Responses to Chuck Smith on the Reformed Faith, and to George Schaeffer on KJOnlyism

to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Alpha and Omega Ministries presents the Dividing Line Radio Broadcast. The Apostle Peter commanded all

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence.

Your host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, you can call now by dialing 602 -274 -1360.

That's 602 -274 -1360. Or if you're out of the Metro Phoenix dialing area, it's 1 -888 -550 -1360.

That's 1 -888 -550 -1360. And now with today's topic, here's

James White. And good afternoon and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name indeed is

James White and the program is called The Dividing Line, but I want to start out today since I don't want to forget these things.

And, you know, the older I get, the more I forget stuff. And people keep telling me that that's happening more and more.

And what was I saying? Oh, that's right. We had an announcement to make. And I don't want anyone to be upset or anything like that.

But we are starting something new next week. Yes, we're starting something new next week.

We are going to be starting an internet broadcast next week. If you're listening, well, you're not listening via the internet anyways, but if by some miracle you are, and we don't think that's possible.

But anyways, those who normally do listen by the internet, and I realize there are some of you who listen to this as a archived program later on.

Starting next week, we will be doing a live internet broadcast, and I don't even think

Rich is aware of this. But, you know, Rich, I was thinking we should go for 90 minutes because that's how long cassette tape is.

Doesn't that make sense? I mean, you could fit everything onto a C90. You can cover a lot of stuff on a

C90. You don't have 90 minutes. You don't have, you know, the breaks and stuff to worry about, so on and so forth.

That's really heavy, man. You've wanted to do that for two years, haven't you? And now you're taking your advantage of this opportunity because since we're going to be doing that beginning next week at two o 'clock

Mountain Standard Time, or whatever it is, since we don't play with our clocks out here in Arizona, that means that this is the last program we're going to have on KPXQ.

And you might say, well, why would you be doing that? Well, basically, the vast majority of the response that we get to the program is from outside the state of Arizona, and since that's the case and the majority of folks who contact us and follow up with us are listening through the internet, financially and time -wise, we can do much more on the internet than we can on the radio.

And internet access is becoming more and more universal. I know that there are some folks who aren't going to be able to hear us because we're not going to be on the radio.

But there are, you know, you've got to look at the amount of time and the money that you're spending and go, what's the best thing to do?

And so we are going to be going to a live internet broadcast starting next week, and we'll go for 90 minutes.

Next week might be an hour where, you know, we've got some kinks to work out, some things to work out. But if you go to www .aomin

.org, you will see a link there. Probably put up a page this week,

I would assume, talking about the internet broadcast, you know, some things like that. Eventually, if we don't do that this week, we will, of course, develop that eventually.

But right now, we will be putting that material together. And next week, you will be able to hear us.

If you're one of our internet listeners, we will be recording it and archiving it, just like we normally do.

So if you can't listen from 2 to 3 .30 PM live and you rely upon the internet archiving, we'll be doing that.

That's not going to be a problem. If you're basically, if you're outside the Phoenix area, nothing's going to change for you except the program goes an extra half hour.

But if you listen regularly on the air, then this will be our last week. And you'll need to, you know, maybe just, you've been thinking about getting the internet, you've been thinking about getting that computer.

Maybe it's time to do it and be able to tune in that way. I think it's going to allow us to do a little bit more in the future as far as interactive things.

We'll be doing more with the chat room, having interaction there and guests on the program and things like that.

So just, I'll mention this again a couple of times during the program, but this will be our last live program here on KPXQ.

And starting next week, the program will be live on the internet. And of course, what that means is since we've set ourselves up to be able to do that, the possibility exists of doing special programs during the course of the week, maybe special debates, issues, issue oriented programs, things like that.

And maybe some of you who don't get to listen because you work on Saturdays, things like that might be able to participate in those programs as they come up on the internet.

So write down that internet website. Even if you don't have it right now, you might have it before you know it.

You never know, maybe somebody gives you a computer for Christmas, you know, or maybe a couple of weeks after Christmas, someone who got a new computer will give you their old computer.

That's generally how it works. And you'll be able to go down the internet and interact with us and listen to the program, www .aomin

.org. There will be a link right on the main page, the first page comes up, how to listen to the program, et cetera, et cetera.

So make sure to write that down. Now, a lot of things to talk about today in our last program, some very interesting things to do.

I think I have a letter in front of me that I'm going to read that I think you will find interesting. And I also have a radio phone call, shall we say, a phone call that came into a radio program.

I believe the date was actually 1999, but a URL was sent to me this week.

And what I'm going to play for you is a phone call that came in to the

Calvary Chapel program and to Chuck Smith. Now, Chuck Smith is, of course, the founder and head of Calvary Chapel.

And the phone call, the question is fascinating. Here you have an individual who calls in, who has seemingly for the first time encountered

Reformed theology. And the question he asks is, what do

Reformists believe? And do they believe that man has a will, in essence, is what he asks.

