March 23, 2006

So the Phoenix, Arizona, this is the dividing line The Apostle Peter commanded

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation if you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll free across the

United States It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 and now with today's topic

Here is James white and welcome to the dividing line on a

Thursday afternoon We are sort of flying by the seat of our pants today because this will in fact

Be hopefully is am I not correct? This should be it for doing this here, right?

Yep. This is it Soon as like I said before as soon as we get done with this webcast

We're gonna be uh, he knows the echo in the room in my room, too Yeah This is banging out the shells here but we've been you know getting ready to undo all the bailing wire and the duct tape and take the chewing gum off and Some of it's gotten pretty crusty over the years.

Yeah. Well, you know a sharp knife takes care of everything Yeah, I'm echoing this.

Yes. I know. I know. Hey, you know I was thinking about doing one dividing line down there before we put the window in Everybody just here, you know you on the phone and you know, the echoing and the whole nine yards.

I'd be sort of fun. Yeah, really Yeah, they don't know that we use a voice synthesizer for you

Just turn this knob right here and I sound wonderful. Yes Okay. Thank you.

Very much. Okay. Anyway Get serious here for a little while. I do have the

Dr. Davis Sermon all ready to go here. I love these cue things these these things

I've come up with have these neat cues And allows me to just this is just going to be wonderful when

I do more of this stuff in the future But anyways, I do have that However, I have a few other things that we we need to take care of before we get started today

First very quickly as I said on the program on the blog that's a program too

But it's a different kind of program. But anyways, as I said on the blog I wanted to very very briefly and I do mean very briefly just make a comment again a program today in regards to theological meditations the theological meditations blog

I It was interesting the fellow who let me know about this

Later told me that this this Tony fellow had tried to get hold of me But couldn't and then all of a sudden we realized

I had gotten an email from Tony and it was In fact, I'd even looked at his blog article where he had said something about my

Possible future debate with Ergon the canner and From Liberty University and I had looked at that But we we got

I don't know how many dozens of emails myself that were forwarded to me

During that period of time about things and so I I couldn't respond every single one of them But anyway, someone directed me to an article posted

I guess yesterday Morning or sometime yesterday. It's dated Wednesday, March 22nd the results of white's systematic

Isogesis seen Isogesis misspelled And it was I very quickly yesterday morning just threw up One paragraph on Revelation chapter 5 and I did so in what context anybody who listens this program knows the context is dealing with Dave hunts and and people who who are constantly attacking reform theology in the concept of the redeeming work of Christ being perfect in and of itself so on so forth and then

Yesterday we got a note from a fellow named Steve and and he was disagreeing with what I was saying And and I responded that on my blog and so I looked at this one the guy was saying well, you know, this guy is is obviously has much better arguments and I start reading it and First of all,

I recognize the source of these arguments, but I just can't begin to understand why in the world this particular individual has to Why address these issues with with acid in your pen?

Why why be so nasty? I don't understand and sadly in in a couple of comments that have gone back and forth afterwards

It doesn't seem that he recognizes that closing his article with with with these words just and they're the ones

I put on the blog but the theological and biblical ramifications on these subjects are quite profound whites warped thinking warps biblical passages and such flawed and fanciful reasoning soon affects

Behavior and attitude we should be fair with the plain testimony of scripture as well as fair to our opponents white lacks both of these

Christ -like qualities in his post today Thus his eisegesis is seen now.

There's a bunch of problems there to be perfectly honest with you I mean even you know That would not prove eisegesis one way or the other but the point is

White lacks both of these Christ -like qualities. I mean It is very frustrating for me given the fact that I see people utilizing horrible forms of argumentation

Against cults and isms and things like that that I refuse to use. I won't do it I mean some of my books on Mormonism have not been in print as long as others and the reason was

I Refused to use sensationalism I bend over backwards to be accurate and so to have someone who to my knowledge has has never tried to To dialogue with me or didn't send this to me and say what do you think about this before him to have someone?

You know take a swipe like that without any foundation, especially since they missed so much what I was saying in the first place It was just like why what?

The Internet has has really given a platform For people just simply to make themselves look silly because they won't think about what they say

I mentioned in channel that the Internet gives us the opportunity of expressing our stupid impulses far too quickly

It used to be you actually had to have an editor, you know read things who would come back to you and go You know, do you really want to say that?

do you really want to you know, make that kind of an assertion and so on and so forth and and so It was it was very frustrating that that primarily this person doesn't seem to recognize

His own lack of Being fair and just simply attacking people and his use of ad hominem

He doesn't see it to be ad hominem for some odd reason, but just a couple things This particular individual is promoting a particular view of the atonement that Misunderstands first of all what

I was saying he keeps assuming that when I talk about for example People who want an atonement that doesn't atone that I'm talking about him

I wasn't anybody can read the context. Who am I talking about? Who am I talking about the program today? Dr.

