Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Live from the historic parsonage of 19th century gospel minister George Norcross in downtown
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, it's Iron Sharpens Iron, a radio platform on which pastors,
Christian scholars and theologians address the burning issues facing the church and the world today.
Proverbs 27 verse 17 tells us, iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another.
Matthew Henry said that in this passage, quote, we are cautioned to take heed whom we converse with and directed to have in view in conversation to make one another wiser and better.
It is our hope that this goal will be accomplished over the next hour and we hope to hear from you, the listener, with your own questions.
Now here's our host Chris Arntzen. Good afternoon
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and the rest of humanity living on the planet earth who are listening via live streaming.
This is Chris Arntzen, your host of Iron Sharpens Iron wishing you all a happy Friday on this fourth day of March 2016 and this is another day
I am very excited about our program because a guest that we're going to be having on the air within seconds has been scheduled to be on my program a number of times and providentially for some reason on his end or my end we always had to reschedule until today and he is on this program due to the popular demand of a number of Iron Sharpens Iron listeners in the
UK, not only England but Northern Ireland, I believe even from Australia who have urged me to interview this brother and in addition to some people
I know right here in the States who are from the UK. But first of all it is my honor and privilege to welcome for the very first time ever to Iron Sharpens Iron Pastor David Silversides, Minister of the
Loch Brickland Reform Presbyterian Church of Ireland located in Northern Ireland.
It's great to have you on the broadcast. Thank you Chris, it's good to be here, good to be speaking to you.
And in my studio once again is my co -host Reverend Buzz Taylor. And hello.
Hello there Buzz, it's good to have you back on the program. Before we go into our two topics today, the first being the free offer, biblical and reformed, which is a topic that arouses quite a bit of controversy and has for actually centuries, not only because of the hyper -Calvinist disagreement or objection to the free offer of the gospel, but the fact that the enemies of historical and biblical
Calvinism have often accused all of us as rejecting the free offer.
We're going to be talking about that and then in the second hour we're going to be discussing another very controversial subject, the
Antichrist, a biblical and confessional view. But before we go into those topics,
Pastor Silversides, I would like you to tell our listeners something about the
Loch Brickland Reform Presbyterian Church of Ireland. Yes, well there's been a reformed
Presbyterian Church in Loch Brickland since 1817, at least that's when the building was built.
The congregation was originally an amalgamation of reformed
Presbyterians and Seceders, which people may or may not have heard about, and it has continued from that time to bear witness to the gospel of grace.
I've been minister of the church for some 27 years, 27 and a half, and we're about 30 miles south of Belfast, on the main route from Belfast to Dublin, right next to the
A1. The building is refurbished inside, but it's just the same outside, but the main thing is that we still preach the doctrines of the word of God, as set out in and summarized in the
Westminster Confession of Faith. So that's where we are. And you're originally from England yourself, correct?
Yes, I'm from the northeast of England, a place called Gateshead, near Newcastle -on -Tyne.
How did you wind up over here for 30 years or so? And how did you wind up in Ulster? It's a long story, but basically it comes down to this.
I wanted to be part of a Presbyterian body whose doctrine I agreed with, and that led me to Northern Ireland to study, and then eventually to join the
Reformed Presbyterian Church and to become a minister within it. And I do have some friends who
I have interviewed on this program from Northern Ireland and from the states who are in the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.
Are you familiar with those brethren over there? Yes, yes, yes. I know quite a number of Free Presbyterians.
Yes, John Greer, being one who for a period was pastoring in Malvern, Pennsylvania, but returned to Ulster and is a really powerful preacher of the gospel.
Well, let's go into the two subjects at hand. The first, for the first hour that we are on the air, we're going to be talking about the free offer, biblical and Reformed.
And when you speak of the free offer, you are talking about the free offer of the gospel. And if you could let our listeners know exactly what that means.
Well, it means, it doesn't mean that what the
Arminians teach, that Christ died for everyone, and that it's up to man's free will, whether he believes or not, an independent free will.
What we mean by the free offer of the gospel is that Christ is to be preached to all men, and the duty of repentance and faith in him is to be maintained.
And it is the duty of everyone who hears the gospel to believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and that Christ is offered in the gospel, not merely as if the facts are stated and a command is given.
That is true, but more than that, that there is an expression of divine loving kindness in the overture of mercy to every sinner who hears.
So the apostle Paul, when he was before Agrippa, said, I weep to God, that both thou and all that hear me this day, that even as I am, accept these chains.
And so the apostle Paul desired the conversion of sinners, and yet he admits, he acknowledges his dependence upon divine grace to make the word of God effective, because he says,
I weep to God, that thou and all that hear me this day, that even as I am.
So he acknowledges that conversion is the result of God's work in regeneration, but he nevertheless expresses his desire that they come to the knowledge of Christ.
And you know as well as I do that those who radically oppose what is known as reform theology,
Calvinism, the doctrines of sovereign grace, they will say that what we believe and teach kills evangelistic fervor and passion, may kill evangelism altogether, because they will say, well if you believe
God has foreordained or predestined a certain group of people before the foundation of the world to be saved, and the rest of the mankind has no hope of salvation, you can just sit back and allow
God to just save whomever he has chosen. Why do you need to evangelize? And they will claim that inherent in the theological system of Calvinism or reform theology is a destruction of evangelistic zeal.
So what do you have to say in response to those folks? Yeah, well for my own part
I would say that if I thought that the conversion of sin is dependent upon man's independent free will,
I really would give up on evangelism. But God has ordained the means as well as the end, and he has commanded us to evangelize and to pray.
And the Apostle Paul says in Romans 10, Brethren my heart's desire and prayer to God for his will is that they might be saved.
And he acknowledges that any real conversions come from God.
God changes the heart of man, and yet he still desires the conversion in submission to the decree of God, he desires the conversion of his countrymen.
So that there's no inconsistency between the absolute sovereignty of God and our fulfilling his command to bring the gospel to every creature.
And the fact that men by nature are dead in trespasses and in sins does not remove that obligation, it just means we're dependent upon God, not only for his grace to evangelize, but for the outcome of that evangelism.
That while plants are in other waters, that God gives the increase.
And what greater spirit to evangelism than knowing that the outcome is in the hands of God and not men.
And what greater spirit of prayer to know that God can answer those prayers and can change the hearts of men.
The Arminian has no basis for praying, because at the end of the day they believe in a
God who is ultimately helpless, because he cannot effectively change the heart of man.
Whereas we believe that God can answer prayer and can change men's hearts.
In Acts 13 when Paul preached in the synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia, he said to you, to all of them, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
But at the end of the chapter we read, as many as were ordained unto life believed.
So we preach the gospel to all. We don't know who the elect are and we leave the outcome in the hand of God.
But we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. And that means just as we wouldn't want to go to hell, so we desire the conversion of our neighbor.
That's part of our love for them, that we pray for them and that we seek their conversion to Christ.
Well, that's an interesting place to ask a very important question that not only has
Arminians and the Reformed in dispute with each other, but even fellow
Calvinists disagree with each other on this question to a certain extent.
The question is, does God show love to the non -elect in this life? Yes. Yes, well he does.
The Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew chapter 5, he bases our duty to love on the fact that God loves.
You know, at the end of Matthew 5, we're to be patterned after our heavenly father.
And we must remember that it's God who commands us to love our neighbor.
And we can't say that God commands us to love that which he does not.
And our love isn't to be any broader than his.
We submit to his sovereign decree and election that our love to our neighbor is based on his love.
So he says in Matthew chapter 5, verse 43, you have heard that it has been said, thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your father which is in heaven.