We'll play the question, too. And I want you to listen very carefully to Chuck Smith's response.

And then I would like to offer some commentary and some rebuttal on what is said by Chuck Smith in regards to the

Reformed faith. So let's see if we can fire this up. He does in Fontana, California. Thanks for calling your question today.

Yeah, my question is, what is a Reformist and what is the background of their faith?

And do they deny the existence of man's will, of human will? Pastor Chuck.

Well, first of all, Reformed theology usually traces back to Calvin and the five points of what they call the

Reformed theology. And there are degrees, though.

There are those that hold very strictly to what we would say, they call it the tulip, and to the fact that you have limited atonement.

They say that Jesus didn't die for everyone. You have irresistible grace.

That if the Lord has chosen you to be saved, that you can't resist his grace.

Well, when you start taking positions like that, then you have eliminated the human responsibility.

You've eliminated the free will. And so when you take the extreme positions, yes, it does in the extreme position eliminate choice and free will.

And unfortunately, many people have taken those to an extreme. And thus, the moment you go to an extreme, then you have to deny so many scriptures where Jesus said,

God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever will. But you no longer have whosoever will.

It would be whosoever has been chosen and ordained, and man's responsibility and choice is eliminated.

So it is in the extreme positions that some people have taken that does eliminate the human responsibility.

But there is truth on both sides. Of course, the total depravity of man is one of the positions.

And I believe that the Bible does teach that man is depraved by nature and that he has to have redemption through Jesus Christ.

But I do believe that man's choice is involved and that God gives us the choice and makes the invitation to us, but we have to respond to the invitation.

Right. So how would they respond to the fact that Jesus, while he was in the guard, he said, this is not my will be done, but thy will be done.

What do they say about his will? I don't know. You know,

I was confused in my conversation with his brother. I just, I couldn't understand why you would want to, you know, totally eliminate the man's will or even the

Lord's will. Yeah. You know, actually, as I say, it's just extremism and it's sad when a person takes it to an extreme because he leaves the truth and he, because the truth is a whole truth and you don't have the whole truth when you deny the scriptural teaching of human responsibility and the necessity of man to respond to the grace of God.

Buzz, we have a little pamphlet I'd like to recommend to you. I think it's Calvinism versus John 316. Okay.

Put out by George Bryson and it's basically the view, the extremist view, it's judged and found wanting, found lacking.

So I encourage you to get that. You can either call this number after the broadcast or you can call 800 -272 -WORD and order your copy.

Be more than happy to take care of that for you. Thanks, Buzz, for the question. God bless you, Buzz. Extremist views.

When you go to the extreme, you're no longer preaching the truth. You're contradicting the Bible. You are denying scriptures.

And the extremist there was to believe in the total depravity which results in the enslavement of man's will, not the destruction of man's will.

And it's amazing to me that someone can call into a program and someone can actually say, oh, yes, well, they deny human responsibility.

And then when the man says, well, what about Jesus? Didn't he have a will? Why would they want to deny that Jesus has a will?

What reformed person has ever denied that Jesus had a will? That is ridiculous, of course.

No one denies that Jesus had a will. Just amazing.

But let's think about some of the things that were said. Limited atonement represented as Jesus didn't die for everyone.

How about representing it for what it really says? And that is that Jesus laid down his life substitutionarily in behalf of his elect people so that he would save them perfectly and so that the justice of God would be perfectly fulfilled and that the result of that is that Jesus does not substitutionarily bear the sins of individuals who will then be bearing those sins themselves in eternity.

So in other words, God does not engage in double jeopardy and punish the son for the sins of the non -elect and then the non -elect for the same sins.

In other words, the father does not lay upon the son the sins of individuals that he does not intend to save.

I mean, that makes sense, but that's not how people want to present it because it doesn't sound quite the same when you do it that way.

Well, then we had irresistible grace, and that is constantly misrepresented.

Irresistible grace is simply the fact that when God resurrects a dead sinner, that dead people can't resist the resurrection power of God.

I mean, think about this. Remember the situation with Ezekiel and his vision of the Valley of the

Bones? That would be like saying the bones must, by definition, have the ability to tell

God, no, I will not come back to form a whole human being. That means God has to be going through the

Valley of the Dry Bones saying to each skeleton, can I have your permission to resurrect you back to life?

That's the denial of what irresistible grace is about. Irresistible grace is not that God coerces or forces.

It's that there is no spiritual life to provide resistance in the first place.

It's resurrection power. So calling that coercion or force is, well, anyways.

What I want, the reason I wanted to play this after I heard it was did you notice the miscitation of John 3 .16?

There's even a pamphlet that they advertise there. At the end, you can call in, and you can get this pamphlet from Calvary Chapel in regards to John 3 .16

versus Calvinism. You can get George Bryson's book, Calvinism Weighed and Found Wanting, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And it seems that for many people, John 3 .16 is the anti -Calvinist verse.

