a misrepresentation.

And I don't know how many times it has to be repeated before someone stops the misrepresentation. Also he tries to make this a

Calvinist problem. That if a person hears the good news and does not believe the good news, then for him it is bad news.

But that's not true just for Calvinists. That's true for anybody. Jesus said, Woe to you Bethsaida and Corzin.

It'll be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than it will be for you on the day of judgment. Why is that?

They had more light. They had more opportunity. That's true no matter what a person's belief is on the Calvinism -Arminianism debate.

And to tie that into election is confusing categories and it just misunderstands the whole point of accountability and the culpability that goes with that.

Can you honestly tell the person you're witnessing to that they should choose Christ?

Or do you believe somehow that faith is put inside of a person so he can respond? Because if that's the case, would you at least be honest enough to tell them if God's going to save you, he's going to put faith inside of you and only then can you respond?

Is God going to put faith in you to believe? God doesn't believe for anyone. Again, it's a misunderstanding of how the gospel works.

Can you honestly tell someone that they can choose God? Well, I wouldn't put it like that. I would tell them they must choose

Christ. They must repent. They must believe because the obligation is on them. I'm not going to try to satisfy curiosity or give them any sense of complacency by saying, you know, you can do this any time.

We heard it earlier tonight. The only time that salvation and grace is tied to a specific time point is today.

Today if you hear his voice. Today is the day. Now is the time. Now, this next one

I found rather interesting because it is an assertion that maybe we should do evangelism differently if these

Calvinists are right. And of course we've been saying that all along. Perhaps, perhaps for those who are double predestinarian, we need to create a new

Roman road, a new way to witness. Maybe we need to be honest enough that if some are in this room who believe in double predestination, that they change the tract and they begin by sharing,

I want to let you know that God may love you or hate you, but either way he does have a plan for your life.

Isn't it fascinating to you that the book of Romans, the Roman road, starts with two and a half chapters of bad news before it ever gets to the good news?

What an irony to say, we need to get out the Roman road. Well, you know what?

If the Roman road tract misses an entire section of the

Roman road, that might be dangerous. Take the entrance ramp at about chapter 5.

I think it seems to be. That's exactly. And when you take the entrance ramp at chapter 5 and you skip all the part about God's wrath and God's just law and everything else, is it any wonder that we end up with what you have said so often, we lose the gospel.

We lose the gospel itself. Well, we want to get to Eric Kanner, so I want to get to the conclusion of Ymir Kanner's presentation, which gets a little loud and it gets a little forceful, but you want to be able to hear what's being said.

We serve a God that not only reigns over all, but wishes that his redemption would come to all.

We serve a God who not only will judge this entire earth, but wants to justify all who believe.

When the ultimate question is given, how sovereign is your God? Can I give you one answer that I think will suffice?

My God is so sovereign, he gives me a choice. That's the God I serve.

God bless you. Now that was greeted with loud applause at the

Thomas Road Baptist Church, but we just heard that God wishes he can't seemingly accomplish.

There's something in the Psalter about whatever God wishes he accomplishes and does.

Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, a pagan king, came up with the idea that God's will cannot be thwarted in any way, shape, or form.

But then we did have an interesting statement. God will justify who? He wants to justify all those who believe.

Amen. But who's going to believe? Is the question that, of course, is being danced around in this particular situation.

May I say something somewhat in defense of Dr. Cantor's concern there, if I can put the very best construction on it.

I think what he is fearful of losing is what the Bible does set before us, both in law and gospel.

God has created his image bearers to represent him in the world.

And in the law, we are commanded to have no other gods before him. That's true for everyone. In that sense, can we say that it is

God's will that all would come to know him and represent him well in the way that he's prescribed? I could say yes to that.

In that sense. But not in the sense that it's usually taken without qualification to say that it's just universally, in the same way for everybody,

God's will for each and every person to know him savingly through faith in Jesus Christ.

