Norman Geisler's Sermon

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

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

Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White And welcome to the dividing line an unusual time

Thursday morning once again having to shift the schedule due to teaching and of course tomorrow the the trip begins and That means

Saturday evening first opportunity to meet some of you at Trinity Fellowship Church, I posted a new listing from Chris Arnzen via Carla of my trip and So you can get the information there and look forward to meeting all of you on the

East Coast during the next couple About eight days of speaking ten days of travel, but there's always a day at the beginning and day at the end

So that's how that's what's coming up looking forward that just a real quick thing before you get back to well your phone calls eight seven seven seven five three three three four one or to the

Norman Geisler sermon is I haven't really paid any much attention to it. I'm thankful that Turretin fan has pointed out the obvious, but evidently lots of folks listen very carefully, but with massive blinders on to almost everything that I say and Sunday morning opened up the synoptic of the synoptic synopsis of the synoptic

Gospels and We were in the section. That's a parallel between Luke and Matthew Regarding the statement of Jesus over Jerusalem, and so I took the time to talk about Matthew 23 37 the entire context of Matthew the abuse of Matthew by people like Norman Geisler and and others and Dave hunt and you just name them

George Bryson. They're all in that group so anyway, I at the beginning of Just a couple minutes in Made a brief reference

To some background. I'm attempting to explain to the class some of the background of current

New Testament studies And current past 50 years in New Testament studies and the fact that there is material

Especially in the Gospel of Matthew that is considered to be embarrassing by many in the

New Testament theology area because it's considered to be Antisemitic it says bad things about the

Jews and I mentioned the story for example of the passion film and editing out the

Subtitling under the statement of the Jews his blood be upon us and upon our children forever and and things like that so I was just giving some background as to how

Matthew 23 is viewed Matthew 23 is very harsh language and Just just give us a background stuff.

I was not addressing Roman Catholicism. I Was not attempting to create an argument about Roman Catholicism I was not arguing that Roman Catholicism is a bad bad thing based upon anything

I said here, but you would not believe Matthew Bellisario and I guess there's now a thread on the

Catholic answers website of the Forums all about How terrible

I am that I'm accusing the Catholics of having been involved with the death camps All I did

Look in 1940 in Germany if you were from northern Germany. What were you?

You were a Lutheran if you were from southern Germany. What were you you were a Catholic? That's all

I mean there were I even specifically said the the reason that there is this especially amongst

German theologians tremendous amount of guilt is The Lutheran and Catholic involvement of what happened in Germany this isn't even a disputable thing

Now isn't it amazing I can sit here, and and we can go through Remember we spent weeks going through my debates with Patrick Madrid point by point

Couple weeks going through the Bible answer man non -debate with Jimmy Akin going through point by point exegetical point by exegetical point these folks ever

Attempt to engage the original language text or anything like that new silent is can be but When we're not even talking about Roman Catholicism.

Oh, I can argue that point. Oh, I found something I can argue against It's amazing so I cued this up Just so we can hear what

I actually said Here's here's the whole thing Just just a couple moments from the

Sunday school class not a debate the Sunday school class and the subject Matthew 23 37 it's abused by Arminians But the

Catholics are listening and thought they could come up with something to beat me over the head with and it's just another

Illustration of why we sit here Does the phone ring does these people call in to demonstrate where I'm wrong no

They don't want to do that for some odd reason But they will hide behind their typewriters remember typewriters.

I stated myself And their keyboards well, it's typewriter connected to a computer that becomes a keyboard right and they will snipe and spit and stuff like that But will they debate oh?

No, no no no no here's here's what I said Matthew chapter 23 is probably one of the harshest texts in all the

New Testament This is not a politically correct text in today's

Theological world it's an embarrassing text because since and you again need to understand this since World War two and especially because of What happened in the

Holocaust and the German Lutheran and German Catholic? cooperation with that It has been rightly said that a large portion of the guards at Buchenwald and Auschwitz were practicing

Catholics There because of that there's been a backlash over the past 60 years to wear

Anything in the New Testament remember what happened with the the passion film now again? We we criticized the passion film roundly here even before it came out

Some of you may recall that but remember one thing that happened right toward the end

Was they took out? the citation actually all they did is they just took out the foot the the

What do you call it on the screen subtitling thank you because remember they had them speaking in Aramaic and So they were translating what was being said and when the

Jews say according to Matthew Let his blood be upon us upon our children forever well before the film came out they had that translated and I don't know did did you see it?