And they just throw it out there. And what happens is we have a tradition that is attached to a particular interpretation, that the particular interpretation becomes a tradition unto itself.

So that even Chuck Smith misquoted John 3 .16. He quoted it as, so that whosoever will.

There is no whosoever will in John 3 .16. And I'd like you to think with me for a moment about John 3 .16.

Now here's one, you can think about this driving down the road because who doesn't know John 3 .16? I mean, it's probably the one verse that for most of us, certainly if you grew up in a

Christian church, as I did, it was the first verse I ever memorized, the first verse I knew anything about.

John 3 .16, for God so loved the world that he gave his unique son, his monogamous.

In order that, and the Greek phrase is pas ha pisteun, everyone believing in him may not perish, but have eternal life.

Now the verse is very clear. The verse is saying that God's love was so great that he gave his son.

Why did he give his son? Why is the giving of the son a demonstration of God's love for the world?

Well, he gave his son for a purpose. In order that, what? In order that every believing one, and it's the exact same

Greek participle that is used, for example, in John 6 to describe those who have true saving faith, the ones believing, it's ongoing faith, true saving faith.

Everyone who believes shouldn't perish, but instead have eternal life.

So God gave the son so that believers could have eternal life.

You see, if the son is not given, if the son does not take on human flesh and die as the substitute for sin in their place, then they can believe all day long, but there is no salvation.

So the father demonstrates his love for the world by giving his son so that believers, every single believer, no person who ever believes in Jesus Christ receives anything other than eternal life.

Now, that's what the passage is talking about, and the passage defines what the meaning of world is.

The passage itself limits the phrase. If the phrase world meant every single human individual, then why then is there this limitation?

So that he loved everybody, so that only a certain portion would have eternal life.

Remember, the Bible describes faith as a gift from God. This very same gospel of John says that no one can come to the son unless they're drawn by the father.

So let's keep in mind what is being said here is that God's love demonstrates itself in the giving of the son so that all the believing ones will receive eternal life.

Now, what happens is you repeat the verse so many times and then attach an interpretation to it that you think the interpretation becomes a part of the verse, so much so that without even trying, you insert the interpretation by saying, whosoever will.

And the idea is that as long, if you have that word whosoever, now, when English translations say that whosoever believes, all it's saying there is that every believing one, no matter who it is, every single believing one receives eternal life, does not perish.

There is no phrase, there's no word anywhere in that verse that refers to the will of man.

There's no word that refers to the capacity of man. Nothing at all. Simply every believing one, everyone believing in Christ receives eternal life.

But we just heard someone insert into the concept the idea that when it says whosoever, what it means is there's no election.

There's no particularity in God's calling. Everybody's called equally.

Everybody has the same capacity and ability to believe. There is nothing in the text that substantiates that assertion whatsoever.

It's not even a part of what the verse is addressing. Now, does the gospel of John address the question of who can believe?

You better believe it does. John chapter six tells us. Why is it that you do not believe?

Why are there those of you who have heard me speak or seeing me speak and yet you do not believe? It's because it's not been given to you of the

Father. John 665, it's because no one could come to me unless the Father sent me drossum. John 644, it's because in John eight, those who are of God, belong to God, hear the words of God.

The reason you don't hear the words of God is because you don't belong to God. And in John chapter 10, Jesus says, I lay down my life for the sheep.

And he looks at those scribes and Pharisees and says, you are not of my sheep.

And that's why in John 17, Jesus says, I do not pray for the world. I pray for those you've given me out of the world.

Very consistent, the gospel of John, when it's addressing the issue of the capacity or in this case, incapacity of man, it's very consistent.

But John three doesn't address that. Only traditions insert that kind of thinking into John chapter three.

And so when you hear that kind of assertion, when you hear that kind of argumentation, keep it in mind, ask yourself the question, are these folks really dealing with the text in the context?

Or am I getting here a tradition rather than exegesis of the biblical text itself?

I think we just saw an example of that from John chapter three. Well, let's switch gears here.

And if you'd like to comment on that, that's fine. 602 -274 -1360, 1 -888 -550 -1360.

We can talk about that if you'd like. I'm, if you hear any little bumping in the background, I'm fixing this microphone. It's be the last time

I do it. For some reason, people keep messing with this microphone and they don't know how it's supposed to be hanging there on these little rubber thingamabobbies.

And I have to fix it. All you got to fix here is there, Rich, there you go. See, we need to leave the place better than when we came here.

That's my feeling. You know, I think that's the right thing to do. 1 -888 -550 -1360.

If you're outside the Phoenix dialing area, 602 -274 -1360. Next subject.

Next subject. Got a letter this week, dated November 20th. It is from George Schaefer, assistant to the pastor at the

Anchor Baptist Church in Salt Lake City, Utah. And it's addressed to me.