So I think they've taken one stream of biblical revelation, and they have universalized it and subjected another stream to it, and come up with this confused misrepresentation, not only of Calvinism, but of how the gospel is to be portrayed to those in their sin.

Now, a number of months earlier, Dr. Eric Cantor, who is now the president of Liberty Seminary, delivered a sermon and it was titled,

Why I'm Predestined Not to be a Hyper Calvinist. We won't have as much time to look at each one of these, but there are some very interesting statements that come out here, including this one here.

When I'm addressed with a question, it's usually somebody with a very serious look on their face. Are you a

Calvinist? My immediate answer is no. Oh, they say you're an

Arminian. Those two terms have a tendency to be seen as the absolute only two that you've got.

The Calvinist believing in the sovereignty of God, the Arminian believing in the total free will of man, and that there's no other option.

My immediate response always is no, I'm not an Arminian either. So what are you? Well, I'm a

Baptist. So, there you have, I'm not a Calvinist, I'm not an

Arminian, I'm a Baptist. And of course, that becomes the foundation for saying, and if you're a Calvinist, by extension, that must mean you can't be a

Baptist. Another term they like to use is, I'm a Biblicist. I was like, that's one of my favorite ones.

I'm a Biblicist. As if anybody would say, well, I'm not. I don't want to believe anything in there. Immediately when

I'm addressed with the question, it's usually somebody with a very serious look on their face. Ah, come on. Stop, stop, stop. I told you to go to this one.

There we go. But this issue seems to be splitting churches across lines.

There is now a famous preacher in my age group who has begun teaching that it is a sin to give an invitation because it's an insult to the sovereignty of God.

Now, Dr. Askell, are you splitting churches? Been there, done that, but not anymore.

Was it because of the tie or the kilt? No, I don't think I've ever even split one church. I've helped some diminish in size, but I haven't split any that I know of.

And, you know, the invitation. I mean, what he means by that is a post -sermonic altar call. And if you don't give an invitation, you're not preaching the gospel.

Someone asked a member of our church a few weeks ago, said, oh, your pastor doesn't give an invitation, does he? He says, yeah, he does.

It lasts about 45 minutes long. And that's the way it ought to be. The gospel is a call.

It's interesting to me, all of these accusations and these castigations of those of us who do not practice the invitation system, the altar call, they never make them against Rick Warren, who doesn't practice an altar call.

I'm kind of on the cutting edge of church growth thinking here by not doing a post -sermonic altar call.

And just as there was a small group within a larger group that taught this, in the

Calvinist world, there is a small group that affects the larger group by teaching what we call reprobation.

Reprobation is the doctrine that God predestines some for hell and there is no hope in their life.

Some of you have come to this church and in the front of your Bible, on a post -it note or in a bulletin, is the name of a lost loved one.

It's somebody who hasn't been saved. For years you've been praying for them. And you wonder if perhaps you've heard some preacher say, maybe they are reprobate.

Maybe there is no hope for their salvation. Maybe they were predestined, elected and selected for hell's fire and there is nothing you can do about it.

I'm going to tell you by the end of this service, I hope to show you that that's a lie from the pit of hell. Well, we don't have any doubts about where Dr.

Cantor is coming from on the subject. How do you respond to that? Very strong emotional appeal.

Very strong emotional appeal. When I debated a representative of the Calvary Chapel movement,

George Bryson, at the Anaheim Vineyard in Los Angeles a number of years ago, many of his objections were framed in the exact same thing.

If what this man is saying is true, then your mother or your children might not go to heaven, as if somehow it is a better thing to say.

By the way, I've never heard anyone preach reprobation like that. Don't pray for that person, he's slated to hell.

As if we somehow have knowledge of who the elect are. Where are these churches? I can't seem to find any of them, but still, even on that level, what are they suggesting is a better way of believing?

What is their answer to the question? It is better to believe in a God who tried and failed than a

God who wouldn't try at all? Is this some... It's better to have love than...