Follow enough to be able to know what they're saying you could even I knew enough to be able to tell what they were saying you could you could understand it in Aramaic, but they took out the subtitling because the

Jewish people who had viewed it in pre -release were just so Horrendously offended and that text in Matthew has been blamed for the that's that's why the holocaust took place

That's what created Hitler blah blah blah blah blah blah. That's what created the Crusades and you know the misuse this text has

Of course they don't call it the misuse of the text. They just blame it on the text so embarrassing

Bad wrong can't can't believe that scripture can't believe that that that that is in the

Bible Matthew was a bad man Etc, etc. That's where much of scholarship is today, so there's there was the whole thing

I'm talking about the fact that Modern New Testament scholarship embarrassed by Matthew and stuff like that and they have to pull that one thing out it reminds me of the

You know envoy magazine having to do an entire article out of footnote. I Figure if you folks can't touch the main body of what we're doing the 10 -foot pole

Then why don't you get the idea that that you're on the losing side of the truth battle here?

Just just amazing to me. It truly truly is You know I took on Tim Staples Massacre of 1st

Corinthians chapter 3 last week. Why don't why does it somebody Belisario? Demonstrate the what I'm saying about the

Greek text of 1st Corinthians chapter 3 is wrong. How about it Matthew, huh? Why don't you you internet snipers

Step up to the plate and do something serious This kind of stuff is just just pathetic.

That's that's the only term to use a simple Simply pathetic you know what else is pathetic is when you have to Attack people like turreted fan and say well.

He's he's like an Obama press secretary You know and stuff like that. Maybe you haven't figured this out, but The people who

Contribute to the blog we do not we're not clones of one another these these guys are not paid.

They are volunteers They we actually differ with one another on things that we say

It's just grossly disrespectful the way that people refer to Turreted fan and others in the way that we know when they when they would take the time to point out

That you know Belisario Calls me names attacks me personally identifies me as a bigot for having talked about the history of World War two

I guess and Yet, he doesn't even know what I'm talking about which demonstrates that he is so Prejudiced that actually he's the one who fits the dictionary definition of the term bigots, and if you do that Then all of a sudden you attack him, and it's just it's just amazing you see this on the internet all the time

There is so little Decent behavior on on the internet that it's it happens all the time, but there's just an example of You know we're not gonna

We can't really deal with what you're saying on the main the main and important thing so well We'll find something somewhere, and that's what we'll use as our club every all the groups do it

I could give you examples where Muslims have done it and Mormons have done it Jehovah's Witnesses done at Roman Catholics That is the problem when you're on the wrong side of the truth war in essence is you just you just can't deal with so with that having been said we continue on with the

Norman Geisler sermon from It was 2001 or 2002. I think it's 2001

Believe is the Fort Lauderdale Calvary Chapel actually if I'm recalling correctly, but it's so why

I'm not a five -point Calvinist and Obviously many of the same issues that Come up in chosen, but free respond to in the

Potter's freedom But people find it useful when we take the time to take apart these statements point by point and demonstrate that even folks with big names and Have done good work in other areas for some reason

When it comes to that one point of man's will and man's control of salvation all that good work done in other areas goes flying out the window equivocation becomes the name of the game and Misrepresentation becomes the result so let's continue on where we left off with dr.

Norman Geisler Why he's not a five -point Calvinist. I bet nowhere in the New Testament Everywhere I find the opposite that we believe in order to receive salvation

We do not receive salvation in order to believe as you may recall unless you didn't listen to the last program

Which I only got blogged this morning anyways We had pointed out that dr. Geisler is engaging in equivocation.

That is he is identifying Regeneration and salvation as the same thing in different contexts thereby confusing and misrepresenting the

Reformed position that regeneration is Something that is necessary so that one might have be freed from the tyranny and slavery of sin and Might do what is good and proper in God's sight and that repentance and faith are things that are good and proper in God's sight and Again we are listening carefully will dr.

Geisler address Those key biblical texts, which are so supportive of the Reformed position and and so impossible to interpret in the synergistic

Semi -Pelagian Arminian whatever all the groups you want to throw into synergism. They all have slight differences from one another but His Arminian moderate

Calvinism Moderate Calvinism ie Arminian ism same thing pretty much

Is he going to address those texts? And give us a meaningful exegesis.