There is no Dear Mr. White. It just simply says, James R. White has our post office box. This is the kind of letter we get.

And I think this one is very, very interesting. I read, quote, A member of my church recently delivered me a copy of your pamphlet entitled,

But it is translated correctly. She and I were equally amused that you, of all people, would write those words about the

Bible, understanding that the target audience of your literature is people, Mormons, who consider the Bible to be the

King James Bible. I would contend that most people, maybe even informed Mormons, understand that your position on the

Bible is the same as that of the LDS church. For example, you say in your book, The King James Only Controversy, that sometimes the

KJV translation is misleading, or sometimes an entire concept will simply disappear from the text due to a less than clear

KJV translation, or the AV needs some level of revision, end quote. Following these comments and others like them, you continue page after page, asserting that the

King James Bible is not accurate. I realize there is a difference in the level of doubt you cast and in the doubt cast by the

Mormon church, but the concept is one and the same. Frequently in the past year or two, I have been confronted by good people who want to know the truth.

They often come to me with your book. I show them the inaccuracies, overly simplistic approaches and other errors, and typically have success in making them realize that you are more interested in winning the argument than in showing people the truth.

You will stand before God one day and answer for that. I fear, however, that you are also introducing gross confusion in the attempt to evangelize lost

Mormon souls when you seemingly try to eat your cake and have it too by casting doubt on the

King James Bible in one writing and then asking Mormons to trust it in another. Let's face it,

Mr. White, your position on the Bible is identical to that of the LDS church. Both of you believe the King James Bible is the word of God in as far as it is translated correctly.

Truly, the level of error perceived by the Mormon church is much greater than that which you assert, but the fact is that both of you consider the

Bible to have been corrupted in the hands of fallible men. Once the Mormon church gets that message out, if they have not done so already, it seems likely that you will find it impossible to effectively use the sword of the

Spirit to reach them. I have no intention of entering into a paper debate with you.

I do, however, have the very slightest hope that you will realize the implausibility of your clearly duplicitous position and correct it sincerely,

George Schaeffer. Well, how do you respond to something like that?

I mean, doesn't he have a point? I mean, if we say that the Bible is accurately translated, doesn't that mean that we have to be

King James only, folks? Well, of course not. Is our position the same as the

LDS church? Well, of course not. We believe in inerrancy, as evangelicals understand that term, not as King James only advocates do.

Evangelicals believe that the Bible is inerrant as it was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. They do not believe that inerrancy extends to copyists of Scripture.

Neither did the King James translators, for that matter. And there wasn't a single fundamentalist

Baptist amongst them. I would point out there was no one who translated the King James Bible who believes as George Schaeffer believes.

By the way, George Schaeffer would be more than happy. We would be more than happy, Mr. Schaeffer, to have you on our program.

I would be more than happy to have you on our internet broadcast. And if you do sit down with folks, as you say in your letter, and show them the inaccuracies, the overly simplistic approaches and other errors to those who meet with you in your office, then it would seem logical and it would seem like it would be a great opportunity for you since many of our folks listen to the internet broadcast all across the

United States that if there are these simple things to point out that all you need do is come on the air and point them out.

And I wouldn't have any response, right? I mean, if these are true and accurate, that is.

And so, Mr. Schaeffer, feel free to contact us. Feel free to call our offices, 602 -973 -4602.

Get in touch with Mr. Pierce. Let us know when you would like to come on and demonstrate what you have in the letter here that there are inaccuracies, overly simplistic approaches and other errors in the

King James -only controversy. We will be glad to have you on and give you the opportunity of showing our entire audience, many people who are supporters of our ministry, exactly how far off we really are.

Or they will be edified in finding out that that isn't true and maybe you'd be edified as well in discovering that maybe your arguments cannot stand up to cross -examination and that kind of thing, which certainly there isn't going to be any of that going on in your office if someone comes to you with the book.

And it's interesting, I've never had anyone contact me who had talked to you to get my side of the story, which

I would think would be somewhat necessary to be able to do that in a very good way.

So anyways, as I was saying, I'd be glad to have Mr. Schaeffer on, but isn't there a point?

Wouldn't you say that they have a point here? Is our viewpoint the same as the LDS Church? Of course not.

Our whole belief in the accuracy of the transmission of the text is based upon, in fact, if you read, but it is translated correctly, the tract that is titled that, not entitled that, but titled that.

If you would look at that, you would discover that we defend not the King James translation.

In point of fact, what I used in Letters to a Mormon Elder, that I've had many a

Mormon, by the way, Mr. Schaeffer, many a Mormon admit has caused them to stop alleging this error in the

Bible, is I used the illustration of the lack of clarity in the King James translation at Acts 9 -7 and Acts 22 -9.