Davis who who will by playing here in just a few moments Dave Hunt and Those are people that I'm talking about I'm talking about the people who want to promote a universal atonement that actually atones for nobody and has no purpose in its atonement

And so first of all ignores that as if somehow I'm I'm writing this to To Emeraldians or or people who have slightly different viewpoints in regards to issues on on the subject atonement

And of course, I'm not doing it then For example, he says in this first statement whites reactionary mentality is quickly seen in other words

I'm responding to a particular perspective and since I'm not responding to his that makes me a reactionary person

He describes the positions that differ from his own Actions described in one position as positing a hypothetical

Savior. What's the alternative an actual Savior? So Who were actually saved when

Christ died? We're all the elect saved when Christ died of so then we have salvation or justification prior to faith now immediately

I stop and I go excuse me, but I've dialogued Dr. Spence and I had a dialogue on this last year and and it ended with a ball in my court

I've I've mentioned many times this program. I have a whole list of subjects I want to get back to I want to respond to Jimmy Aiken the priesthood.

I want to finish that Discussion atonement with Eric Spence and but folks I would just ask you look at any active apologist today

Look at my debate stage the schedule for this year and tell me anybody who is doing more than I'm doing.

I Don't see anybody doing what I'm doing. We're very very busy. We're moving our offices there's just not enough time to get it all done and so I've addressed this before if anyone would read my books

They know that I've addressed this issue and that I've addressed the ordo salutis both logically and temporally

It's just very frustrating when I put one paragraph up for a memory verse All right,

I'll go after this. Why don't you go after something worthwhile Tony? Why don't you? Why don't you go after something, you know, that's got some depth to it, you know, like maybe a book

You know like the book on justification or something. How about that do you know something? It's at least a couple pages long rather than a single paragraph

You know, he later on, you know talks about eternal justification. I've Rejected that I've written about that he very

Condescendingly and and I would say very nastily at one point quotes from Hodge and questions. Whatever even read

Hodge I had quoted that particular section in a book in 1990 I mean it just the number of things just absolutely make you just just want to scream and And basically suppose you see you just you're just not keeping the proper balance which evidently he has

Between the prescribed and the decreed wills of God Well, okay. Let's say

I don't have Tony's exact view of These particular issues have I not discussed both of them

Have I not many times for example said that God commands all men everywhere to repent and that there is a

Prescriptive will of God and that it is very clear that we are to operate on the basis of that and not on the basis

Of what we assume to be the decree of God, which we can't know how many times have

I said that I've said it over And over and over again does Tony care doesn't doesn't seem to Because he doesn't know anything about me

He doesn't know me doesn't know my teaching and doesn't seem to care to find out That's why

I contrasted in a in a comment on his blog. I Would I think it'd be very helpful to folks if you would look at this article and I've been noticing that the hit counter on His it's a he can be very very thankful That that I've lent him readers because it was around I think 44 50 this morning

There's been a hundred and sixteen hits in the past 11 minutes, it's up to 51 16 I'm sure that it'll be an all -time record for him today because I linked to him

You're you're welcome Tony for that help, but I would I would Invite you to look at this kind of Rhetoric that he throws out here attacking my character questioning my integrity questioning

My my reading my understanding all the rest of stuff without any references, of course to any of my published works

And compare that with when I responded to dr. Mark Seyfried Started a huge explosion, but it was for the same

Reason as we've got this thing going on here. I never attacked. Dr. Seyfried's character I never had to say he lacked

Christ like characteristics. I did not have to question whether dr Seyfried had read

Charles Hodge. I did not have to use these little Insults to get my point across you just that shows a tremendous disrespect to the

Word of God It shows its tremendous disrespect knowledge of the person, but let's leave the person out It leaves it shows a tremendous disrespect to the

Word of God and to theology itself There's not a whole lot of respect being shown for the theology the way it's being handled within the blogosphere today

Let's just let's just face it Theological issues like Here that the will of God are being treated like the current

Political firestorm in the blogosphere a lot of people carry the exact same kind of attitude from one to the other and that shouldn't be it just shouldn't be and so I've mentioned a number of these things one of them just absolutely blew me away was while trying

Improperly and and just simply without any Basis to say that I Collapse the prescriptive will into the decretal will

He quotes for me when I when I mentioned The Lord Jesus Christ doing the will of the

Father Here it is Dr. White is actually similar to the

Arminians in his reactionary Rationalistic which is misspelled and lopsided thingy by the way I keep saying that because I have a rule if you're gonna insult somebody at least spell your insults correctly, okay?

I mean, I think that's just the least you can do if you're gonna insult somebody Run spellcheck, okay, you know something along those lines

Anyways, dr. White is actually similar to the Arminians in his reactionary rash irrationalistic and lopsided thinking

Each party posits a rationalistic false dilemma ie either the revealed will or the decreed will dr White goes with the decreed as the real will and thus says the

Savior perfectly does the will and then parentheses He identifies will with the decree parentheses close of the father

Actually, Tony. I was quoting John 6 38 through 39. So was John doing that?

Maybe maybe somehow, you know, you know John's thought life as well there's a bunch of stuff in here that seemed to indicate that this man somehow knows what

I think and He doesn't because I don't know this man, and he does not know me And I would appreciate if he wouldn't act as if he does because he doesn't

And if you don't recognize John 6 38 to 39 Because you've been spending so much time reading, you know

Australian theologians or something like that That's a really really bad thing. So it was sad to read it

What a waste there is so Much that needs to be done out there people people like this who has seemingly have so much time on their hands

Why aren't they the ones that are doing research into people like Shabir Ali?

Why aren't they writing responses to him? Why aren't they dealing with Islam and the rise of Islam?

Why aren't they going after the why are they going after me? I don't understand it. It just It's a

Discernment is gone. It's just it's just gone. There's it's it's it's a sad sad thing to say if you want something to even sadder

I was directed to this we're gonna go. I'm gonna try to hit this fairly quickly move right into the

Davis sermon Dave hunts back at it again and I Almost hesitate to even play this.

I really do I Don't even know if I'm gonna play the whole thing at seven minutes long and we've heard all this before but is just Over and over and over again.

The man will not accept correction He just keeps repeating the same

Exploded myths over and over and over and I just don't understand.

I don't see how And and I'm almost one of the only people

Who will dare to say anything like this about him Because he's got his card. See you you see that it is almost within the quote -unquote apologetic community monks evangelicals

Especially or non -reformed people you don't criticize people like Dave hunt. They've earned The right to say what they want to say, even if it is completely and totally wrong.

I Mean there are some certain people who've come after me over the past couple years and the only reason they've done it

There's only one reason You're they or someone they're related to is on Dave hunts board.

Oh You don't think there's politics in the countercult ministries Why do you think we don't even get we don't even get up get involved with that kind of stuff

Because we just just don't want it I don't I don't want the politics I don't want to have to worry about who says what to whom

I Just I don't don't even want to go there. I just Is not even worth it.

So anyways Yeah, no,

I've got Got too much to okay. Let's uh, let's try to listen to at least part of it what

I wanted There's a caller who has it has a question visions one three and it's asking

Dave hunt to deal with Ephesians one if any of you've read debating Calvinism, you know that I Couldn't get him to deal with Ephesians one either

So, let's see what happens in this regular feature Dave and Tom respond to questions from listeners and readers of the

Berean call Here's this week's question Dear Dave and Tom. I recently read a verse in Ephesians that seems to support the views

I've heard from some of my Calvinist friends. I don't consider myself a five -point

Calvinist Although I tend to agree with them on the fifth point perseverance of the

Saints related to eternal security How do you understand God choosing us as it is stated in Ephesians chapter 1 verses 3 through 7?

Dave now all I'm gonna do in this segment here is just read the verse because I don't want to get involved here because I know if I do

I'm gonna get letters and They're usually you know from our

Calvinist friends out there. They're usually 17 pages or more. Okay, so to avoid that 17 pages or more remember the

Calvinist control the entire book publishing industry to and you'll never have a book published again if the Calvinists come after you

Tom For those of you haven't heard this before I've played Dave hunt speaking about how

I and the Calvinist control the the publishing industry and we kill loyal publishing Yeah, okay,

I'm just gonna read the scripture, and I'm gonna let you get all the mail, okay, you don't mind that do you Oh, that's fine, Tom blessed be this is

Ephesians chapter 1 and pick up with verse 3 Blessed be the

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Who have blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ?

According as he hath chosen. I think these are this is an important one He hath chosen us in him in him for the foundation of the world or yes

Those we should be holy and without blame, which is all salvation love Having predestinated us soon.

That's another one. Yep. They're concerned about. Oh, yeah having predestinated us unto the adoption

Adoption is not a key phrase the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself

According to the good pleasure Of his will we've heard that before and not according to what they do the praise of the glory of his grace wherein he hath made

Us accepted in the Beloved that's in Christ in whom we have redemption through his blood only in him the forgiveness of sin

That's the elect. Yep according to the riches of his grace. There you go. Take it Dave Well now there you go these are chapter 1

Let's listen to the in -depth exegetical handling provided by David We don't have time to deal with the word chosen even in John 6

Jesus says have not I chosen you 12 and one of you is a devil. So everybody that is chosen does not

It doesn't work out Dave the Israelites chosen people and not all of them

Are gonna be with the Lord forever Hey I haven't heard the exegesis yet.

I don't think that that passage is contextually parallel to Ephesians 1

No one says that chosen means the same thing in every single context or at least they shouldn't unless you're one of those folks

It just does a you know Strong's exhaustive concordance means of exegesis or something like that So not really sure what that had to do with anything here in Ephesians chapter 1.

He's talking about real believers Predestinated unto the adoption of children according to his good pleasure

See we could be saved Tom without becoming the children of God Now to catch that we could be saved without becoming the children of God now

He's mentioned that before he's gonna explain here a little bit later on what he's saying is Adoptionist children is a blessing beyond salvation.