Well, we'll keep listening in and you keep a note, you know if you're taking notes So will dr. Geisler address those texts which say that the natural man is not capable of doing what is pleasing

God cannot submit himself to law of God. How about the nature of faith as a gift? What about man's?

Deadness and sin and his what Jesus his own statement that no one is able to come to me unless the Father sent me draws him

We'll explain those So, well, how do you explain the fact that they're dead the

Bible says that we're dead in trespass and sins Dead can be understood two ways

Annihilation and or separation Now we know in the Bible death is not understood as annihilation that you're totally

Taken right out of existence as it were death in the Bible means separation

The Prophet said your sins have separated you from your God Death brings a wall of separation when we die.

What happens the soul separates from the body Absent from the body present with the

Lord 2nd Corinthians 5 is far better to depart and be with Christ Philippians 1 23 or in a book of Genesis it says

She was died her soul was in the process of departing before she died

So death is understood in the Bible as separation not annihilation.

Oh Hold on just a second here We just heard yet another excellent example of how you can

Speak the truth, but put it in the wrong context to make it an untruth because what was just presented was one of the ways that the

Bible refers to physical death is to discuss the concept of separation of That spiritual element of man from the physical body and that is true

But then what happens is you get this leap To the conclusion that this is what the

Bible always says about death And was that substantiated by any of the texts that were cited or the commentary thereon

Well, of course not wasn't even addressed. It wasn't even an attempt to Build that bridge and say that well since there's these texts that talk about physical death in this way

That means all the talk of the text to talk about spiritual death Have the same meaning that just means a separation from God it doesn't follow that the person is actually incapable of doing certain things even though as We'll see these texts that talk about spiritual death are then always connected to this

This inability is incapacity to do what is right before God as as a result.

And so Once again, if you could just stop speakers, you know and have a pause button and Analyze the argument and go well, okay, maybe but What's your you know, the application seems to involve a real leap here real jump

In in logic that doesn't necessarily follow but for all practical purposes the five -point

Calvinist Understands it as spiritual annihilation. That's untrue.

It's simply untrue. Dr. Geisler has been corrected on this He refuses to accept correction

But it is a misrepresentation and a demonstration that his tradition overrides simple truthfulness in Representation of the reformed position that we're not

Spiritually there in any sense of the term we can't even understand the message or receive the message and so God has to give life where we were totally as it were

Departed from him well, you know when the Bible utilizes language such as the valley of the dry bones and There you have the picture of the

Spirit of God Coming upon those dry bones and they come together to form bodies and and life is brought back to them or the other picture of The the heart of stone being turned into the heart of flesh.

Those are are fairly radical pictures They are biblical pictures.

They are prophetic. They are inspired and in nowhere

Does that mean that there was? spiritual annihilation But what it does say is that there is total slavery to sin in light of Jesus's own statements in John 8 where he says he who sins is a slave of sin and When Jesus speaks of this kind of slavery

Which by the way if you're going to you know be even trying to accurately represent what reformed people say you're going to allow them to speak with themselves and recognize that The spiritual death of which we speak is intimately connected to this concept of slavery

Jesus then goes on to say that because they are slaves to sin that they are not able to hear

They are not able to hear the Word of God. They are not able to do things They have they have resultant inabilities due to the depth of their spiritual death

That is lack of spiritual life, and yes, it does involve a disconnectedness a separation from God But it also then has an impact an impact upon the mind there their foolish minds become darkened their speculations their reasonings are in error and the will as well because the will acts upon the desires presented to it and Since that person is fallen and is separated from God then the desires that are presented to the will

Do not include godly desires now all of this of course goes against the libertarianism of Dr.

Geisser and many others William Lane Craig all very much dedicated to this unbiblical concept of libertarianism which they then use to overthrow meaningful biblical exegesis, but The reality is that we believe that man's soul man's spirit remains fully intact

However fully under the condemnation of sin fully under the sway of sin slavery of sin and As Paul himself said those who according the flesh cannot please

God Those according the flesh cannot submit themselves law of God. They cannot please

God. This is an inability as Jesus himself said They are unable To come to me unless the father who sent me draws them so these are biblical statements of inability but The other side will always speak of hypothetical capacities based upon exhortations

And so they have to overthrow the plane on the basis of the hypothetical. This is the the nature of synergistic

Arminian Eisegesis rather than exegesis No The Bible says that death is separation from God and that we are separated as being still in his image and likeness in Genesis 9 6 it says that even unsafe people are still in the image of God now, of course

Reformed people do not say That man has lost the image of God and I remember this is this this sermon is given after The potter's freedom has been published and I specifically in the potter's freedom corrected dr.