For he maketh his son to rise on the evil and on the good. And sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect.
So we're to be patterned after God. And it won't do to say that our love is to be real love, but God's love is only an appearance of it.
The Lord Jesus Christ argues from God's providence to the obligation to love our enemies as well as to do good to them.
So the objection is very often that we can't attribute motive to God from the outward action.
But that's exactly what Christ intends us to do. To derive from the fact that God shows love to the non -elect as well as the elect.
We're to derive from that that we are in this life to show the same love to our neighbor.
And would you say though that the way that your statement, the way your statement is compatible and consistent with the
Reformed faith is that God has different kinds of love for the humans he has created?
In other words, does he not have a unique and special parental and spousal love for his bride, the church, and his children who are
Christians that he does not have for the reprobate, those who are not his children, those who will spend an eternity in hell?
Does he not have a different and unique love for his elect? Yes indeed he does.
It is in that sense of decreeing to save or decreeing not to save that the
Apostle Paul says Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated in terms of the decree to salvation.
But in this life that doesn't mean that God who shows mercy and pleases that he cannot show love to the non -elect in this present life.
And in fact it's the reality, the genuineness of the love that he shows to the undeserved favor in which he shows to the non -elect in this life.
It is that which increases their guilt so much. The fact that they have received so many mercies and have hardened themselves against it.
And the fact of the divine decree doesn't reduce their responsibility because God can command men to do what they are unable to do.
And he does do that. And the goodness of God leads us to repentance in Romans 2.
That is the goodness of God ought to lead men to repentance.
Their obligation to repent increases because of the divine favor shown toward them in this present life.
But yes there is a distinctive love, a redemptive love towards the elect and Christ died specifically for the elect.
And it is the purpose of God to save them and them only. But that doesn't alter his favor towards all men, his mercy in this present life, including the offer of the gospel.
As John Knox said, they are willfully blind who do not distinguish between God's common mercies which he restores upon all and his special mercies which he has secretly reserved for his elect children.
I notice in chapter 3 you refer to common grace in a few scenarios here.
How would you define that for our listeners? How would I define common grace?
Yes, I realize we have people from many different backgrounds. And some even reformed folk do not use that term or believe in that concept.
In fact, one of our recent guests was a reformed individual who objects to the term common grace.
And I think that even the late John Gerstner, I think, had problems with that term.
But if you could explain. Yes. Well, I mean, it's not necessarily the best term, but it's the one that's come down to us.
But it may be that the term grace is used in scripture simply of God's love to the elect.
But if we take grace to mean simply undeserved favor, favor to the undeserving or the undeserving, then we mean by common grace that God shows favor to the reprobate in this life, although he shows everlasting favor only to the elect.
But there are expressions of divine favor that are common to the elect and the reprobate.
And so you would say that the term grace, as it is used in scripture, does not always mandate a salvific use as some of the reformed groups, like, for instance, in the
Protestant reformed denomination, they would say that grace is always connected with salvation.
But obviously, you would say that that is not necessarily the case or that it's not to be used that way exclusively.
I think probably it may be that the word charis in the New Testament is used only in that way.
I'm not certain of that. But if we if we use the term grace to simply mean undeserved favor, then it isn't confined to the elect.
And in the Old Testament, certainly, the word grace is used fairly interchangeably.
So if by grace we mean undeserved favor, then we can speak of common grace.
And of course, this next question could even take an hour for you to exegete this passage, even though it's a very brief passage.
But because it is used nearly every single time that there's a dispute between reformed
Christians and those who oppose our system of theology, commonly called Arminians, but obviously not everyone who opposes what we believe chooses to wear that label.
And of course, you have Roman Catholics and others that would agree with them in opposition to us.
But John 3 .16, obviously, is a classic text. And there are even differences of interpretation amongst the reformed on this view.
But for God so loved the world, or should I reemphasize, so God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
And if you could exegete that for us, especially in regard to God loving the world.
Yes. Well, in that particular case, I would take the world to simply mean all nations.
Because assuming Christ is still speaking to Nicodemus, Nicodemus would have tended to assume that salvation was confined to Israel, and that the new birth which
Christ speaks of, well, he didn't understand it, but the privileges of which
Christ is speaking, he would consider to be confined to the nation of Israel.
And Christ is saying, no, sinners from all nations are saved by this gospel.
And if you are to be saved, it's got to be the same way as everyone else who is saved.
It's got to be through faith in the God's only begotten son.
So the passage, without doing violence to the context, but the reverse, seems to indicate that the world in this particular case means sinners from all nations.
Now, I know some Reformed people disagree with that. But I would hold that the context justifies taking a more limited, or at least a non -individual universalist view of the word world, that it means the international elect of God.
And I'd just like to announce our email address. If anybody would like to join us on the air with a question of your own, for our guest
David Silversides on the free offer of the gospel, our email address is chrisarnson at gmail .com.
chrisarnson at gmail .com. And please give us your first name, at least, your city and state, and your country of residence if you live outside of the
USA. That's chrisarnson at gmail .com. And what do you mean by the fact that the free offer is indiscriminate?
Well, it should be preached to all that who are the elect is
God's business, not ours. And we are to preach freely without trying to find the elect in advance of their believing.
As Samuel Rutherford said, God giveth as fair a warrant to believe to the reprobate as he doth to the elect.
That is to say there's one message for all men, without trying to find out if they're elect in advance of their coming to faith in Christ.
We cannot know who the elect are. We can't even know that we're elect ourselves until we've concluded that we're already in Christ.
We make our calling and election in that order. God elects in eternity and he effectually calls in time.
But we have to work backwards. We have to work upstream. And we conclude that we're a
Christian and that's been because we've been effectively called and we've been effectively called because we were elected in eternity.
We must work backwards. And the Westminster Confession brings that out very clearly when it talks about the high mystery of predestination that we've got to attend upon the revealed will of God.
And do what God says. And the warrant of faith is not the knowledge of our election.
We cannot know the knowledge of our election prior to being brought to faith in Christ.
And what is true of us is true of others as well. So we preach the gospel to all who are willing to learn, willing to hear.
And God gives the increase as he pleases. So it's indiscriminate in that there's one message for all men.
And we're going to be going to a break right now. If you'd like to join us on the air, as I said just a few minutes ago, if you'd like to join us on the air with a question of your own, our email address is chrisarnson at gmail .com.
chrisarnson at gmail .com. Whether you agree with our guest, whether you adamantly disagree with him, or whether you're just not sure.
Even if you're not a Christian at all, in fact especially if you're not a Christian at all, we would love to hear from you.
Please give us your first name, city and state, and country of residence. But you may remain anonymous if it makes you feel more comfortable.
And we look forward to hearing from you and your questions for David Silverside on the free offer of the gospel right after these messages.
So don't go away. Paul wrote to the church at Galatia, For am
I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man,
I would not be a servant of Christ. Hi, I'm Mark Lukens, pastor of Providence Baptist Church. We are a
Reformed Baptist Church, and we hold to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. We're in Norfolk, Massachusetts.
We strive to reflect Paul's mindset to be much more concerned with how God views what we say and what we do than how men view these things.
That's not the best recipe for popularity, but since that wasn't the apostles priority, it must not be ours either.
We believe by God's grace that we are called to demonstrate love and compassion to our fellow man, and to be vessels of Christ's mercy to a lost and hurting community around us, and to build up the body of Christ in truth and love.
If you live near Norfolk, Massachusetts, or plan to visit our area, please come and join us for worship and fellowship.