Whatever that thing is. Is that what's somehow better? Do you really want to present a picture of God?

And there are some people who do, by the way. But I just want to try to compare this with the Bible. A picture of God who is eternally unhappy.

He has set his love upon every single human being. And the Father has decreed their salvation.

The Son has died to provide a perfect means of the forgiveness of their sins.

He has born in His body all the punishment of their sin that is due to them. The Spirit comes to apply these things and bring spiritual life.

And yet, the entire activity of the triune Godhead fails over and over and over again so that God for eternity is unhappy and unfulfilled.

You see what I mean about the consistency of focusing upon man as the center of all things rather than upon God and not even realizing one of the things that scares me is so often these individuals will not realize the massive ramifications to their doctrine of God.

And you know what? It shouldn't surprise me. Because I'm the one that wrote the book called The Forgotten Trinity. It talks about how many evangelicals today, and this was my message in London at the

Metropolitan Tabernacle back in July when I preached there at Spurgeon's Church was that many evangelicals today are functionally non -Trinitarian.

They have no doctrine of God. So it doesn't matter if they introduce a contradiction between the

Father and the Son. The Father's doing one thing, the Son's doing something else and they're at odds with one another.

They don't even think about such things. But you see, if we start with wanting to honor

God and if we start with God's glory rather than, well man's glory we come to very different conclusions.

The concern about reprobation is a theological issue and there is a doctrine of reprobation that has been taught, has been believed historically by men like John Calvin and John Bunyan.

And if you want to call Calvin a hyper -Calvinist when you deny him the title of Calvinist, that puts you in a rather interesting position.

But that's what our opponents in this debate have done. And to call John Bunyan a hyper -Calvinist also puts you in a very unusual posture with regard to him.

The Bible does have two verses at least that I know of that would suggest a doctrine of reprobation.

1 Peter chapter 2 verse 8, Jesus is a stone of stumbling and a rock of a fence and those who stumble over him,

Peter says, they stumble being disobedient to the Word to which they were also appointed. There are ways to take that but that's what it says.

Then in Romans chapter 9 Paul says this in verse 22, what if God wanting to show his wrath and to make his power known endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction that he might make known the riches of glory on vessels of mercy which he had prepared beforehand for glory.

I personally do not believe that doctrine of reprobation. There is another doctrine called preterition where God positively has elected and passed over those whom he did not positively elect because he didn't have to elect anybody to hell.

We're all on the way to hell. However, I'm not offended at the doctrine of reprobation as it has been articulated by Calvin and Bunyan and others because of the exegetical work that they've done in the text and I didn't hear,

I don't think one hint of exegesis. No, no, exegesis suffered just a little bit here.

Sort of like it does here. Where is it that God's sovereignty comes into play? I would tell you this, it comes in his foreknowledge.

Now a true H .C., hyper Calvinist, always mixes up God's foreknowledge and his predestination.

Predestination means God chose it, picked it, did it, made it happen, decreed it to happen as if you had no choice.

Dragged into the kingdom against your will. Again, it's difficult to really know how to start untangling the mess that both

Emir and Ergen -Kanner create when they start using theological terms.

We don't confuse God's foreknowledge with predestination. In fact, at least we recognize that foreknowledge as a philosophical or even biblical concept is different than God foreknowing someone.

We recognize there's a difference between a verb and a noun. I can't find too many inconsistent Arminians who recognize that particular difference.

I'm talking about multiple people with multiple PhDs who constantly mix up foreknowledge and foreknowing as if they're the same thing.

And they are not. And yet, when you try to get discussions going about these things and you try to bless

God's people by going to the Word of God to discuss these things, you find constant resistance, which is what we encountered as well.

This is the conundrum of Arminianism. Because if God knows for sure something is going to happen in the future, is it possible that that thing cannot occur?