Geisler's error at this point But as I've said many times, dr Geisler does not believe that anyone younger than him can point out that he has made an error

And I do not believe that dr. Geisler has ever read the potter's freedom the appendix found to in the second edition of Chosen but free was done by his students

Undergraduate students at that. I do not believe that dr. Geisler would believe I think from his perspective it would be demeaning and Inappropriate for him to even

Dane the existence of my book with the time it would take for him to read it.

So That's why I hope I never get in the position Where I am so wedded to a tradition that I I Just keep repeating a particular falsehood just simply for the sake of repeating a particular falsehood now, obviously, you know

Roman Catholics and Muslims and others when we have a disagreement take that and say ah, but but you keep repeating this well, there's a difference between A conclusion that I've come to about the in an error in Islam And a simple continued misrepresentation.

That's just factually wrong We do not believe that the Imago Dei is annihilated wiped out

What Geisler is doing is he associates the Imago Dei the image of God with libertarianism if you cannot

Make autonomous free will choices, then you don't have the image of God therefore If you deny autonomy the autonomy of the human will you must be denying that man continues to exist in the image of God We believe the image of God is marred the image of God has been lessened by sin, obviously

But that does not mean that it has been destroyed and annihilated Genesis 127 says

God created man in his own image Yes, man fell. Yes. He sinned.

Yes. He separated from God, but he separated from God He still had God's image because after the flood

Noah was told Whoever sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God made he

Him in other words don't kill an unsaved person because they're still in the image of God James 3 9 says it's wrong to curse

Another human being yes, I know all this is irrelevant It's a straw man, but again, I play all of it so you can just see well

You know how much time is actually spent doing serious exegesis of relevant text rather than just simply beating on a dead horse that isn't actually relevant and yet it might seem to impress the ignorant person who

Has never actually talked to someone who is reformed and therefore just figures Well, if you know if Norman Geisler has done such good work on The Resurrection or the the background of the

Bible isn't like that Then he he would have to be correct about these things to see that's unfortunately how it functions and I've seen this in the eyes of people

I might be speaking someplace and and all sudden someone gets the idea that something

I just said sounds Calvinistic and They'll say something like well. Well, that's what a Calvinist would say.

Well. Yes, ma 'am. I'm a Reformed Baptist I am a Calvinist and you just see all this stuff flooding into their mind that is it's it's prejudice it's ignorance, but that's where it's come from and Christians shouldn't have that happening

But it does happen a lot because they're made in the image of God so the image of God is effaced in fallen man

But it's not erased for all practical purposes the five -point Calvinist says the image of God is

Erased fault. It's not there. You're so dead, but there's no capacity left there to understand or receive the message of God's grace and As I said last time when we talk about First first Corinthians chapter 2 where they do not understand the things the

Spirit of God. We're talking about spiritual apprehension which results in Obedience which results in a desire to do what is right before God and that is true while the unregenerate man can understand the facts understand the the statements of the

Bible concerning what the gospel is in the sense of being able to then embrace that and to Turn from his sin to free himself from slavery evidently what dr.

Geisler believes is that slaves can simply choose to be free They can simply at any point in time cease being slaves now that may be his understanding of Slavery, but that's not any slaves understanding of slavery to get the illustration even more clearly

Let's look at Genesis chapter 3 and Genesis chapter 3 in the

Old Testament Adam and Eve sinned and According to the Bible therefore they became dead in trespasses and sins

Seems to me that the best way to understand the Bible is by the Bible now if the moment

Adam took the forbidden fruit Someone said it wasn't the apple on the tree.