I I It's always struck me That what he was actually saying is you can be a

Christian without being adopted I Think he tries to modify that here

Let's let's let's let him say so all these things that he's talking about. Can you explain that balance?

I'm not sure I got that No, what's what is the issue? The issue is we've broken

God's law. We've rebelled against him now. He could forgive us That doesn't make us his children

Are you following me? Well, I thought if we're if we're saved if we're born again, aren't we?

Oh, no, we got a misunderstanding going here. Of course. We are the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus Mm -hmm, but God didn't have to make us his children in order to forgive us.

That's all I'm saying. I get you right now Okay, but what does that have to do with anything in Ephesians 1?

We've gone we've gone two minutes now and so far there is nothing About the background

Ephesians 1 the flow of the text the meaning of the words. There's no exegesis here. I But it gets worse he could have saved this without you know

We're still nice people in the garden or something But he wanted to make us his children adopt us into his family

So when you have predestination or choosing election and so forth It's always unto some blessing not unto salvation now there stop it right there.

Stop it He has made the statement for years In Debating Calvinism I quoted a statement and Then I cited 2nd

Thessalonians 2 13 We should always give thanks to God for you brother and beloved by the Lord because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation

Through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth, and then I pointed out never was this text cited in All of what love is this?

Not once Now who wrote the rebuttal to that? Because in the rebuttal it's like well, you know it doesn't really matter

There's all these other verses, but how can he keep saying? Chosen predestined is never to salvation when 2nd

Thessalonians 2 13 says chosen you from the beginning for salvation How can you keep saying that?

It's wrong. It's a lie. It's a falsehood You've been informed of this unless you didn't write debating

Calvinism and whoever did write debating Calvinism didn't bother to tell you this Dave It's wrong, it's a lie stop cease -desist

I mean What's the difference between misrepresenting this as if it's not there and misrepresenting something like the deity of Christ or the resurrection or something?

Is that are those somehow more important than then the 2nd Thessalonians 2 13? how

How does he get away with this? Why aren't there board members coming up to him and going cease and desist and stop misrepresenting the

Bible? It says it right here deal with it He's been corrected, but he just keeps repeating the same things honestly,

I don't know if if you took what he's saying today and Took it back to that first encounter.

We had on on Kpxq and you just played segments side -by -side could most people even tell the difference over those years remember

That's the one he started off saying I've never read the Reformers Could anyone really tell the difference I don't know if they could for example

Romans chapter 8 those whom he foreknew he predestined to be conformed to the image of his son

He didn't have to make us nothing about think about this just for a moment This man is actually saying you can be predestined to the image of his son, but that has nothing to do with salvation

Think about that for a moment Amazing how can Him like Jesus so predestination is always according to foreknowledge first Peter chapter 1 elect according to the foreknowledge

And of course we know how many times has Dave hunt been challenged on the difference between for no verb and for knowledge now

Over and over again now. Do you see why Dave hunt won't debate this issue now? Do you see why he's hiding why he's afraid to debate this issue?

Because he could not answer a challenge on this and therefore his position collapses He'd have to answer second

Thessalonians 213 he can't he'd have to answer the difference between foreknowledge or not He can't he'd have to answer for his mistakes in Acts 13 48.

He can't Hebrew originals he can't coin the New World Translation. He can't first John 5 1 he can't

I mean the list goes on and on and on and on and on and he knows that and And if he knows that there's only one response that any

Christian should have and that is I repent of my errors I've been wrong about these things and you know, then you go on.

Oh just logically Why does foreknowledge even have to enter into it because it's talking about those that God knew would be saved

Which is not just picking some people to go to heaven and some people to go to hell Foreknowledge has has nothing to do with it

Man if real problem chooses some for salvation and some for hell And there's nothing you can do about it.

And there's nothing you can do about it again the same error We're gonna see in in Davis Nothing you can do about you're just this poor innocent person

I mean, you're not really a rebel sinner and God wouldn't be just to bring his judgment against all of humanity

Well, actually he does say that but but then he doesn't you know live in light of what he says and this is all

Everything works according to his will then why did Jesus say that we should pray thy will be done?

Now why why would Jesus do that? It's not like no one's ever answered this for Dave, but he won't listen or accept what we have to say.

I Any of the stuff that's under his name he's got a ghostwriter someplace and Everything I wrote just went right past him and he never saw it.

And so he's just repeating what he's said all along or He's desperately dishonest one of the two.

It's like only two choices. Can anyone suggest a choice other than that? I can't think of one How many times has be he been answering this?

How many times have we discussed the issue of? Prayer and why why should he pray if God's already doing everything he can it's all up to mankind

You should be praying to man not to God We pray to be put in line with God's will we pray to be changed.

We pray out of obedience to God We pray because the Holy Spirit drives us to do so not to try to change

God Well, anyways, I can't stand much. I can't say more. There's more of it. But I just yeah, it's just it's

It's just so sad to see somebody who has been corrected over and over and over and over and over again

Absolutely, just repeating every possible error again and again and again again, it's it's just sad

So anyway, let's go back with At least someone that's uh, I can't prove has been corrected anyways

Dr. Davis and his sermon why he's not a five -point Calvinist is to two sermons we're about let me see here 11 minutes and 28 seconds into the first one and He's defining the five points of Calvinism may recall we got through the

T and the you Last time and now we're picking up with the dreaded terrible horrible

L the L in to look stands for limited atonement

Meaning that the atonement for sin That Jesus accomplished on the cross was limited to only those

God elected to save and is not and cannot be effective for anyone else that The elected

Jesus died for them, but he died for no one else. The atonement was limited to just those he chooses to say now not a thousand percent in error

But certainly not something that any of us would want to say Well here isn't here is an excellent example of what the doctor limits of atonement is

Because of course we know that everyone in some way shape or form limits the atonement outside of universalists the question is

The real issues that need to be brought up even as we saw in the article attacking me this morning was can we address issues of intention and Result in regards to the work of Christ.

What is the nature of substitution? Was the nature of the union of the elect of God with Christ in regards to his sacrificial death issues?

Like that now, of course Dr. Davis is not a universalist and that would mean that he limits the effect of the atonement because he would affirm the

Substitutionary atonement of Christ in behalf of every single individual human being but he would limit the effect that it does not make

Salvation a certainty it does not mean that there will come a time in the experience of every single individual when they will experience the salvation and in fact it does raise the issue of double jeopardy the fact that the wrath of God has been poured upon Christ and That very same wrath will be experienced by the person in hell the same sins in essence punished twice in behalf of Those particular individuals and he will affirm later on I believe

I did put this in one of the clips That God does know the future without any question He's not an open theist and so God knew that Person X was going to die in their sins and yet knowing that person

X was going to die in their sins and that there is No possibility. He was not going to die in his sins rejecting

Christ. Let's say knowingly rejecting Christ yet despite all of that despite those facts

God the Father placed the sins of that person Upon Jesus Christ and made him suffer for those sins to no end knowing completely

That there would be no redemption as a result of that that becomes the result now has dr

Davis ever had any anyone point that out to him? I don't know I Don't know I Have no way of knowing but I'm putting it out now and I would like to think that he would at least give

Consideration to do that kind of stuff Dr. James Trumpton told how a preacher friend of his began preaching that Jesus blood wasn't shed for everybody

And then a friend said to him, but so -and -so You know that you're the elect and that the blood was shed for you

But how are you going to ever prove to your little daughter that the blood was shed for her also?

Can you prove to her that she is one of the elect now? There's an excellent example

From my perspective of the fact that the vast majority of Objections to limited atonement are actually on the part of most people especially

Those holding to this type of inconsistent Viewpoint that's dr. Davis holds to because he's gonna hold to a form of the

P as we will see later on a form of you know evangelistic Eternal security

Clearly does not understand what the reform position is that but anyway, we'll get that at a moment That the vast majority their objections are not to the subject of limited atonement

They are to the subject of unconditional election And that's why when I meet a lot of people who call themselves four -point

Calvinist most of the time I just start with the assumption unless they immediately start quoting

Amaraldian arguments to me. I'm I'm going to assume that I'm actually talking to maybe a one -point a four -point

Arminian really The vast majority of folks who call themselves four -pointers are not

Because when you start listening to why they don't accept particular redemption They're actually arguing against unconditional election, and they actually believe in free will and so once you get rid of unconditional action so the property you're certain

I can believe in irresistible grace and now you're a four -point Arminian at that particular point in time so That that's a very very common error.

That is that is made at that particular point in time. You're arguing about You know how can you know your little daughters of the elect well again?

No one is claiming that we know who the elect are That's one of the errors in regards to that earlier article that I was referring to We don't have that knowledge concerning who the elect are we can't function on that we can only function upon the prescriptive will of God what he's revealed in his word or to preach the gospel to all people and to sit around wringing our hands and and and You know playing one string on our banjo and and just just focusing upon this one little thing and trying to figure out well

You know what if a person isn't elect then what's God's attitude here, and and what about this on?

It's ridiculous. Just do what the Word of God commands you to do We're to proclaim the gospel to all people we accept what the

Word of God has to say you go on from there So anyways now Here the next one is what happens when you don't read

Charles Haddon Spurgeon for yourself, and you follow Dave hunt You follow him right over the cliff now

This is the one this third point is the one of the four points with which many

Calvinistic preachers such as Charles Spurgeon a disagreed Well as we all know that's not true we have if you go back in the archives you will even find a

Dividing line I forget how many years ago. It was now some some time before or after the year 2000 where I Read the entirety of Spurgeon one of Spurgeon sermons just one of the

Spurgeon sermons where he specifically lays out and defends the particular redeeming work of Christ and The quotation in Hunt's book

Hunt knows it's wrong. He refuses to accept his error It refuses to admit his error all he's managed to do

Because a lot of people have really pointed this out to me you couldn't be any more wrong than he then he most clearly is all he's done in essence is to Say well first he said

Spurgeon unequivocally Now what is unequivocally without? contradiction without qualification unequivocally

Denied the doctrine limits atonement in reality. He was quoting from a sermon where Spurgeon identified that doctrine as Christian Doctrine and in fact in describing the concept of universal redemption said you can have your atonement.

I don't want it It's the exact opposite. He was 100 a degrees wrong Couldn't be any wronger.

Okay. I know runners on work and So now what he says in the current edition of his book and he's got about another edition to try to take out all the silliness about original

Hebrew In fact, we need to check we need to check and see if and someone needs to write to the

Bree and call and see if There's a new edition out that doesn't have references to the original Hebrew of Acts 13 In it because it'd be interesting to see what other

Undocumented changes take place but how many other errors are are fixed and replaced with more errors without footnote

But that's just sort of how things are done up there But now it says that that Spurgeon contradicted himself now folks

Contradicting yourself and unequivocally denying something are not the same thing. They're not the same thing words have meaning and So I would just there's just one of those examples and when you when you don't read the original source for yourself

It gets you in lots of trouble as it did there. Well, let's move on with irresistible grace the

I in tulip stands for Irresistible grace, which means that God Sovereignly works so that the elect have no choice

But to willingly receive his grace at some point in their lives It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else does or doesn't do the elect will somehow

Some way sometime receive God's grace and everyone else is going to be damned to hell.

That is Irresistible grace the elect are going to get saved. That's all there is to it well

Did you catch something they have no choice, but they willingly receive Again you have to feel sorry for someone whose

Primary theological knowledge of Calvinism has been mediated by the muddled thinking of Dave Hunt He's he's going to spend and in fact, we're coming up on a section here pretty much minutes 16 to 24 about eight minutes

Just just hammering away, oh good. Thank you the channel librarian

Marie P has noted that the dividing line for August 10th 2002

I read the entirety of the 16 chapters Spurgeon's autobiography which the citation found what love is this was derived and So on so forth so there's the the day on that one if you want to track it down Anyone who needs any bit of human knowledge anywhere just to ask here and Marie will find it for you anyway

Hunt he's going to be hammering away here on the idea that Calvinism denies that man has a will denies that man makes a choice and Of course that is a canard.

It's untrue Man makes choices every day. The problem is what

Jesus taught in John chapter 8 what Paul taught in Romans chapter 8, but we see throughout the text of Scripture and That is that man's will is enslaved to sin

Man is fallen Say all you want about Adam. We know very little about Adam How much how much information we have about Adams life prior to the fall?

Can be counted in the note in a small number of words, but the fact the matter is none of us are

Adam and We are all in a fallen state as The fallen sons of Adam we are enslaved to sin okay, our will still exists a slave has a will

But the choice that the range of choices available to that will is greatly limited when you are a slave in chains is it not

That's Jesus own teaching he who commits sin is the slave of sin now Norman Geisler actually seems to suggest in his book that slaves can just simply choose to be free

But is that really the nature of slavery? Would that be how anyone reading the

New Testament would have interpreted that particular phraseology? Well, of course not and when you add to that the phraseology of being dead in sin

Unable to come to Christ John 644 unable to do what is pleasing to God Romans 8 5 to 6

Then you start to see inability comes from this slavery So it is not in any way shape or form that man does not make choices

In fact, I have made a choice to follow Jesus Christ I Have made the choice to follow

Jesus Christ There is no question about that The question is how was I enabled to do so and why does my choice at that point continue to this day?

Why do I continue to follow Christ what is the nature of saving faith? these are the issues we should be addressing and most the time are not because only one side wants to monologue and not dialogue and That's why debates are so useful because you can go off on those things

But as soon as I say excuse me stop that that's misrepresentation I believe this now let's talk about that all of a sudden now you've actually got to deal with the actual positions being presented and That's not something a lot of people want to do it.

So he spends this entire time saying there's no choice. No choice No choice. No, we keep making the wrong choice

We make the choice to continue to suppress the knowledge of God We continue to make the choice to be the sovereigns over our own lives

Unless we are freed from the slavery of sin unless that heart of stone is removed and a heart of flesh is put in That's why the

Bible uses that terminology so this whole section of the sermon just he goes through verse after verse after verse talking about choice as If somehow we don't believe that man can make choices

Well, what about choose you this day whom whom you will serve? That that the idea is well the implication is that must mean everyone is at a moral neutral point

So you've got your implied understanding over against the plain teaching

Lord Jesus Christ in John chapter 8 that if you commit sin you're the slave to sin

I Mean when he specifically is addressing this very issue He says why do you not understand what

I'm saying is because you don't belong to God those who belong to God hear my words the reason you do not hear my words is you do not belong to God and People with these thick evangelical glasses on read that and go and the reason you don't hear my words because you do not choose to Rather than what it actually says

Implications versus clear teaching. That's what you have So anyway, we we continue on After Irresistible grace

I Need to make sure that I didn't skip on there. Okay after irresistible grace, then we have the the

Well, I'll let you listen to it the P in tulip stands for perseverance of the

Saints which means that those who are truly God's Saints will persevere to the end and None of them will lose the salvation

God has given to them This point is the one that causes those who believe you can lose your salvation to call you and me

Calvinist have you ever had anybody called you a Calvinist because you believe in eternal security, but the truth is

You and I are not either Calvinist or Armenians I'm talking about what we believe is a church

We're neither Calvinist nor Armenians. We are Biblicist We believe the

Bible and what it says and as Bible believers who believe in eternal security

We don't really agree with the statement perseverance of the Saints I Haven't been saved for 45 years because I persevered

I've been saved all these years and never been lost because Jesus Preserved me and if you're saved you're saved for the same reason

Jude verse 1 says Jude to them that are sanctified by God the Father and preserved in Jesus Christ First Peter 1 5 refers to the saved who are kept by the power of God Preacher friends will call me sometime and say how you doing and I have this little thing.

I do all the time I do it with some years. Well, I'm still saved And I say well, that's wonderful. And I said what's not because of anything

I've done I won't tell you if it's up to me. I would have lost my salvation many many times and so would you

Well, then my question is is fairly obvious How can Christ keep us without violating the very free will that he couldn't violate to get us saved in the first place if Christ was dependent upon this free will to get us saved

How does he not remain dependent upon that free will to keep us saved now, of course

Anybody who knows the actual situation knows that the representation just made of reformed theology again shows tremendous ignorance but it's because the fact that again, dr.

Davis is depending upon Dave Hunt and As we've pointed out Dave Hunt doesn't understand the doctrine of the

Perseverance Saints He takes the the Wilkins Zane Hodges anti lordship. There can be no such thing as a false faith viewpoint and therefore has a has has a really a tremendously warped view of The nature of the relationship of the believer to Christ in the first place

We do not believe that we are that our perseverance is what saves us We believe that the only reason we are persevering is because Christ has kept us by the power of grace

The reason that I persevere in the faith, of course is because of John 6 38 to 39 the son will raise up all

Those the father gives to him. He will not fail in his task of being the perfect Savior there's no question of any of that and it's a complete misrepresentation of the reformed viewpoint to Believe that to say perseverance of the

Saints means means it's my persevering that saves me Means that we don't believe that we're kept by grace that again is pure ignorance but the problem is it also comes from this this

Hodges Wilkin as Zane Hodges a Wilkin viewpoint that there does not have to be any evidence of my perseverance

There doesn't have to be any evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit Inside in the life of the believer and that's why they don't use that terminology.

Now, of course we would say that the evidence that we give our election

Titus chapter 2 verses 11 following the entirety of 1st John is all prompted by and comes from the work of the

Holy Spirit of God It does not add to our righteous standing before God we stand clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but Why why misrepresent the other side?

well Because it's the only way you can because the book that you've been depending upon for all of your information in point of fact is

Is really really bad and so what you may recall yesterday Not yesterday

Tuesday that He started off his sermon talking about this this and I'm you know now to think about I may not even played it

But he started off the sermon talking about this missionary who became reformed while he was out on the mission field I think

I did play it now think about it and he goes back to discussing him here for just actually about about two minutes

There was a missionary that our church supported for several years one of the finest preachers I've ever heard

I have all of our missionaries. We asked him to fill out a questionnaire I have his questionnaire that was filled out probably ten years ago or longer in my hands right now and On the questionnaire one of the key questions we ask of every missionary is this

Explain your position briefly concerning predestination and election. Here's the way this man answered ten years ago

Christ in his omniscience knew before the foundation of the world who would receive him Ephesians 1 4 with this wisdom

He predestinated us Romans 8 29 to be conformed to his image that we might be like Christ I believe that God is not willing that any should perish 2nd

Peter 3 9 and that he would have all men to be saved and to come into the knowledge of the truth and therefore

I Must take the gospel to every creature. I said praise God. That's fine

I can handle that Then he got on the mission field. Somebody sent him some of the five -point

Calvinism Material and books and pamphlets and so on and I hold in my hands right now his new paper on his testimony of his study of quote the sovereignty of God and how he came to Not believe what he used to believe and changed his doctrine completely as soon as we found it out

Of course, we had to stop his support But he had gotten some information and there was a telephone number

He said if you're interested in call me call me at this number. I called him. He didn't call me back I called him again.

He didn't call me back Finally, I I called again didn't call me back. It was literally months before he finally called me back

Now in a little while I will tell you what I told him because he said if you'd like talk to me about these things

I'll be glad to talk to you about them And so I said there's some things I want to talk to you about these by then

I felt like it was already too late. He'd already cast his lot He had already lost the support of all the churches that believe the

Bible like we believe and and he had come back The United States was trying to find other churches that believe five -point

Calvinism in order to support Support himself. I cut that a little bit early.

Well, there you go. There's there's the viewpoint of this particular individual concerning You just got to cut him off just just got to cut him off you can't have something like that out there doing doing missionary works or a sad thing notice he's

Later on he's gonna say he's gonna make the assertion that Calvinism only appeals to intellectual people and since this guy was really smart.

That's what it was all about and blah blah blah blah blah blah What? Because I believe

Calvinism presents an unbiblical Unbalanced and distorted view of God Now we're still talking about same

God. I don't believe I don't now, you know where I came from, right? hopefully by now everyone knows that's the thesis statement of Dave Hunt's book and that's where I came from believe they're talking about a different God like Allah or somebody else but there this changes

Calvinism changes the character of God and you know what he's exactly right and Every single person who has embraced the doctrine of grace doctrines of grace knows that he is exactly right in other words

We've actually come to really wrestle with the holiness of God and his right

To dispose with his creatures as he will We have come to understand the depth of our sin and the height of his holiness

He is right. It is a Self -shattering thing to come to understand what the

Bible says about these things. There's no question about but what it's changing is a man -centered unbiblical view of the doctrine of God which you find in the inconsistent

Arminianism being presented by dr. Davis to the biblical Understanding of the holiness and sovereignty of God and his grace found in the scriptures

Deuteronomy 10 17 says for the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords a great

God I'm mighty and a terrible which regard if not persons nor taketh reward Ephesians 1 11 says

God. Let me just ask regard if not persons He's gonna say this later on after a few the second time, but the fact the matter is

Inconsistent Arminianism makes God a respecter of persons What does it mean to be a respecter of persons be a respecter of persons is to treat someone?

differently than someone else based upon what that person does or possesses and is that not the very essence of Synergism is that not the very essence of what dr.

Davis is defending in other words? Why is dr. Davis saved and someone else isn't he he was somehow better.

He was more Spiritually sensitive he he grew up in a Christian family. Maybe he was smarter he was well, he wouldn't say that even of himself it we're gonna play a clip later on but It's gotta be something in him.

It's not God the difference isn't in God The difference has to be in the creature in man

He's got to determine his own destiny as we're going to hear later on and so that makes God a respecter of persons that that he

Brings into his presence only those persons that do certain things that exhibit certain characteristics and So let's make it very clear even though it is very often asserted

That in reality it is Calvinism makes God a respecter of persons in reality when you think what it means to be respecter of persons

It's that's backwards that is not the case in any way shape or form it is inconsistent Arminianism That makes

God a respecter of persons worketh all things after the counsel of his own will

Psalm 115 verse 3 says but our God is in the heavens. He hath done whatsoever

He hath pleased amen now. Let me ask and answer a few questions here. You feel free to answer them with me

There's no trick questions here is our God a great God Yes Is our

God a sovereign Lord? Yes is our God Omnipotent or all -powerful?

Yes, is our God omniscient or all -knowing? Yes, does our

God know the past the present and the future? Yes, is our God righteous?

Yes, is our God just yes is our God truthful.

Yes is our God loving yes and All of those truths must be remembered all the time now the problem with that wonderful That wonderful series of confessions is is fairly obvious He needs to think through what that means what does it mean that God has all knowledge of future events

What does that mean? How does he have all knowledge of future events what does that mean in regards to the future is the future open

You know, I keep asking these questions You're all are thinking back probably to the Bible answer man broadcast when I kept asking these questions over and over and over again

But once Isaiah had prophesied that Cyrus was going to let the people of Israel go

Could Cyrus by his free will have turned God into a liar What's the basis of prophecy?

If God knows the future then where is this this libertarian free will where does it come from?

Could Cyrus have woken up that morning and Woke up with a real bad headache that's happened to me a number of times

You just you just lay wrong or something happens and you wake up and you just feel terrible

Because that he's angry at the Jews. So I'm not gonna let him go and even though Isaiah had prophesied it.

It doesn't it doesn't happen. So Could that have happened?

If not, why not? I try to get answers these things

You don't you just don't get a lot of a lot of interaction. You'll get a lot of responses It was like trying to get an answer to Genesis 50 20 or to Isaiah chapter 10 or to Acts 4 28 27 28 on the on the program a few years ago.

You just you don't get answers from these folks Because their system doesn't really provide them with an answer that they can offer to you and That's why we keep looking for debates because they bring you the opportunity of having

That kind of interaction and that's the important part. Well, we will continue on I only got about half

Half an hour in on the maybe even less than the Davis sermon, but Lord willing folks

Lord willing we're gonna try To be with you on Tuesday. We're gonna try but you got to realize that means is we have to Get an entire studio

Functional we got to put a window in and we've got to run wires and we've got to set stuff up and have a place for me to sit in the computer and a screen and Folks, there's a lot of stuff pray for us as we continue this.

It's a lot of work It's a tiring work, but it's getting there it's getting there and it's gonna in the long run