And any person who's gone out and witnessed to Mormon missionaries and talked with LDS people knows that the

LDS missionary is one of the very first things he's going to say is, well, the Bible's contradictory. And here's an illustration, because in these two passages in the

Book of Acts, we discover that in point of fact, in one place it says that Paul heard a voice, in another it says he did not hear a voice.

And they're basing this upon the King James translation. Well, they could not base that alleged contradiction upon the

NIV because the NIV brings out the underlying difference in the

Greek text that the King James does not. And so it is only an apparent contradiction, and I'm not really sure how a

King James -only advocate would defend the King James Bible as an inerrant translation given

Acts 9 -7 and Acts 22 -9. But Mormons can recognize how you can defend the true doctrine of inerrancy and the inerrancy of what

Luke wrote, not what was translated by the Anglican translators 1 ,600 years after the time, 1 ,500 and some odd years after the time that Luke wrote.

And so the position is not the same. I would like to ask

Mr. Schaeffer, do you believe that the New World translation is the

Word of God? I certainly don't believe it's the Word of God. I don't believe the Joseph Smith translation is the

Word of God, but I believe the King James and the New American Standard and the NIV, that they can all be called the Word of God, just as the

King James translators said that any mean translation that seeks to be faithful to what is written in the original languages can be called the

Word of God in the English language. I take the same position as the King James translators. King James -only advocates have to reject the position of the

King James translators on these particular issues, which I find to be very, very interesting.

And so it is an error to say that we have the same position as the LDS Church because the

LDS Church as a whole is saying that the Bible has not been communicated to us and transmitted to us in such a way as we can know with accuracy and with certainty what the apostles originally wrote.

And it has been my assertion, and I would be glad to prove it and debate against Mr. Schaeffer, if you'd like to contact us, is that King James -onlyism undercuts the defense of the scripture with LDS people.

It undercuts it because it replaces the truth with a human tradition, not with anything more than that.

602 .274 .1360 .1888 .550 .1360.

We're going to take our break and come back with Pierre in Centerville, Virginia to talk a little bit about John 3 .16,

and we'll be right back right after this. And welcome back to Dividing Line.

And welcome back to Dividing Line. Do -do -do -do. Are we going to use the...

We're not going to use the same music, necessarily, are we? When we go to the internet, I guess. We can re -record that one about 14 ,000 decibels lower than it currently is.

Ah, that's... Wonderful. And you're wondering, what am

I talking about? You tuned in late, and you're going, what do you mean? What are you talking about? Well, I'll tell you what

I'm talking about. Just a quick reminder. I mentioned this half an hour ago, but I'll mention it again.

If you, by some miracle, are listening on the internet, which I don't think you can do right now anyways. Well, you know, how is it,

Rich, that someone in Centerville, Virginia could be listening on the internet? And I don't think

Rich is listening to me at all right now. How could someone in Centerville, Virginia be listening on the internet?

He's not. Oh, okay. Alrighty, well, that works fine, too. Anyways, this is the last

Saturday for the dividing line on KPXQ. We are going to begin next week a live internet broadcast at this time that you will be able to listen to and that you'll be able to call in.

We will have an 800 number that you can call into, and we're going to go from 60 minutes to 90 minutes.

I'm not sure we're going to be doing 90 next week. We may only do 60 next week, but the eventual idea is to do 90 minutes, and we will have complete control over everything that we're doing, and we'll be able to have a lot of fun with the internet broadcast.

And so since many of our people are listening via the internet anyways, those of you in the

Phoenix area will be able to pick up the internet broadcast. If you have access to the internet, that's becoming a much more common thing that everyone has that or is getting that, and so we would invite you to listen to us in that way, and that's what's going to be taking place.

So this is the last week here locally on KPXQ, and if you are listening via the radio, you will want to go to our website, which is www .aomin

.org, www .aomin .org, and there you will be able to listen to the program.

Just click on the link there. We'll have everything set up for next Saturday. So with that in mind, let's take our first phone call and go to Pierre in Centerville, Virginia.

Hello again, Pierre. Hi. How you doing? Okay, I was calling in reference to your broadcast two weeks ago.

I guess you were talking about free will. Yeah, actually we did. And I forget the name of the gentleman that you were particularly focusing on right now.

Joe Chambers. Dr. Chambers. Dr. Chambers, that's right. That's right, Dr. Chambers, I remember now. And anyway, there was one particular passage which you talked about, which

I thought was rather curious that you said what you did, because it doesn't seem right.

And that was John 3 .16. Which we talked about today, in fact. Right, I missed. I came in late.

First of all, 15 minutes worth of the program. But anyway, one of the statements that you made that the term or the word whosoever is not actually contained in the

Greek translation. Right, there is no indefinite relative pronoun there.

It is literally the phrase every believing one. And hence, the rendering whoever believes or whosoever believes is simply saying every single person who believes will not perish but have eternal life.