It was the pear on the ground that got us in trouble Well a pear on the ground Adam and Eve Both partook of the forbidden fruit in chapter 2 it said of every tree of the garden you may freely eat

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat thereof for in the day you eat thereof you shall surely die now when

Adam took the forbidden fruit and Eve took it they died

They were spiritually dead now. Here's what a spiritual dead person can do

Genesis chapter 3 Verse 9 they had already taken it and the

Lord God called Adam and said to him. Where are you? So he said

I heard your voice in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked and I hid myself

Notice several important things about that even though Adam was spiritually dead. He could still hear

God Notice he could still understand he understood what God was saying Wow It is difficult sometimes to but you know what, you know who uses the same kind of Argumentation is

Greg Stafford. I have he's put a chapter in is the new edition of defending

Jehovah's Witnesses going after me on the subject of Calvinism and when You know when

I had the time to get around to it I will but the same kind of argumentation you have this unique situation where God walks with the first parents and he speaks to them and Thereby by extension you go.

Well, that means that spiritually dead people can understand anything God has to say and they can

They can hear God speaking and you know this so this Spiritual death thing isn't all that majorly good deal.

Actually, I would like to point out what does Adam do first of all? They hide themselves They do not seek after God God has to find them and They have become

Humiliated and fearful of their nakedness. They recognize their nakedness and Adam's gonna blame somebody else for his sin

There's all sorts of things we can derive from the Adam and Eve story But to make that normative in the sense that well, it means everybody can hear

God They're beginners understand everything the Bible says is well again Here's another wonderful example of what happens when a philosopher tries to be an exegete and The result is always a mess

So even in our fallen state the image of God is still in us our ability to hear

God is still there our ability to Respond to God is still there both positively and negatively

Respond in rejecting it or respond in accepting it. In fact in Romans chapter 1 verse 19

It tells us that unsafe people Can understand and perceive the truth of God take a look at that in Romans chapter 1

Beginning with verse 18 for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth.

They know it, but they're holding it down now notice verse 19 Because what may be known of God is manifest in them

For God has shown it to them since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are

What are the next two words? clearly seen Unsafe people who are dead and trespass and sins can clearly see the truth of God revealed in general revelation and No one is going to argue that mankind has clearly perceived and clearly seen the

Attributes of God which are specifically revealed that is his divine power and and and Godhead in the

King James Version But what is the assertion of Paul and as a result every single one of them suppress that knowledge

They hold down that knowledge know what dr. Geisler would like to tell us is but they can choose not to that's

Where dr. Geisler becomes an isaac rather than an exegete, but we need to take our break and come back

With dr. Geisler sermon and the continued interaction thereof on the basis of the biblical text here on the dividing line

Bible works 8 is here full of innovative and essential tools users will have a hundred and ninety plus Bible translations 35 original language text and morphology databases 29 lexical grammatical references and an abundance of additional resources

Pastors you will appreciate the phrase matching tool Which will allow you to find all of the verses containing phrases similar to your search verse giving you greater depth and keener insight during sermon preparation

Seminary professors and students will be enriched by the way Bible works 8 shows the most common words in the pericope book or chapter

Plus provides a wider range of formatting options and faster access to copying preferences scholars your research

Just got easier with the army external resources manager a handy tool to collect organize and display resource files from your computer as well

As the internet dr. James White says Bible works is the best Bible software available I have used

Bible works software for years and each new release has brought many new and useful tools to the program This is the program that runs 24 7 on my office computer and it is the one that's running on my laptop when

I engage In debates it is simply the number one research tool for anyone doing serious exegesis of the text for over 15 years

Bible works has assisted all users in their study of the original languages and That enables you to do one thing focus on the text and that translates to focusing on the truth

Order your copy of Bible works at a omen org and for a limited time You'll receive free shipping and a free mp3 download of the white airmen debate

The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith Once the core of the

Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine in his book the

God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute

James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith

Dr. J. Adams says I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates

This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words

The God who justifies by dr. James White get your copy today at a omen org

Hello everyone. This is Rich Pierce In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program

The need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater I am convinced that a great many go to church every

Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin Alpha and Omega ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses

Man is sinful and God is holy That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior?

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well

Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you And welcome back to the dividing line we are making

Calvinists squirm in their seats and and go No way

I could Read over I saw you reaching for the microphone go

He's using that well, we're just Just remember when the blood pressure starts rising yes

You know when when chosen free came out first thought across my mind was all the confusion

This is good cause for people and how many people are gonna be that? you know are Misled and misdirected and and Poisoned to to the wonderful truths of God's sovereignty and grace and cause to be

You know remain biblically illiterate basically and and so yeah, you know I worked hard on that book, but you know now that it's been almost a decade

Coming up on a decade And I see all of the good that has come How many how many people today are

Reformed and they are firmly rooted because they came to it through that controversy

They came to it because they they read Geisler and all sudden I start going to wait a minute wait wait a minute that Doesn't sound right that why is he using completely different standards of biblical interpretation for this subject than he uses elsewhere and Then they they read the potter's freedom and they go whoa oh now

I see there's talk about a contrast in how you handle the text of Scripture and as a result

They're more firmly grounded how many of those? And I you know I wish I had finished posting all of them.