You can call us at 508 -528 -5750, that's 508 -528 -5750, or go to our website to email us, listen to past sermons, worship songs, or watch our
TV program entitled Resting in Grace. You can find us at providencebaptistchurchma .org,
that's providencebaptistchurchma .org, or even on sermonaudio .com. Providence Baptist Church is delighted to sponsor
Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said,
Give yourself unto reading. The man who never reads will never be read. He who never quotes will never be quoted.
He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains proves that he has no brains of his own.
You need to read. Solid Ground Christian Books is a publisher and book distributor who takes these words of the
Prince of Preachers to heart. The mission of Solid Ground Christian Books is to bring back treasures of the past to minister to Christians in the present and future, and to publish new titles that address burning issues in the church and the world.
Since its beginning in 2001, Solid Ground has been committed to publish God -centered,
Christ -exalting books for all ages. We invite you to go treasure hunting at solid -ground -books .com.
That's solid -ground -books .com and see what priceless literary gems from the past to present you can unearth from Solid Ground.
Solid Ground Christian Books is honored to be a weekly sponsor of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. We know we were made for so much more than ordinary life.
Lending faith, finances, and generosity. That's the Thriving Story. Welcome back.
This is Chris Arms, and if you just tuned us in, our guest today, all the way from Ulster, is
David Silversides, and he is the pastor of the
Lockbrookland Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, and I know that Ulstermen right now are cringing everywhere as I mispronounce that word, but it's sometimes impossible for the
American ear to quite grasp the specific way to pronounce these words.
Let me try it again. Lockbrookland. Is that better? Lockbrookland.
I just had to beat you on that one. Sorry. I don't think you did. But anyway, we are discussing his book for the first hour, with a half hour remaining,
The Free Welfare, Biblical and Reformed, and the second hour we're talking about the
Antichrist from a biblical and confessional perspective.
If you'd like to join us on the air, our email address is chrisarnsen at gmail .com. chrisarnsen at gmail .com
and I will get to some of our listeners who are already waiting to have their questions answered.
I'll get to you in a moment, but I first wanted to have you clarify or expand upon a little bit of what we were talking about before we left off regarding the free welfare of the gospel being indiscriminate.
I'm a bit confused because I don't know many hyper -Calvinists that are genuinely and appropriately labeled that way.
Obviously, they don't call themselves that, but I have met a number of hyper -Calvinists.
Typically, they are people who I've met over the internet or in some other fashion.
Maybe they have shown up in the audience at a theological debate I've organized, or maybe they have even provided a question for my guests on my program, but I'm a bit baffled by how do they convey the gospel?
Obviously, if they disagree with the indiscriminate free offer of the gospel, how are they offering the gospel when they themselves are not omniscient?
They don't know who God's elect are, and none of us do until that elect person becomes regenerate and gives fruit of his being the elect by virtue of the fact that he has repented and believed upon the name of Christ and is living a life that is marked by godliness and is following the
Lord and so on, but do these people who are in opposition to the free offer of the gospel, do they just evangelize people or preach to people that already are demonstrating that they believe, or how does this work?
I don't even understand the concept, really. Do you want to give your answer?
Yeah, yeah. I was wondering if you were, intimately or personally, familiar enough with hyper -Calvinists who reject the free offer of the gospel, how do they actually operate in their offering of the gospel?
Well, the old hyper -Calvinists tried to find out if they were elect in advance by conviction of sin, but the problem with that is, how convinced of sin do you have to be?
And, alright, only to convince sin,
I would appreciate the gospel, but the convinced sinner doesn't necessarily regard himself as a convinced sinner, and it sets off a process of introspection.
The other view is that we simply presume the children of believers are elect and work on that basis.
In other words, the hyper -Calvinist view, or the semi -hyper -Calvinist view, always involves some way of finding out if one is elect in advance, either through mysticism, through some special experience that tells us we're elect, therefore we have a warrant to believe, or through presumptivism, whereby an assumption is made about, particularly children of believers, that they are elect, and therefore they're warranted in believing.
So, although mysticism and presumptivism seem absolute opposites, both actually involve the idea of knowing you're elect before believing, and so they have common ground in that respect, whereas the biblical gospel is addressed to sinners as such.
As Samuel Redford brings this out very well in his Christ dying and drawing sinners to himself, he says, are you a man or a woman?
Are you a sinner? Then Christ is offered to you in the gospel. The only qualification to have
Christ offered to us is that we're sinful, fallen men or women, and that's the proper basis of the...
If there's this fear of offering Christ to someone who's not elect, you have to find a way of regarding someone as elect in advance.
That leads to either mysticism or presumptivism.
Now, the mysticism, would that be something that... It sounds to me something very similar, or if not identical, to that which the
Netherlands Reformed Church denomination has been involved in, where there's some kind of way that the person has a supernatural knowledge that they are of the elect.
It's hard for me to describe being outside of that group, but I know that's one of the reasons that Dr.
Joel Beekie had broken away from them, that they have some type of a hyper -Calvinistic view such as that.
Do you know what I'm speaking of? Yes, yes. Certainly among the
Dutch churches there is an element of hyper -Calvinism. That is certainly true.
So, go ahead, I'm sorry. But it's really charismaticism in a
Reformed guise, because it involves revelation outside of scripture.
Right, it's almost at times, forgive me for maybe going extreme here, but it almost sounds at times like the
Mormon concept of the burning in the bosom. How they know that they are truly children of God and following the
Mormon faith and so on, that they have that physical or spiritual phenomenon that they call the burning in the bosom.
But anyway... Well, yeah, I think the thing is that a
Biblical and Reformed outlook didn't displace feeling and emotion, but emotion follows the teaching of scripture.
Scripture decides what's true. And then emotion, feeling, is involved in the response to that.
So there is joy and peace in believing or godly sorrow, but it's truth -led, truth -governed emotion.
Emotion doesn't decide what is true. It responds to truth.
And truth itself is judged on the basis of scripture.
And going back to the indiscriminate offer of the gospel,
I'm assuming that Hyper -Calvinists really restrict the majority, if not all of their gospel offer to the confines of a church gathering rather than going out into the streets.
And, you know, I mean, there'd be little call for going out into the streets and proclaiming the gospel to the prostitutes and drug addicts and homosexuals and those who are outwardly, clearly enemies of Christ if you have that kind of false view that we would call
Hyper -Calvinism. Yes, that's right. It's only fair to say that the
Protestant Reformed, who in some respects are Hyper -Calvinists, but they don't deny the duty of faith that God commands all men everywhere to repent.
So for them, the gospel is simply the presentation of facts accompanied with a command, whereas the full -blown
Hyper -Calvinists, they deny that faith is a duty.
So the two are different, but still, you don't find much in the way of evangelism of those who show no interest.
So, yes, what you're saying is correct. We have a listener,
Jay, in Manorville, Long Island, New York, who asks, it seems that there are different kinds of Hyper -Calvinism.
Have you ever heard of primitive Baptists who might be more dominant here in the States than in the
UK, where they would have a much broader view of who is of the elect, where the other type of Hyper -Calvinist would view the number of the elect to be extremely tiny?
If you could comment on that, if you have knowledge of the primitive Baptists. And that's a good question,
Jay. And I know that there are different kinds of primitive Baptists.
They're not all in lockstep with each other. But basically what Jay is referring to, I don't know, are you familiar with them,
David? Pastor David? Yeah, I've heard of them, but I don't know much about them.
They would basically say that the preaching of the gospel is not a means of bringing about the regeneration of the elect.
It is not a means of saving grace. The preaching of the gospel is just to inform the elect of truth that comforts them.