That's why the son was given by the father was so that every believing one can have eternal life and not perish.

There is no phrase there that means this is simply thrown out in the sense of every single person has the capacity to have saving faith.

There is no term there, there is no phrase for will, anything like that at all.

The Greek is pas hap estuon, every believing one. Everyone believing in him, that is in Christ, will not perish, but instead they will have eternal life.

Okay, well that's just kind of sounds like I guess you're putting a different spin on it a little bit.

Where's the spin in just giving you an example? Well, even with the words that you use, there is still room for, you know, whosoever believes.

Meaning to say it's open for everyone. There, again, it simply says every believing one. Yeah, every believing one, that's right.

In other words, whosoever believes. Right. So the concept that it's only limited to, if you will, the chosen ones, those ones who are chosen by God, pre -elected, or I'm sorry, predestined for salvation.

I think that's not the idea that's being conveyed here. Well, the passage isn't addressing the whole issue. It's simply saying that the

Son is given so that every believing one might have eternal life. There is nothing in the passage that talks about ability or inability.

That's talked about in John 644, 665, 841 -43, all those passages where that particular issue is addressed.

My whole point has been from the beginning that to say that John 3 .16 indicates that there is an ability on the part of every single person to believe is going far beyond what the text itself is saying.

The text itself is saying every believing one, everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but will have everlasting life.

That's why the Father gave the Son. Because without the giving of the Son, you can believe all you want, but it's not going to result in anything.

Instead, the Son has to be given by the Father so that belief in Him can bring eternal life.

I don't see where putting it the way you're wording it somehow limits the ability of someone to choose to believe.

I didn't say that it did. I said there is nothing in the passage addressing ability or inability.

That it is eisegesis to insert into it the idea that this means everybody has the ability.

As I just said, John makes it very clear. Inability is taught in John 644, 665,

John 8, John 10. It is John 17, 9. It's mentioned over and over again in Scripture and in the

Gospel of John. This is not one of the passages that addresses that. Excuse me, yes,

John 644. And then look at 665 since you're pretty much on the same page.

And he was saying, actually that's an imperfect tense verb there, over and over again, but for this reason

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

Father. Well, I would say that I have no problem with that. I think then you have to turn to Peter.

I think it's chapter 4 or 5. You can't figure this out from the Gospel of John? I mean, John didn't write this so that someone could understand from the

Gospel of John what that means? I think it has to do with the way you tend to approach it and interpret it with a preconceived notion.

I guess what I'm trying to get across is that in fact the concept is that the invitation is open to everyone.

Yes, the Father has to call out to that individual. I guess what I'm getting up to is that everyone is given the invitation to come unto

Christ and believe in him. And then, whosoever responds in the affirmative receives eternal life.

Well, that is the standard view of the religions of men and certainly of Mormonism as well. It is not the view of the

New Testament because as you read in your own words in John 6 .44 the

Lord Jesus there said, No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day.

Everyone who is drawn is raised up to eternal life by the Lord Jesus Christ. And therefore, since there are going to be those who are not raised up to eternal life but to eternal judgment obviously not everyone is drawn by the

Father. Instead, in the context as Jesus said in John 6 .37 Everyone that the

Father has given to me will come to me and the one coming to me I will never cast out.

So it is the Father's giving of an elect people to the Son that determines their coming to the

Son not the other way around. And yes, I realize since in Mormonism and if I'm recalling correctly that's the perspective you're coming from and I would say that it is

Mormonism that provides you with the unbiblical presuppositions in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, not me.

But coming from Mormonism you don't have a sovereign God, you have an exalted man and therefore the idea of him having the sovereign right or authority to give and elect people unto the

Son that you have no basis. You don't have, Pierre, quite honestly your

God isn't big enough. Your God can't say what God says in Romans 9 when he talks about the potter in the pots because your

God is an exalted pot. So your God did not form man, he's not the creator of man, he's the begetter of man.

So you don't, in fact we have a tape I think you'd find very interesting. Do you know who Van Hale is?

Yes. I don't know him personally but I've... You know he's an LDS, he does dialogue from the

LDS perspective. He and I did two or three hours as I recall on his own radio station, well he doesn't own the radio station, his own program up in Salt Lake City on this very subject and he said and we make the tape available so you can see it on the website and order it from there.

He even said, well given your presuppositions that the Bible's infallible and inerrant and given your presuppositions about what it teaches about God, hey your position makes perfect sense.

I just absolutely disagree that I could ever worship a

God like the God that you present. I can certainly understand coming from your perspective you don't have a sovereign

God. You have a God who was a man and has been exalted to the status of God.

He is an exalted man. And we are gods in embryo. So the idea that your God could select a particular people into salvation is obviously ridiculous.

But that's your presupposition that you're bringing to the text and I would submit to you that you could not start at John 6 .35

and work through John 6 .45 and just simply stick with the text and interpret it consistently.

I think I would differ with you considerably on that. I think one has to look also at the entirety of Scripture or the

Bible, if you want. There are many other passages that clearly indicate that God is extending invitation to men to come unto

Him and be perfected. So when you say you have to look at the whole of Scripture everybody says that but how do you look at the whole of Scripture if you do not look at individual passages?

See, my point up here is that I can look at any passage that you present and give a consistent interpretation.

You cannot give me a consistent interpretation of John 6 .37 without simply saying, well, you've just got to look at the whole

Bible and just really not deal with it what this says in its context as it was originally written as it was originally spoken.

And I say to you that's not looking at the whole of Scripture. That is taking a presupposition and enforcing it upon Scripture.

There is a universal aspect to not the invitation but the command of the Gospel. God commands men everywhere to repent.

There is no doubt about that. But the Bible also teaches that man in his fallen state in sin is incapable of doing anything that's pleasing to God.

He is a God -hater. He engages in idolatry by forming God in his own image which,

Pierre, is what Mormonism does. He engages in false religion by denying who the

God that is really there is. And the Scripture says that outside of God giving us a new heart, taking out the heart of stone, giving us a heart of flesh, that none of us have the capacity of doing anything that's pleasing to God, Romans 8 .7

-8. That is the pan -canonical, pan -biblical teaching of man's incapacity and inability.

It goes from Genesis to Revelation. It's all the way through. It would not make any sense for God to command me to repent if I have no capacity to repent.

Really? So because you have placed yourself in a position through your own sin that you are a slave to sin, then

God cannot command you to do what's right? So we should let drunk drivers off because, well, once they're soused, it would be wrong for us to command them to drive down the right side of the road, even though, of course, their impairment is self -imposed.

We shouldn't hold somebody accountable who drives down the left side of the road and plows into a car and kills everybody in it because they've been incapacitated.

Therefore, we don't have the right to command them to do the right thing. Is that what you're saying? No. I think that's a different situation here.

Why? Because what I'm talking about, and you didn't give me a chance to really finish my thought, and that is that, you know, free will is given to men.

Where does the Bible say that? According to your theology, we are born already as sinners.

Yes, the Bible says that we fell in Adam. It's called federal hedging. And so how can God hold us accountable when we already are born with no capacity to do good unless He gives it to us?

Well, see, certainly, again, Mormonism certainly denies biblical teaching of federal headship, and many

Pelagianism does, and all of man's religions will deny federal headship, and that is that we fell in Adam and that we are justly held accountable for what

Adam did. The problem is that people who deny that then want to turn around and say, well, once you're in Christ, you can be held accountable for Christ's righteousness.

You can receive in Him eternal life. I have no idea what in the world that was.

You can receive in Him eternal life, but we don't want to be held accountable for Adam's sin, but we do want to receive what's in Christ.

It's one or the other. Romans chapter 5 tells us that in Adam we receive death, in Christ we receive life.

If you're going to reject the one, you have to reject the other. I don't deny the fact that in Adam we receive death, but he's talking about physical death, not spiritual death.

And where does he make that differentiation? Well, I don't know that he makes it clearly, but neither does he make it definite that it refers to spiritual death.

So when he says all of us are spiritually dead in Ephesians 2, 1 through 3, how did that happen, if it is not due to the fact that we are all the children of Adam?

We are all, because we've all chosen to sin. We have made the conscious and the free will decision to sin.

So someone could... Not because of something that Adam did. We are held accountable for our own transgressions, and because we all transgress at some point or another, we have all fallen from grace.

But a person could choose not to. Yes. So there could be perfect people. Theoretically possible for man not to sin, and none of us do it.

I'm hoping that... Christ was the only one who ever did it, but I'm saying that theoretically it is possible, and that's the reason why

God can hold us accountable, because we have the capacity within us to not sin, but we don't do it.

And there I hope everyone hears that Mormonism is essentially Pelagian, because that is the

Pelagian position in regards to the subject of grace. Hey Pierre, thanks a lot for the conversation today.

I hope you'll listen on the internet and participate with us then, and I appreciate your call. We've got a few other people on the line that want to get in today.

I only know who's on the second line. I don't know who's on... No one's on just line two. Okay, let's talk with Ronnie in Atlanta, Georgia.

Hi Ronnie. Hi James, how are you doing? Doing pretty good. Good. I would like your comments on Luke 23, 43.

I was talking to a Jehovah's Witness, and we got into the discussion about where the comma should be placed.

He actually brought me a quote from a scholar, I would assume a professor named

Wilhelm Michaelis, that kind of supports the place where they place the comma.

Yeah, Luke 23, 43 says, and he said to him, truly, truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

The New World Translation makes that truly, truly, I say to you today, comma, you will be with me in paradise.