I should Maybe give it to somebody else to put into a file or something like that I it's it takes time, but those 25th anniversary notes that people were sending in how many of them had to do with this subject

That they were reading Geisler's book, and they saw somebody had responded to it. They saw a link they followed it up and the lights come on and So on and so forth so and one thing led to another.

I think this rolled into the Bryson debate the that took place which rolled into The the

BAM debate with you Hank and George Bryson And I can't tell you how many emails how many phone calls

I've gotten from people who were listening to that program and That program in and of itself just was a huge wake -up call turning on the lights for them realizing the methodologies behind the different approaches to Scripture and the massive amount of philosophy that really does lead to supporting the other system

I We've had people in channel say you know I'm reformed today because I was driving down the road listening to that series

Yelling at the radio refute him refute him and when he discovered that there wasn't any refutation forthcoming

Then it's like then I need to look into this and voila that's true Have so you know just take a few deep breaths as you listen to this you know you feel

Badly for the people sitting in the pews there but you might get a chance to talk to some of them, and now they've heard a bad presentation you can provide the the counter the response and show how to use the text in a proper way and stuff like that so Just just take a few deep breaths, but so we have to can we have to press so clear is it?

That they are quote without excuse verse 20 without excuse

So whatever the Bible means by dead and sin it does not mean that they do not perceive the truth

It does not mean that now notice when we talk about What it means what they the natural man doesn't know

Or understand we're talking about spiritual things what Paul is talking about is the revelation of God's attributes found in the natural realm

He's not talking about the gospel the Gospels foolishness to the unregenerate man So again more equivocation regeneration salvation

Equivocation here knows spiritual truths well knows the existence of God and suppresses the existence of God but the natural revelation does not reveal to you the

Trinity or the deity of Christ or Justification by grace through faith alone or any of those types of things they can't understand what

God is saying to them Adam understood it even though he was dead death doesn't mean

Annihilation it means separation death doesn't mean we've been going about ten five minutes now

Actually six minutes now on a canard a misrepresentation of the reformed position.

Just just just to note it in pain That the image of God is erased it means the image of God is effaced

Death doesn't mean and this is a very important distinction That they cannot perceive the truth it means they are unwilling to receive the truth first Corinthians 2 14 the natural man

Does not receive it's the Greek word deco my which means welcome of course

There is no welcome in an unsaved heart for the truth of God, but it doesn't mean he doesn't perceive it

Well, let me just ask a question dr. Geisler if the natural man does not

Receive deco my The things of God then upon what basis does the natural man then freely repent and believe prior to regeneration

How does he perceive and understand his spiritual state and flee from that So obviously what he's saying is well he receives enough of The things of God to recognize his spiritual state and to flee there from that would that be the only way

That that would make any sense At that point he perceives it very clearly and he's eternally condemned for rejecting it

What he needs to do is to receive it while he understands it in his mind

He is not willing to believe it in his heart So that's the first reason

Okay, if he's unwilling to believe it in his heart. What makes him willing

Maybe we'll get a prevenient grace ideas and it's something like that, but remember as long as there is no specific

Personal decree of salvation then you're limited to this idea that God's grace tries to save and it tries to save everyone equally but Whether it fails or succeeds is all dependent upon man and you are left with the untenable result

That once again, you have to say well, I was just more sensitive to the

Spirit of God. I Was just more aware of the Spirit of God. I I was

I didn't you know suppress the truth of God as much and That leads inevitably to a

Contradiction to the doctrine of grace why I am NOT a five -point Calvinist because one they get

They card before they horse You don't get saved in order to believe

You believe in order to get saved and two We're not so dead that we can't perceive the truth

We're just so separated from God that we're unwilling to receive the truth number two,

I'm not a five -point Calvinist because of the you in tulip

T total depravity you Unconditional election Anyone who reads the

Bible seriously knows that the Bible teaches that God has elected us Let's take a look at Ephesians chapter 1 for example in Ephesians chapter 1 the