It's to comfort the sheep. But they would say that anybody that demonstrates a love of God is a sign that they are of the elect, even if they're not
Christians. That would be the extreme, the primitive Baptist view. That's why he was saying that they have a very broad view of who the elect are, since they rob the repentance and they rob the preaching of the gospel as actually a means of God's saving grace.
But if you could comment, I'm sorry. Yes, yes, well, yes, on that view, conversion is simply being brought to believe what was true all along, that justification is from eternity.
And when a person is regenerated and brought to faith in Christ, they simply realize that they are already justified.
They are simply subjectively justified, but they've been objectively justified all along.
This doctrine of eternal justification is part of the hyper -calvinist scheme.
Whereas the scriptures make clear that the decree of God to justify is eternal, but the actual justification takes place in time.
Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son.
And whom he did predestinate, then he also called, and whom he called, then he also justified.
So justification follows effectual calling.
So we must make a distinction between the decree of God, which is eternal, and the execution of the decree, which takes place in time.
And that's a very important distinction. Otherwise, how can we tell men to flee from the wrath to come?
Because if they're reneged, there is no wrath to flee from.
John Calvin, when he was stricken with terror and fled to Christ, he believed something that wasn't true, because as one of the elect, there was no wrath hanging over his head.
There was no wrath abiding upon him. It was merely that he needed to realize what was already true.
So it's very important to make a distinction between God's eternal decree and his execution of the decree in time.
Reverend Buzz has a question for you. I'm curious, though. I don't have my copy of the
Westminster Confession in front of me, sorry. And as a relatively newcomer into Reformed theology,
I say relatively because I wasn't raised in it. It's been at least a decade.
Oh, yeah. Oh, easily, yes, yes. But the confession does mention that a person that is elect is truly lost before they come to faith.
Isn't there something about that? I'm not sure if that fits into this discussion or not, because I'm not really understanding where we're going with this,
I guess. A person, even when I'm talking about it in the confession,
I don't have the exact wording in front of me, unfortunately. Yes. Well, the confession,
I'm explaining the hyper -Calvinist view, that conversion is just a realization of what has been true all along, whereas the confession,
Chapter 11, Paragraph 4, says, God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification.
Nevertheless, they are not justified until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply
Christ unto them. Right, we were made, as Romans 9 says, out of the same lump of clay that the non -elect was formed out of, so we all come from that sinful material, if you will, that sin -cursed clay that Adam left us as a legacy, and he,
God, chooses to save some of us, and we are, as you were indicating in your question,
Buzz, are we not, even those of us who are of the elect, before regeneration, we are truly lost individuals, we are children of Satan, are we not, until we've been adopted?
That's right, absolutely, we're children of wrath, even as others, you know, not describing not simply what we're like, but what we, our status, we were children of wrath, until the fact that God had decreed that he would change that, that he would quicken us, liven us, when we were dead and fespers and sins, doesn't alter the fact that prior to conversion, we are under God's condemnation, and justification takes place in time.
I guess what I'm really not understanding is the hyper -Calvinist position. Well, you're not supposed to agree with it.
Well, I'm not supposed to agree, no, I guess I just don't figure out how they can believe that way.
See, in my past, it seemed like if you, to a non -Calvinist, if you really believed
Calvinism, you were considered a hyper -Calvinist, you know, so. Yeah, well, obviously, they got millions to...
...the term of abuse, but they really believe that the elect are justified from eternity.
Okay, yeah. And even adopted from eternity, the child, the children of God, prior to their conversion.
Yeah. And they seem to do the exact same thing that the Arminians do in regarding the exegesis of Scripture and morph an eisegesis, but they do it for a different reason.
They just seem to want to avoid seriously exegeting or giving heed to those verses that on the surface appear to disagree with what they believe, and therefore they ignore all verses that speak of evangelism as a means and so on, and the
Arminian would diminish or ignore those verses that address the sovereign choice of God and that type of thing.
And that's a big thing about the hyper -Calvinist. He really does not believe that God uses means, does he?
No, but I mean, Arminianism and hyper -Calvinism rest on the same false premise, namely that God cannot command men to do what they are moderately unable to do.
Yes, that's right. And so the hyper -Calvinist says, well, he believes in total inability, therefore
God cannot command men to repent. And the Arminian says, well, God does command men to repent, so therefore he must be able to do it.
And it's the same error, but taken different ways.
That clears it up a lot. Yes. Yes, and it's ironic that the Reformed person, or the hyper -Calvinist,
I should say, who claims to be Reformed, would have that view when we use as one of our primary arguments the fact that Jesus called
Lazarus out of the tomb, and if Lazarus was dead, he had no ability to think about and ponder and choose whether he was going to obey
Christ's heed or not. He was dead, and Christ called him out, and he was miraculously brought to life, and brought out of that tomb, and walked out of that tomb.
That's right. And so this is actually a very serious issue, because what is at stake here is obeying
Christ, really. Those that are not freely offering the gospel indiscriminately are in disobedience to Christ, are they not?
Yes, they are. I mean, I feel sincere that they are, yes.
And it's as basic as the second table of the law. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
And, you see, it comes into very sharp focus when you consider the person of Christ.
He is God and man. As man, he kept the law, that means he loved his neighbour as himself.
So did he love his neighbour as man, or as God as well?
If you divide, if you set the human against the divine, you end up with heresy.
So if, as a man, he loved his neighbour, that must be a reflection of the divine benevolence in this present life.
In the world to come, the people of God, the redeemed, will not love the non -elect, because God won't show his favour toward him.
Well, that's another way that the love that God has for the elect is different from the non -elect, is that his love for the elect is eternal.
Yes, yes, that's right. I mean, God is free to show his favour, and his love is undeserved toward the elect, and towards, so far as he shows it, to the reprimand in this life.
It is undeserved, and he can show that as and when how he pleases.
God is absolutely sovereign to show favour to the non -elect, non -saving favour to the non -elect in this present life, and he does that not only by food and sunshine and so forth, but also in sending the offer of the gospel.
Yes, and I think we should wrap it up, although we could speak for another four or five hours on this subject easily,
I think. This is a very controversial issue that even divides
Calvinists, and I'm not even talking about hyper versus historic Calvinists, I'm talking about all
Calvinists. They do have a disagreement over the question of the desire in God for the salvation of the non -elect, and if you could give your opinion about that, your view.
Yes, well, the problem with the word desire is that in man desire is either fulfilled or frustrated, whereas in God it is neither.
God's, if I can quote Rutherford again, God's common love achieves exactly what he intended.
Rutherford talked about God's love never miscarries, he always achieves what he wants to achieve, so that the word desire is ambiguous because of its meaning in human desire.
He either fulfills or is frustrated. In God there is no frustration, even though his love in the offer of the gospel doesn't reach salvation.
So the word desire itself is, if understood in one way, is accurate.
But I prefer to say that God shows his loving kindness in the offer of the gospel, that it isn't a bare command, that it is an expression of the divine favor, and is sincere and true.
He isn't just pretending to offer Christ to the reprobate, he does actually offer
Christ, and in that sense desires their salvation. But he is not frustrated, he has the power to change the hearts of men.
In the case of the reprobate, for his own wise reasons he doesn't do so.
So it is an expression of divine kindness, and the word desire that expresses that is correct, that it doesn't involve frustration, and I think that's important to remember.
That's excellent, and in fact I'm going to add on one more question because I think it is vital, and it is a subject that Calvinists disagree on amongst themselves, in fact
I know they do because I get sometimes emails from them, and they think that I am being, that I'm bordering on hyper -Calvinism in the way
I describe definite atonement, or particular redemption, or limited atonement. Let me ask you, what if any benefit to the non -elect came about from Christ's sacrifice on Calvary?
If we believe that he fully paid for every single sin of those for whom he died, and that they are certainly redeemed on that cross 2 ,000 years ago, that would mean he only died as a substitute for those who are his own, for those whom he intended to redeem, so therefore where is the non -elect, the reprobate person left in that, and I know that Calvinists as I said disagree, if you could give me your view, what would you think the biblical view is?
My view is that obviously there is a providential connection in that the fact that there is a gospel,
God has connected that gospel with some of the benefits he bestows upon non -elect men in this life, so there is a providential connection, but there is no judicial connection, there is no sense in which
Christ purchased the blessings of common grace, because justice is not ultimately affected,
God does justly, so I think it's incorrect to say that Christ purchased the blessings of common grace,
I don't think that's necessary, I don't think it's right, blessings of common grace do not ultimately affect the infliction of divine justice, divine judgment on sin, so there's no purchasing or redemptive aspect to them, so whilst everything in providence is connected,
I think we should say Christ died for the elect and only the elect.
Amen, and I agree with everything that you just said, and we're going to be going to a break right now, if you'd like to join us on the air with a question, we're going to be having a new topic when we return, and that's the
Antichrist from a biblical and confessional perspective, and we're going to be taking your emails on that question, of course, if you still have a question on the free offer of the gospel, we will be glad to take that as well during the next hour, but primarily our topic of discussion is the
Antichrist and the identity of the Antichrist, and there are, of course, many differences of opinion on that, even within reformed circles, if you'd like to join us on the air, it's chrisarnsen at gmail .com,
c -h -r -i -s -a -r -n -z -e -n at gmail .com, please include your first name, your city and state, and your country of residence if you live outside of the
USA, don't go away, we'll be right back with David Silversides on the
Antichrist. I'm James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. The New American Standard Bible is perfect for daily reading or in -depth study.
Used by pastors, scholars, and everyday readers, the NASV is widely embraced and trusted as a literal and readable
Bible translation. The NASV offers clarity and readability while maintaining high accuracy to the original languages which the
NASV is known for. The NASV is available in many editions like a topical reference Bible. Researched and prepared by biblical scholars devoted to accuracy, the new topical reference
Bible includes contemporary topics relevant to today's issues. From compact to giant print
Bibles, find an NASV that fits your needs very affordably at nasbible .com.
Trust, discover, and enjoy the NASV for yourself today. Go to nasbible .com, that's nasbible .com.
Tired of box store Christianity, of doing church in a warehouse with all the trappings of a rock concert?
Do you long for a more traditional and reverent style of worship? And how about the preaching? Perhaps you've begun to think that in -depth biblical exposition has vanished from Long Island.
Well, there's good news. Wedding River Baptist Church exists to provide believers with a meaningful and reverent worship experience featuring the systematic exposition of God's word.
And this loving congregation looks forward to meeting you. Call them at 631 -929 -3512 for service times 631 -929 -3512 or check out their website at wrbc .us.
That's wrbc .us. Help Christians be wise with money and live generously every day.
And for the fourth year in a row, we were named one of the world's most ethical companies by the
Ethisphere Institute, a leading international think tank dedicated to the creation, advancement, and sharing of best practices in business ethics.
Contact me, Mike Gallagher, Financial Consultant at 717 -254 -6433.
Again, 717 -254 -6433 to learn more about the
Thrivent Difference. Lending faith, finances, and generosity.
That's the Thrivent story. Attention coin collectors and investors.
Long Island Galleries of Wedding River, New York has brilliant uncirculated 19th century
Morgan silver dollars for only $54 per coin with free shipping and handling for a limited time.
There's a 40 coin limit, so order now while supplies last. Call 888 -260 -8111.
888 -260 -8111. Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express welcome.
Price is subject to change, so call now at 888 -260 -8111. 888 -260 -8111.
If you prefer ordering your brilliant uncirculated 19th century Morgan silver dollars by check, mail it today to Long Island Galleries, 9
Susan Drive, Wedding River, New York, 11792. That's Long Island Galleries, 9
Susan Drive, Wedding River, New York, 11792. Remember they're only $54 per coin with free shipping and handling and a 40 coin limit.
New York State residents must add sales tax. Long Island Galleries is honored to sponsor
Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. See the Long Island Galleries display ad at ironsharpensironradio .com.
Welcome back. This is Chris Arns, and if you just tuned us in, our guest today for the full two hours is
David Silverside. And David Silverside, as I was mentioning earlier in his introduction, is minister of Loch Brickland Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, which is in Ulster.
And we already discussed for the first hour his book, The Free Orphan, Biblical and Reformed.
And today for the second hour, we are continuing our discussion with Dr., or should
I say Reverend David Silverside. And now we are addressing on the Antichrist, a biblical and confessional view, another point of contention and disagreement and debate, not only amongst
Christians in general, but in those who would identify themselves as theologically reformed
Calvinist or adherents to the doctrines of sovereign grace. And it's my honor and privilege to have you back for the second hour,
Reverend David Silverside. And first of all, let us, our listeners know who you are addressing when you refer to the
Antichrist and the Antichrist that is mentioned in the earlier editions of the
Westminster Confession and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, because there seems to be disagreement amongst even the
Reformed on whether this is an eschatological figure or not, and if it is being confused with a figure in the book of Revelation known as the
Beast. Yeah. Well, my position is that the papacy is the
Antichrist. It is not only Antichristian, but is specifically the
Antichrist mentioned in Scripture and the man of sin in 2
Thessalonians 2. So in the
Westminster Confession, the earlier edition, as you said, chapter 25, verse 6, there is no other head of the church but the
Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head nor mouth.
It is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalted himself in the church against Christ and all that is called
God. So that, as far as I'm concerned, the papacy is the fulfillment of 2
Thessalonians 2. So you're speaking of the papacy of all ages, not some period of time in the future where it's a specific pope?
Yeah, I'm talking about the office of popes, the succession of popes.
So in other words, this Antichrist, then, is not exclusively something that you are viewing, nor do you believe the
Confession is viewing, as merely a future entity that is connected with the end times and the return of Christ and all that.
You're speaking of... Here and now, yes. And what qualifies the papacy, in your opinion, biblically, as being identified as the
Antichrist? Well, first of all, the term anti, as in Antichrist, especially when it's used in conjunction with another word, it can mean not simply opposing, but instead of opposing by displacement.
And in 2 Thessalonians 1, the Antichrist appears and emerges from within the church.
And the terms used are all terms which are normally used of Christ himself.
And, you know, he has an appearing, and he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is
God. And in verse 3, except that a son of man of sin be revealed, and he's called the son of perdition, which was only applied otherwise to Judas, who betrayed the
Lord Jesus with a kiss, the pretended friend of Christ. So that whilst
Christ himself is the mystery of godliness, the papacy is the mystery of iniquity that does already work, because the seeds of Romanism were present even while the apostle was on earth.
And as you already clearly proved by your reading of the older version of the
Westminster, why is it, from your knowledge of history, that the
Westminster and the 1689 London Baptist Confession, or should I say modern adherence to those confessions, removed that phrase that the papacy is the
Antichrist from the modernized editions?
Because I know Christians personally in fact, I would say probably most
Reformed people I know that adhere to either the Westminster or the 1689 London Baptist Confession, although they don't believe that the term
Antichrist can be specifically and uniquely applied to the papacy, that does not mean in any way, shape, or form that they are ecumenists with Rome, that they have a soft view on the heresies of the papacy, they would view the papacy and the pope, and every pope, as a false teacher, a dangerous individual, a wicked individual in matters of spirituality and doctrine and so on, teaching the doctrines of demons, etc.
They just say that the term itself is being misapplied. But going back to my original question, why was it dropped out of use in your opinion, especially if you know it historically to be factual, why it began being disused from the later translations of it, or later editions
I should say? Yeah, well I think that the viciousness of the papacy became less visible, and the
Christians tended to view less seriously than our forefathers what the papacy was, and began to regard it as simply, the
Roman Catholic Church as a corrupt church, rather than a false church, and particularly attention, not enough attention was given to the specific passages of scripture, and the way the language of Christ, the language of that which applies to Christ, is applied to the
Antichrist, and that led to the fact that the papacy claims to be the vicar of Christ, he claims to be in the place of Christ, he claims the officers of Christ as prophet, priest, and king, so the
Pope is the mouthpiece of God, according to the Roman Catholic system, he offers sacrifice through the local priesthood, he is the mediator, he is the king, he claims to be head of the church, as well as the father of princes,
Christ is head over all things to the church, he claims to act in that capacity, in the place of Christ, so that everything that he claims, everything that really belongs to Christ, the papacy claims for the
Pope as the vicar of Christ, and these things were lost sight of, somehow, because,
I mean, the reformers, to a man, believed that the papacy was the
Antichrist, and John Knox, the first sermon he ever preached, was on Daniel 7, and on the
Antichrist, Rome as the Antichrist, so it wasn't just a fringe element, you know, a fringe doctrine of the
Reformation, it was at the very heart of the Reformation, this view of the
Antichrist, and I think it's just a general lack of attention to what the reformers said on the subject, led to the modification of the confession.
We do have an anonymous Roman Catholic listener from Ohio, who is citing 1
John chapter 2, and he says, I don't know how you can apply the term
Antichrist to the papacy, where in 1 John chapter 2, beginning at verse 20, we read, but you have an anointing from the
Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie comes from the truth.
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the
Christ. Such a person is the Antichrist, denying the
Father and the Son, and therefore the papacy, which does not deny the
Father and the Son, cannot legitimately be identified with the term
Antichrist. So how do you respond to that? That's right. In 1
John 2, in verse 18, it says, little children, it is the last time, and as you have heard, that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many
Antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time. So there are many
Antichrists, but the Antichrist is still coming. Now, the
Antichrists, sorry, the Antichrists in general, they replace the biblical
Christ with a Christ of false doctrinal construction, whereas the
Antichrist, he replaces Christ by introducing a vicar of Christ on earth, namely the papacy.
But while the root is different, to some extent, the effect is the same, the replacement of Christ, either by a false doctrinal
Christ, the many Antichrists, or a vicar of Christ in the form of the papacy.
Well, even if you're referring to, or if the text is referring to a future
Antichrist, that is to be distinguished from Antichrists that were already in existence when
John wrote that letter, when he says that the
Antichrist is coming soon, though, and that was written 2 ,000 years ago, how does that match with all of the papacy?
Well, the papacy was, the seeds of Roman Catholicism were already at work in the apostolic age, but gradually, bit by bit, as the
Pope of Rome assumed the supremacy, the papacy emerged, but we must remember that when the
Apostle says that it is the last time, he's writing that in the first century, so the last time, the last days, include the whole
New Testament period. God has spoken in these last days by his
Son on the day of Pentecost, I will pour out, in the last days that shall come to pass,
I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, so the term, the last days, the last time, in the scriptures, are used of the whole
New Testament period, so we've been in the last days since the first coming of Christ, everything between the first and second coming of Christ is called the last days in scripture, until the last day when
Christ will come again. So, from that point of view, and knowing how scripture speaks of things close at hand, when to our mind they're not close at hand, but in God's mind they're close at hand, then
I have no difficulty with saying that the Antichrist was still to come, and that he came in, you know, he gradually built up,
I think Roman Catholicism gradually built up over the first few centuries until the papacy was taking the place of Christ, it has been has done ever since.
And by the way, I want all of our listeners who sent in questions to know, I think I may have failed to announce this because it's really good news, if you write us a question today before the program is over, you are getting a free copy of either the book that we addressed the first hour, the free offer,
Biblical and Reformed, or the booklet that we are discussing now, much shorter volume, written by our guest, it's only 19 pages long, but you will receive the booklet,
The Antichrist, a Biblical and Confessional View, by David Silversides, so everyone who has written to us thus far is receiving a copy, if you submit to us your full mailing addresses, because some of you have not done that, and anybody remaining within the next half hour who writes to us, if we have enough copies, you'll get a free copy of either of those volumes, compliments of the publishers.
So again, our email address is chrisarnson at gmail .com, chrisarnson at gmail .com,
and Reverend Buzz Taylor, you have a question? Yes, you know Chris, I'm thinking back over this whole discussion, and I'm kind of getting back to your question as to why it may have been, why the statement may have been removed from the
Confession, now not an expert on who removed it and why and all that stuff, but I, knowing a number of people who take different sides on this issue,
I don't think it's so much a matter of the change of one's view on the papacy, as it is a change on people's views of what the
Book of Revelation is about. Or you may, would I be correct in rephrasing that, it's not due to a change in their opposition, right, to the papacy, they may have changed their view on the papacy as far as an eschatological, oh right, from an eschatological standpoint, simply because, well you know, your interpretation of who the, well
I hesitate to use antichrist and beast in the same sentence, because there's,
I don't see a bit of a connection. Well perhaps our guest does have a connection, and if you could answer Buzz's question, which
I actually brought up earlier, do you know of why the more modern editions dropped it, was it because of ecumenism, which
I would certainly object to, or was it because of just a recognition that many
Reformed people have a different eschatological interpretation of antichrist?
Well, I'm sure it was, I mean, was which, the ecumenism?
I don't want to impede motives to people that don't belong to them, but part of the picture was that the
Jesuits were very keen to promote the idea of a futuristic antichrist, so that the church in the present would become more complacent about the papacy.
Whether everything can be attributed to that is another matter, but that is part of the picture.
I think also it must be remembered that views of prophecy have changed, but I don't think they've changed in a more accurate direction.
The vast majority of the
Puritans and certainly the Scottish covenanters believed that the gospel would advance at the very end.
Yes, some of them believed there would be a sharp apostasy at the very end, but they did believe that the gospel would advance, and that the papacy would be largely destroyed through the advance of the gospel, and there's been a drift away from that, to believe in that the church will, if anything, get smaller, and therefore that wickedness will abound in an unprecedented way, and that that will produce the man of sin.
But we must remember that the man of sin emerges out of the church, this is not
Hitler, or Napoleon, Mussolini, it's not
Mao Tse -tung, it's not Nasser Arafat, he emerges from within the church, and pretends to be the friend of Christ.
And unlike what many of my listeners think, it's not Reverend Buzz Taylor either, not such that. But do you use the term, when you're referring to the antichrist, do you also use it interchangeably with the beast and the false prophet, or are those different entities that Revelation is speaking of?
I think they're basically the same thing, yes, that political
Rome was replaced by papal Rome. You know, when he would, the
Roman emperors were restraining influence, when he was removed, when that which hinders was removed, then the papal antichrist was given free reign and assumed eventually civil powers.
So yes, I do. I think we must bear in mind that in Revelation, the antichrist is pictured as a beast, sorry, as a whore, and as Babylon, and the true bride of Christ is pictured as a bride adorned for her husband, and as Jerusalem, which is above.
And so, both the true bride of Christ and the false are represented as a woman and as a city, but of exact opposite character.
Whereas the true church is the bride of Christ and is
Jerusalem, the false church is a whore, or harlot, and Babylon.
So the sameness of the form, but opposite character, indicates that the antichrist is not an atheistic opponent, but is a pretence at being the church.
It's a city, it's a woman, same as the true, but of a very different character.
And we do have a question that is excellent from David in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, that I'm going to get to after the break, because we do have this one final break that we're going to now.
So if you'll be patient, David, we'll get to your question. And there's two Davids, one is our guest and one is our listener.
And if you'd like to join him, just give us an email at chrisarnson at gmail .com,
because we are running out of time. C -H -R -I -S -A -R -N -Z -E -N at gmail .com. And don't go away, we are going to be right back after these messages.
Lynnbrook Baptist Church on 225 Earl Avenue in Lynnbrook, Long Island, is teaching God's timeless truths in the 21st century.
Our church is far more than a Sunday worship service. It's a place of learning. Scriptures are studied and the preaching of the gospel is clear and relevant.
It's like a gym where one can exercise their faith through community involvement. It's like a hospital for wounded souls where one can find compassionate people and healing.
We're a diverse family of all ages. Enthusiastically serving our Lord Jesus Christ. In fellowship, play, and together.
Hi, I'm Pastor Paul Voldeman and I invite you to come and join us here at Lynnbrook Baptist Church and see all that a church can be.
Call Lynnbrook Baptist at 516 -599 -9402. That's 516 -599 -9402.
Or visit lynnbrookbaptist .org. That's lynnbrookbaptist .org. Are you a
Christian looking to align your faith and finances? Then you'll want to check out Thriving Financial. We're not your typical financial services provider.
We're a not -for -profit Fortune 500 organization that helps our nearly 2 .4 million members be wise with money.
We provide guidance that reflects your values so you can protect what matters most. We help members live generously and strengthen the communities where they live, work, and worship.
Learn more about the Thriving story by contacting me, Mike Gallagher, financial consultant, at 717 -254 -6433.
Again, 717 -254 -6433. Lending faith, finances, and generosity.
That's the Thriving story. Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said,
Christ -exalting books for all ages. We invite you to go treasure hunting at Solid -Ground -Books .com
That's Solid -Ground -Books .com and see what priceless literary gems from the past to present you can unearth from Solid Ground.
Solid Ground Christian Books is honored to be a weekly sponsor of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. Welcome back.
This is Chris Arnzen. If you just joined us for the last 90 minutes and for the 25 minutes or so to follow, we are interviewing and will be interviewing
David Silversides, and we have been discussing the first hour, the free offer
Biblical and Reformed, and this second hour, we have been discussing and will continue discussing the
Antichrist, a Biblical and confessional view. If you'd like to join us on the air, our email address is
ChrisArnzen at gmail .com, ChrisArnzen at gmail .com, and David in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, has an excellent question that combines both of your subjects, and he very rightly asks,
I hope I get both of your books for asking this question, because it applies to both subjects.
If we are to use the free offer of the gospel to mean to indiscriminately preach to all men, no matter who they are, would you evangelize an
Antichrist in hopes that that person may be converted? In other words, would you evangelize a pope with the gospel of Jesus Christ if you believe he is the
Antichrist? Well, I would certainly evangelize all
Roman Catholics and all the priests and the hierarchy of Rome.
Whether the pope has committed the sin which never has forgiveness, including the prerogatives of Christ for himself, and the fact that he's called the son of perdition, that does raise the question as to whether a pope can be converted.
But I'll preach the gospel to them, preach the gospel anyway, and preach the gospel to anybody who's willing to listen.
If each of the popes has committed that particular sin, then it will show itself in his reaction.
But I'll preach the gospel to anybody. Yes, well, I'm assuming because of the wording that we have in 1
John, that whoever denies that Jesus is the
Christ, such a person is the Antichrist. I'm assuming that even if you have a unique view of the papacy, that there are
Antichrists who become Christians. In other words, because we have Jehovah's Witnesses who become Christians, we have
Muslims that become Christians, and we have atheists that become Christians, and all kinds of people who deny that Jesus is the
Christ who become faithful disciples of him. In fact, I would think that the
Apostle Paul would very much have been considered an Antichrist when he was soul of Tarsus.
Would you agree with that? Yes, I would. I mean, the
Apostle Paul says I've obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly and unbelief. It doesn't mean that his unbelief somehow made him guiltless, but he does mean that if he'd done what he did actually knowing that the gospel was true, that he would have committed the sin which never has forgiveness.
But he didn't. And we've got to be very careful before we conclude that someone is beyond hope.
If we had someone like soul of Tarsus on our hands, we would probably conclude that there is no hope.
We would be wrong. And it's the same,
I suppose, with the higher echelons of Rome that we just preach the gospel and leave the saving to God.
Well, I was going to say, I would certainly take a much stronger view of the miraculous if I ever got a chance to witness to the
Pope. Yes, it is indeed an amazing and frightening and frustrating and maddening, maddening thing when there are people who are viewed,
I'm not saying that this person is an evangelical leader in regard to my view of him, but somebody who is embraced as a leader of evangelicalism who has recently been fawning over the
Pope. In fact, he fawned over the last Pope as well and who refers to him as our
Pope. And I don't know why I have a mental block. The Southern Baptist who is very popular with the 40 days of purpose.
Who is that? Oh, I don't know. I can't believe that I forgot his name. You know who
I'm talking about? Sorry. You don't know the 40 days of purpose?
Yes, I heard of it, but I can't remember who did it. All right. Well, what
I'm saying though is that, and he's a major figure,
I don't know if you can remember his name, David Silversides, but he has an
R. But anyway, he's not the only one. There are many modern evangelicals who, in fact, even
Van Impey, Jack Van Impey has been fawning over at least
Pope John Paul II when he passed away. But anyway, this is a really dangerous sign of a complete lack of discernment and seems like a total misunderstanding or disregard for the very gospel of Jesus Christ when evangelical leaders or those that are considered such are embracing and fawning over and expressing great love and admiration and pouring accolades upon the
Pope of Rome. I mean, do you view this in an eschatological sense?
Well, I mean, the same thing is happening over here. What people don't seem to grasp is that the dogma at the
Church of Rome has not changed. Because it has been changed cosmetically, the doctrine of the mass purgatory and so on, it's all still in place.
If you look at the Catechism, produced sometime in the 90s, at the
Roman Catholic doctrine, you find all the elements of Roman Catholicism at the time of the
Reformers is still there. It's just the outward face of the papacy that has changed.
By the way, I looked up the name of that famous evangelical leader, the best -selling author,
Rick Warren, is who I was referring to. Oh, yes, yes. Yes, well, look at the same here.
People are losing sight of the fact that the fact that the face of Rome changes, the dogma has not changed.
They still believe in the mass. You know, if a priest, instead of the more formal approach, if he wears a pullover and strums a guitar, it doesn't alter the doctrine of the mass.
And a lot of people, their antagonism to Roman Catholicism was not sufficiently doctrinally informed.
They thought there was just a ritual and so on, but that was all that was wrong.
It's not. It's the dogma behind it. And the Roman Catholic system, the form of worship, is simply the means whereby a false view of salvation is maintained and put into practice so that the changes are purely cosmetic.
Pope Francis might send a good image at it, but he believes exactly the same soul -destroying dogma as all his predecessors.
And people shouldn't be blown off course by, you know, the smiling old man.
It's what's behind it. And the evils of Islam are obvious now, but that shouldn't distract us completely from keeping an eye on the
Pope, what he's up to. Now, I have
Roman Catholic friends that are ecumenists. And I mean, some of these
Roman Catholic friends of mine, I love them and enjoy their company. I enjoy sometimes their company more than my own brethren in Christ.
But they get very often upset with me for denying that they are my brothers.
And I point out the Council of Trent every time because I say, long before I was born, your church at the
Council of Trent dogmatically declared that I and every other person who agrees with the reformers are to be anathema because the very teachings regarding the gospel of grace are clearly anathematized or placed with a curse in the
Council of Trent. Obviously, the Council of Trent also declared some true things that Protestants agree with, but I'm talking about those unique things that the
Protestant reformers and their heirs believe in regard to the gospel, they are anathematized by Rome.
So they will retort that, well, come on, give me a break. That's antiquated stuff.
You're bringing up, you're bringing back history. You're digging up old arguments. The Vatican too has put all that to rest.
We are separated brothers now and we are all Christians. You've got to stop throwing
Trent in our face. But even though we have the most ecumenical and liberal pope that has ever, or I shouldn't say we have, but they have the most ecumenical and liberal pope in history sitting on that alleged chair of Peter, has that abrogated to the
Council of Trent's anathemas against Protestants? Well, what they've done is, instead of saying the
Council of Trent was wrong, which they can't say without ceasing to be Roman Catholics, what they've done is elasticate the concept of the
Roman Catholic Church. So Vatican II had a series, threw up a series of concentric circles, and I forget the terminology they used.
Those who are members of the Roman Catholic Church with the body of Christ then have various wings of those who are associated with Christ, those who are linked to Christ, and so on.
To cover Protestants, non -Christian religions, even atheists could be unknown to them, linked to Christ, and possibly could be within the fold.
So they haven't eradicated the dogma, no salvation outside of Rome.
They've simply elasticated the concept of who is in Rome, so that as well as Roman Catholics, Protestants, non -Christian religion, pagan religion, atheists might subconsciously be united to the papacy.
Oh, that's what they're saying. Salvation is still through Rome. It's just that they've broadened out, because it's not popular stuff nowadays to say that everybody outside Rome is lost.
So they've put a spin on it without actually admitting that they got it wrong in the past.
So the dogma is still there. It's just reinterpreted. And so Trent is still there, but it's put a pleasanter face on it.
It's not the done thing to call us heretics, so they call us separated brethren instead.
But the dogma is still there. That's an excellent insight. Catholics are on the way of salvation through that.
It's because they're unconsciously united to the papacy. Yeah, that's an excellent insight.
It is very much akin to the modern -day adoption of pluralism that even evangelicals and Protestants have adopted, where they will say that only
Christ saves. Christ's death, burial, resurrection is essential to the salvation of mankind, but they will say, according to their pluralistic beliefs, that a
Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist or an atheist may go to heaven because they have been redeemed by Christ, but that does not, in their false view, that does not require that that person actually comes to faith in Christ on this earth to receive the benefits of that death.
That seems very much harmonious with what you just said about Rome and their concept of an elastic, elasticized view of who is actually a member of the
Church of Rome. Yes, that's right. And we do have
Joshua in eastern Suffolk County, Long Island, asking, do you believe that the papacy will develop into something that it currently not is in order to fulfill any biblical prophecies?
Well, it wouldn't have to. Obviously, I don't know how the papacy is going to develop, but as far as I'm concerned, it fulfills all the biblical requirements already.
I can't think of anything that has to be developed in order to fulfill the biblical requirements.
But, I mean, the papacy may develop. It has a great ability to metamorphose into, you know, something not essentially different, but outwardly different looking.
That's possible. I don't know. We have CJ in Lindenhurst, Long Island, who wants to know what your eschatological view could be labeled as.
Are you amillennial, postmillennial, or premillennial? I'm postmillennial.
That's interesting. But of the old Puritan postmillennialism.
I'm not reconstructionist postmillennial. Then you're not, I'm taking it you're not a preterist of any kind by your descriptions.
No, no, no, no. I mean, I'm slightly hybrid on revelation in that I accept
Hendrickson's division of seven visions, but I think that's consistent with viewing chapter, because he believes in progressive parallelism, it's consistent with that to view chapter 20, 21, and 22, the last vision, as dealing with the times at the end of the age and the eternal world.
So I think it's consistent with that.
So I accept the Hendrickson's basic division, but I don't accept his slightly pessimistic, well, his rather pessimistic view of how things will develop.
I take a postmillennial view of chapter 20. And we have
Harrison in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, who wants to know, do you believe that there are unfulfilled prophecies that will involve the papacy, such as all men globally bowing to a one world government and things such as that?
Well, I don't know how much worse things will get, but I believe that the gospel will at some time advance, and that the
Roman Antichrist will be brought down by the advance of the gospel, that the destruction by the breath of his mouth does not necessarily mean or exclusively mean is coming in judgment, that it can refer to the gospel.
And the reference is, of course, to Isaiah, and Calvin on the passage in Isaiah refers the breath of his mouth to the preaching of the gospel.
So, papacy will be brought down through the preaching of the gospel, and not simply by the coming of Christ to judgment.
And I'd like to make sure that you summarize everything that you want most to be etched on the hearts and minds of our listeners before they leave this broadcast.
And if we have time, I'll take one or two other listener questions, but I just want to make sure that what you primarily want our listeners to know about what you've written here is something that they walk away understanding.
Yes, yes. Well, I mean, the main point is that the papacy is the fulfillment of 2
Thessalonians 2, and that this is a feature of the last days generally, which is why you don't need to take a chronological, historic view of revelation and try and give a historical meaning to everything.
You can take revelation as giving the broad picture of what will happen to the church, and still believe that the papacy is the
Antichrist by the fact that it refers not to a specific time and a specific pope, but that the papacy is a constant feature of the church in the
New Testament age, since it was formed. And by the way, it might surprise some of our listeners, but when
I had Robert Syngenis as a guest on my program, he's a
Roman Catholic apologist, I took a lot of heat from my theologically -minded brethren and friends because they thought that was giving a platform to a false teacher, but my purpose of having
Mr. Syngenis on was to, from a Roman Catholic point of view, point out how
Pope Francis has departed from not only the biblical understanding of Christianity, but even the
Roman Catholic understanding of it. And, but he said that a pope can be an
Antichrist. It was interesting to hear from the lips of a Roman Catholic, so I want our listeners to know that even a
Catholic, and there are many Catholics, perhaps in a great minority, or should
I say a tiny minority today, but even a Catholic could believe that the pope is the Antichrist. Not the papacy in general, obviously, as our guest does, but they can believe a pope or popes are
Antichrists. Have you ever heard that? Three at a time, so there had to be two at least who were
Antichrists.
And we have time for one more listener. We have, let's see here, we have
Mary in Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, who wants to know how can you teach such things publicly and also reassure people that you are not intending to be spreading hatred for our
Catholic friends? Yes, well, this is always a problem, not only with Roman Catholics, but with Muslims and with any grouping that opposition to their dogma doesn't mean hatred for them as individuals.
But I think the best one can do is preach the gospel, preach the free offer of the gospel sincerely and heartily and look to God to convince people that you do actually care about them and they want them delivered from an evil system.
And we're out of time, brother. I look forward to having you back. I really enjoyed our time together and I want everybody listening to always remember that Jesus Christ is a far greater
Savior than you are a sinner. Have a safe and blessed weekend and we look forward to hearing from you and your questions next week on Iron Sharpen's Iron Radio.