If God knows for sure that you're going to trip down the stairs tomorrow morning, is it possible that you cannot trip down the stairs tomorrow morning?

If you don't trip down those stairs, then God's foreknowledge is blemished. It has a flaw in it.

It is not exhaustive. It is not sure. It is not true. The open theists have seen this.

And that's exactly what motivates, at least theologically, philosophically, all of their argumentation against exhaustive foreknowledge.

You don't get away from certainty by trying to pit foreknowledge against predestination.

It is simply a theologian's trick. And anybody who wants to think a little bit beyond the surface will immediately see it's all smoke and mirrors.

You don't get away from certainty if you've got a God of exhaustive foreknowledge. I've said many times that the consistent

Arminian is an open theist. An Arminian who believes in exhaustive divine foreknowledge really is an inconsistent individual, and they've seen that.

But many of them don't want to go there because it is so clear that God has exhaustive divine foreknowledge of the future.

Would you really want to worship or pray tonight to a God who does not know what's going to happen tomorrow?

Would you worship a God who on September 10th was wringing his hands going, I wonder what's going to happen.

I wonder what's going to happen. Might happen, might not. Don't know. Is that the God, the king of all the ages of which

Scripture speaks? I don't think so. Well, one last one to play for you, and this was getting toward the end of the sermon, so it starts getting a little faster and louder as we go along.

They don't have any reason to reach missions. They do it out of duty, or they do it because it's something to do. But they don't have a hunger and an obsession.

The reason I'm on Liberty Mountain? Because I've got fellow faculty brothers and sisters that have a hunger.

Because I've got 10 ,000 kids running around me that feed that hunger. We believe that God can reach everyone.

We believe that God can reach every nation. We believe that every person with a breath and a pulse is there because God has put them there so that we can go to them and reach them.

But we won't do it if we allow this infection to take over our churches. We won't do it if we become so in love with this system that JC doesn't stand for Jesus Christ, it stands for John Calvin.

We won't ever grow a church with that type of doctrine. We won't ever reach a world with that type of doctrine.

Well, history sure is on his side. Yeah. William Carey, Adoniram Judson, John Payton, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield.

Yeah. There's a little bit of anger, I think, in what we just listened to.

An infection. And yet, did you notice the inconsistency? God put them there so that we could go and reach them.

Well, why wasn't God honoring their free will? What if they don't want to be there? What if they don't want to be there?

What if they don't want to be reached? You know what? It's amazing to me, for many years, first weekend in April, first weekend in October, folks from Alpha and Omega Ministries were standing outside the gates of the

Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, during the General Conference of the Mormon Church. Sometimes there were as few as four or five of us, about 30 ,000 of them, good odds, and we'd stand there and we'd pass out tracts, and you know what?

You know the only people who said to us, you're wasting your time. Those people, they've already got their faith, they've already got their beliefs, you don't worry about those folks.

It was the Armenians who told us that. Armenians weren't standing outside those gates, or if they did show up, they were just there to sort of make a mess of things and then go away.

They weren't there every single time like we were, because you see, we recognize that God has his people in every tribe, tongue, people, nation.

It is our glory and it is our blessing to be able to take the message, and will there be times when people reject it?

Yes. Is God not glorified in those times? No, my friends.

We need to realize that God is glorified even when his truth is rejected, when we speak his truth with clarity,

God is glorified in that, and if we don't get a hold on that, we are going to be silent Christians in a society under the judgment of God.

We need to recognize that God is glorified when we speak his truth plainly and to his glory.

The response is in his hand. The response is the work of the Holy Spirit of God, but God was glorified even when people responded to Paul's message by dragging him outside the city and stoning him.

And the day may come, my friends, when we will have to count the cost for speaking truth even in our own land.

And if we are not convinced that God is glorified, if we are not convinced that the reason we go is because God commands it, we'll stop going.

The fluffy evangelicalism of our society will not be overly evangelistic when it will triple your taxes for opening your mouth about Jesus.

We need to get hold of these things. 2 Corinthians chapter 2 verse 14 and following,

Now thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of his knowledge in every place.

For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.

To the one we are the aroma of death to death, to the other the aroma of life to life. And who is sufficient for these things?

Both are an aroma to God. When we preach to those who will not believe and to those who will believe,

God is glorified in that effort. But we don't know which one is which.

And we cannot dare to take God's position in thinking that we can make that determination.

And that's what gives us boldness. Friends, I teach in a Southern Baptist seminary and I see young men whose spirits are crushed because they're put under such a burden to use unbiblical methodologies and in essence to edit the gospel.

To get rid of those things that are offensive to the natural man. And there is a tremendous liberty when you come to realize that the gospel is ours to proclaim not to edit.

And we can trust the spirit of God to apply his truth to his people. We don't have to hold back.

We can speak the whole counsel of God just as Brother King said earlier and the only reason that any one of us could ever go to bed at night with a clear conscience is because we like Paul have not held anything back.

We have proclaimed the whole counsel of God and that way we can say, I am innocent.

I am clean of the blood of every man because I have fulfilled my duty as an ambassador for Christ.

I have proclaimed his truth. I see what happens in churches when because of a push to have artificial numbers.

Get a bunch of people through the baptistry. 90 % of them you'll never see again. You've just turned them into religious hypocrites.

But you get them through there. I've seen what happens when that kind of methodology crushes the spirits of young men.

And somebody has to stand up and say enough! No more! That is a pulpit crime of immense proportions.

Everyone wants to be successful evangelistically. Every Christian wants to see the evangelistic success.

What we need to do is redefine success in terms James just laid out that the Bible teaches. When the gospel is proclaimed accurately, honestly, passionately representing

Jesus Christ, men are called to repent and believe. That is success. However, I think that the hook that is in so many of the church growth strategies and all the new techniques that come out is just this point.

Look how many people can be decisioned or brought in or however the terminology is. How many decisions you can get.

And everybody wants to see people converted. Every Christian does. And so the confidence becomes rested upon a strategy or a technique or a program.

And we've got the biblical answer to that. And that's election. God has a people who will be saved.

And that ought to give us incredible boldness and confidence and joy because we know that our evangelistic efforts are not going to be in vain.

Even if I never see anyone turn from sin and trust

Jesus Christ in my lifetime in my evangelistic efforts. I mean Adoniram Judson, William Carey both labored seven years before the first convert that they saw in Burma or in India.

Seven years. Now imagine what would have happened to them if they had stopped at six and a half because of discouragement.

They kept sowing. They kept watering. They kept preaching. And both of them did so because of their conviction that God had a people among those at that time called heathen nations and that they were the instruments to bring the gospel to God's elect of those nations.

That needs to be our attitude. And when that catches hold of us man, we'll go because we know

God's got people he's going to save. Amen. Well I hope this has been of use to you.

I now have to ask all of you to resign your temporary memberships at Liberty University. If you do not, you will be receiving a bill in the mail for the tuition and you will faint.

However, aren't there degrees that will be received in the mail too? Yes, yes. You will get something in the mail at some point except for Chris because he laughed at my, didn't laugh at my joke.

So I hope this has been of use to you. Brother Mike, I'm not sure where we're going from here but I'm going to close this session with a word of prayer and then turn it over to someone to give you some direction.

Let us pray together. Father, we do thank you for this time and we do thank you for your gospel. And we do thank you that your word continuously calls each new generation to God -centeredness.

We cannot help but read your word and hear the call to glorify you, not ourselves.

To be emptied of ourselves, to have no boasting but anyone in you. We thank you that your word is clear and we can trust that you, by your spirit, will always safeguard your truth.

We are all called as we are called in this generation to speak your truth and we seek to do so here.

But Father, in that speaking of your truth, may we always rejoice in the gospel of grace.