Apostle Paul Writes to the church at Ephesus and he says to them in verse 3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ Just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame verse 5 having

Predestined us according to the adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will

Romans 8 says whom he foreknew he predestined 1st

Peter 1 2 he says elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Bible says

That even Christ was set aside as the land before the foundation of the world

Revelation 13 and verse 8 that God by his predetermined foreknowledge in Acts chapter 2

Determined that Christ would die for our sins. Of course the Bible teaches election

Absolutely, the Bible teaches Predestination, but here's the difference between an extreme

Calvinist stream and a more moderate view the difference between what's traditionally called a five -point

Calvinist and what the Bible teaches the five -point

Calvinist says that Election is Unconditional on God's part.

There is no condition for giving it And there is no condition for receiving it

The moderate view says there is no condition for God giving it.

It's given by grace No condition for God giving it. It's given by grace

But there's one condition for receiving it and it's called faith now, of course what this is is another illustration of an attitude that I Found amazing

In dr. Geisler and and that is that he feels he can redefine the categories of this centuries old discussion

Evidently just based upon his his own authority. I Had always detected that in dr.

Geisler's comments on this subject, but I I didn't really fully realize

The fact that he really does think that he has the authority to do so Until what happened after The book came out and and the powers freedom came out and in talking with someone who had spoken with dr.

Geisler And where dr. Geisler had engaged in a fairly lengthy and rancorous denunciation of yours truly

That one of the things that he said was that I Had stuck my nose in some place.

It didn't belong. This was between he and RC Sproul Now The fact that anyone could possibly think

That something as important as a discussion of the very nature of God's work of salvation is

Between himself and someone else no matter how popular or big their names might be is

Absolutely shocking to me and what I confirmed was that obviously chosen, but free

Was meant to be a rebuttal to chosen by God I had of course recognized the similarities of the names but in my naivete had not believed that Dr.

Geisler would hold the idea that such things as the very freedom of God and salvation could in some way be boiled down to a fight between major theologians of the late 20th century at that point and I Was as I said disabused of my naivete at a later point in time so it does strike me as as Just really out of bounds for anyone to take the terms in which this discussion has taken place and Redefine them

Unconditional election means that God's choice of us as individuals remember Ephesians one He chose us not he chose a class not he chose a group not he chose that if you believe in him that this is

What's gonna happen to you the direct object of the verb choose is us. It's personal And if you can't deal with that then you're not dealing with the

Bible just admit You don't like what the Bible teaches about this and and just just go from there say I'm not going to accept this

I'm going to replace my philosophical system with this I'm just gonna

I don't want to go there. It says he chose us Not a plan doesn't say he chose

Jesus if you believe in Jesus you get in Jesus, then you get chosen That's not what it says. He chose us in him the direct object is us

The realm of that choosing is in Christ. There's no no one who is ever saved outside of Christ there's no question about all those things, but he chose us and And the assertion is the whole point of unconditional election is

That he does not choose us based upon the fulfillment of conditions

He does not look down the corridors of time and see Ah, I see those who are going to believe in me and so on the basis of their actions.

I will accept them so unconditional election is Simply the assertion that the gracious election of any individual is just that Gracious it is free

It is based upon the kind intention of his will not the kind intention of my will and so to redefine it

The way dr. Geisler did and chose him at free and in this sermon To where well, you know

The moderate Calvinist ie Arminian believes that we are chosen

God chooses freely To ordain that anyone who believes in Jesus will be saved.

Now. What is the direct object of that choosing a plan? It's an impersonal thing the direct object in Ephesians 1 is personal.

It's us but the moderate Calvinist believes that there is a condition on the part of man and it's faith and of course

Autonomous faith faith that is the result of an autonomous free will That is not acting in accordance to God's decree

That's not moderate Calvinism. That is Arminianism, of course And so to to confuse people to change the very parameters of discussion

And not explain to people you're doing that at least if you're gonna do that come out and say you know what? I think that we've been missing the point of this all along Here's what people have always said about this, but I think we need to change the parameters

Okay, that's one thing But to call Arminianism moderate Calvinism is simply to appropriate a term to yourself.