And I don't know what quote unquote supporting quote they come up with, but no one who has an exegetical bone in their body is going to embarrass themselves by attempting to play around with what is so obvious in the text.

Think about it this way, how many times did Jesus say truly, truly, I say to you today?

He didn't. How many times did Jesus say truly, truly, I say to you? Many dozens of times.

I think 22 times in the New Testament. I think you're exactly right. So, the problem is, let's go beyond this.

The Lord Jesus is on the cross at this point, alright? When you're on a cross, what's eventually going to be what kills you if it's not blood loss?

It's probably going to be suffocation. You're not able to breathe because you're being hung from your arms and eventually the diaphragm is not able to continue functioning to bring oxygen into the lungs and you die.

So, here you have someone who is literally fighting for every breath, having to push up on the nail that is going through the feet to get breath.

And in that situation, someone is going to say truly, truly, I say to you today?

I mean, today becomes a completely superfluous word. It has no meaning.

Someone's going to be confused. Truly, truly, I'm saying to you tomorrow? Truly, truly, I'm saying something to you yesterday?

I mean, it is the height of complete absurdity to punctuate the phrase in that way.

Beyond that, it takes away the blessedness of the promise because today you will be with me in paradise is what the blessedness of the promise is.

So, this is an example of the lengths to which someone will go to engage in eisegesis, reading into the text a meaning it cannot support but which comes from outside the text because Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that anyone was with Jesus in paradise that day because they deny the spiritual nature of man.

And so, again, if we derive our beliefs from the text of scripture rather than inserting them into the text of scripture, there is nothing in the text, nothing in the context, and everything in both to contradict the

New World Translation at that point. And some of the points I brought out to him when he brought me this information back,

I did a little research on this professor and I see he's quoted by people such as,

I think, Norman Geisler at one point and some other pretty respected evangelicals.

What's the name? Wilhelm, W -I -L -H -E -L -M. And the last name is

M -I -C -H -A -E -L -I -S. Sounds a little bit familiar, but again, if anyone who can look at the...

Let's use the common sense rule here. One other point before you go on. They also say it's an idiom and they tried to use a few references from the

Old Testament in Hebrew where they used that kind of language, where they used the word today when they were actually speaking to someone.

And why then does the New World Translation not punctuate every other place where you have

Amein Soylego? Why not? Well, because it would not either...

It doesn't fit in any of those contexts and they don't need to because it doesn't substantiate their theology at that point.

It's the same reason when you ask them why in three out of four instances of the Granville -Sharps construction in 2

Peter do you translate correctly, but one of them you don't translate correctly. Well, because if they did, their theology would be contradicted by their translation.

So the New World Translation is not a translation. It is a perversion of the Bible and it is translated to fit into theology.

So the question again would be are they seriously attempting to say that Luke, and Luke is clearly written in Greek, it is written in a very classical form of Greek.

Okay, so it wasn't... Sure, that wasn't Aramaic. Well, what Jesus said may have been in Aramaic, but we don't know what that would have been.

So you'd have to be accusing Luke of a lack of clarity under the direction of the Holy Spirit in writing

Luke 23 -43 to try to substantiate the argument that they're making. And the

Watchtower, remember, the Watchtower will use anything, will use anything whatsoever.

It doesn't matter what the source is. It doesn't matter if that source is liberal. It doesn't matter if that source comes from the perspective that the

Bible isn't inerrant. They will use anything trusting the fact that their own people will never look into the source themselves to find out whether in point of fact this person believes in supernaturalism or the infallibility of Scripture, anything like that.

So as long as it sounds like it supports their position, they will use it. Their sources together that they'd utilize, you'd have the biggest mishmash of contradiction that you could ever find.

And that's what I figured. They were quoting someone who was just a liberal or had some really strange beliefs.

That's why I was kind of surprised to find that he was also quoted by other well -known evangelicals.

I think even Kittles had quoted him. Well, remember, Kittles is anything but conservative. Kittles is way, way off to the left as far as his theology.

It's a great source as far as facts. But with almost anything that's published today, what you have to do is you have to examine any source and be able to call out the facts and then dismiss the interpretation that is given to the facts mainly because it's coming from an unbelieving perspective.

So, all right, Ronnie. Okay. Okay, thanks a lot for calling today. God bless. Bye. Well, folks, that's going to do it for the dividing line today.

Let me mention one more time, this is our last program here on KPXQ. If you tune in at 2 o 'clock next week,

I have no idea what's going to be here, but it won't be us. But we are going to be continuing the dividing line, and that will be continuing on the internet.

Make sure to go to www .aomin .org and there you will find the link on the main page to the internet feed.

We'll probably be doing some scheduling, letting you know what's coming up with this capacity.

We'll be able to do special programs, etc., etc., etc. So, thank you for having been there, and we hope that you'll join with us on the dividing line 2 o 'clock next

Saturday afternoon on the internet, www .aomin .org. God bless.