That isn't yours You reject Calvinism fine reject it just be open about it

Don't don't play around with the with the words because I don't think it shows a lot of respect For others who you will confuse in the process

Let me illustrate the difference between That five -point view and what the

Bible teaches the five -point view says God from all eternity decided who would be saved and He selected only some

Even though they were unwilling even though they rebellious and he regenerated them

Independent of their faith They couldn't believe they wouldn't believe and he

Regenerated them and saved them apart from and in spite of their act of Choosing or rejecting this message now

I Would agree almost everything that was said there except that he confused as confused the time tenses

It almost sounded like there He was saying that from eternity past they were regenerated which of course they were not

We are not born justified the certainty of God's decree does not change the reality of the temporal nature of our existence

When God chooses at a point in time according to his good pleasure to break into a person's life and bring them to spiritual life

He can do so but prior to that time they were not justified

The certainty of their salvation is is is there no question about that but we experience life in time and So it almost sounded and maybe it was just a slip of the tongue or whatever it might be

But it almost sounded like he was in essence saying That all of this had happened in eternity past and that's that of course not the position that is being

Presented that's not what the Bible says the Bible says and I'd like you to notice two very important verses one is found in Romans chapter 8

Where it uses the word? predestined Romans chapter 8 and verse 29 right after that famous verse and we know all things work together

For good for those who love God verse 29 Romans 8 for whom he foreknew

He also predestined God foreknew the people that were predestined

Now keep that in mind and flip over to first Peter chapter 1 and verse 2 first Peter chapter 1 verse 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the extreme

View says that God chooses some people to be saved apart from his foreknowledge of who will believe and The moderate view says

God chooses in accordance with his foreknowledge of who would believe so in other words again

Arminians believe that God is Not the one who initiates salvation in the sense that his election is based upon knowledge of future events

So man becomes the one who determines whether he's going to be saved or not now of course

Romans 8 The term to foreknow is an active verb.

It's something that God does. It's not passively taking in knowledge of future events and Election according to foreknowledge does not mean that the foreknowledge precedes the act of election it means it is in perfect harmony with and so geyser is going to Without proving it assert that the act of foreknowing is a passive taking in of knowledge on God's part

That means God gets to learn things New things that he he experiences. I guess that doesn't fit with his theology and I had to spend quite some time explaining his determinately foreknowing and foreknowingly determinant determining

Concepts in the book which he's rather unique and presenting and which doesn't actually answer anything

It doesn't actually accomplish anything. It is just a fancy way of defending libertarianism, but the reality is that in The New Testament when

God foreknows the verb when God's a subject and he's the one doing the foreknowing

The object is never the actions of man whether they are going to believe or not believe do this or do that or anything

That that's not what foreknowing means The action the the direct object of God's foreknowing is always persons so it's a relationship term it is not a

Western Taking in of knowledge concept. It is a personal action on God's part relating to persons and Is that going to be discussed?

Well, we'll find out but probably in other words Does God just pick out people in spite of the fact?

That they're going to believe or disbelieve in spite of the fact

No from the reformed perspective No One is going to believe because they are slaves of sin and are incapable of doing so Because that's what the scriptures teach and Romans 8 and John 6 and John 8 and so on and so forth

So no, it's not of in spite of it is all acts of grace are in spite of our being rebel sinners

You you would think that would be a given or does he choose people? knowing that They will receive the message of salvation

Now notice knowing that in other words God's election becomes secondary to human action

God's choosing is not actually choosing anything That would be like I'm gonna go to lunch with my my daughter here because I'm gonna be heading out of town having hardly seen her for ages and That that would be like saying that the folks at the restaurant will choose

What I'm going to eat today and then when they tell me I'll go. Okay, I'll choose that How much of a of a relevant choice is that it isn't

It reduces God's choice his election to merely ratifying what the creature has done freely in and of himself based upon passively taking in knowledge and That simply isn't the

God of the Bible. It is the God of the philosophers, but it is not the God of the Bible So we will continue.

I don't know About what the future holds as far as dividing lines. I'm gonna be traveling but I've got my

EEPC and It's possible that we might be able to do something.

We'll see It's sometimes hard to tell what you know, if you've got good reception bad reception stuff like that But we'll try to let you know on the blog what we try to figure out appreciate you listening today

We will we will be live -streaming the dialogue with Sham Siali. However on Thursday a week from today

So we'll be putting that in the blog to you. Thanks for listening. God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks