Norman Geisler's Second Edition of Chosen But Free, Part 3 of 3 - A Class Project?

8 views

August 25, 2001

Dr. White theorizes that, due to the poor quality of the appendix that responds to his book the Potter’s Freedom, it could not have been written by a scholar like Geisler, but seems to have been the result of a group project from Geisler’s undergraduate logic class. The original text of CBF ignored some key texts that help establish Reformed theology, but this appendix fails to demonstrate even having read the exegesis of PF with the aim to understand its argumentation and represent it accurately.

Comments are disabled.

James White vs. Nadir Ahmed, March 21, 2008 Part 4

00:01: Well for quite some time we've been telling you they're coming they're coming they're coming and they came
00:07: Yes, yesterday the UPS man looking rather haggard Actually, we helped the
00:13: UPS man out the first of 15 cases of the God who justifies coming off of the truck and Piled on that two -wheeler and dragged in here and many many
00:24: Thanks to those who helped especially Katie Baker and Summer White my own daughter was in there stuffing stuff and wrapping stuff and Rich Pierce had done a brilliant job of getting things lined out and my
00:39: Right hand worked very hard in signing signing books as we were getting them out
00:44: In fact, we we processed about 200 books in just a couple of hours And in fact some of you who had in fact already ordered the book and priority mail
00:56: We got we got most of them out, I think Yesterday, so they're on their way to you.
01:03: The God who justifies is now going to be hitting well, I was gonna say hitting bookstore shelves and I started thinking about the condition of the
01:10: Christian bookstore industry and Realized that that was a stupid thing to say actually stop laughing out there.
01:16: I can hear you In reality, they're going to start hitting websites and like our website and things like that and hopefully get into a lot of Folks a lot of pastors offices and the libraries and hopefully will be very very useful to them.
01:33: So it is available and Maybe next week or sometime after that.
01:39: I'm not really sure we can take a look at the book Maybe once the book gets out the initial shipping takes place.
01:46: We can have a time when you all can call in and you can Look at you know, talk about the book ask some questions about the book, whatever it might be
01:54: Maybe we can do something like that in the future Today, we're gonna be finishing up. Yes. I did say finishing up.
01:59: Some of you have are very very concerned that I am going to be doing this response to Norman Geisler's new appendix for the rest of my adult life and if we looked at every single error,
02:11: I almost could that is how Horrifically bad this response is in fact as I was sitting here.
02:18: I honestly, I I wanted to have the new main page article up on The on The website before the program began today
02:31: But what the main new main page article and I hope to get it up within an hour So after the program is over today when
02:38: I have an opportunity to to try to do it What the main page article will be is it'll be it's about 12 13 13 pages long right now written response to the
02:50: Appendix it's now appendix number 13 Which of course is I think somewhat appropriate in the second edition of chosen, but free then it will link to the
03:03: Notes, basically the read -along notes that I have used so far in the response and that's 25 pages long
03:11: So there will be 37 pages and this is what I'm talking pages here. I'm talking Not double spaced or type size like that full eight and a half by 11 pages
03:21: There'll be about 37 pages worth of material that I'll be uploading to the to the website and then linking to the
03:31: Materials At straightgate .com these three dividing lines that we've done in response
03:36: To this so there'll be a lot of information available You'll be able to both read and hear it But as I was doing that I needed to finish up some stuff needed to fix some things up in the notes
03:46: Section the 25 page thing that I've been using while doing the programs and I there were a couple paragraphs
03:52: I had not taken apart and looked up every reference in yet so as I was doing that I Again started encountering so much
04:04: Ridiculous stuff that I was again beating my head on the wall. I cannot believe this is in print of Gail Ripplinger lives and she has she's left the
04:16: King James only camp and she's she's moved into the mainstream It's just incredible. I was I'm looking at this
04:22: Well, here's here's what I put in the this will be in the main page article Let me just read it to you so you can see what
04:28: I'm talking about One of the saddest examples of the methodology of this review was found near the end of the appendix on page 262
04:37: It seems the author and I put Parentheses s author or authors
04:43: Because I am fully convinced that this was done by an undergraduate student somewhere or more likely in fact by a class project
04:56: And let me stop for a moment and say why I think that Not only as I was working through stuff this week and putting together the main page article
05:06: It struck two things struck me at the same time and together I went hmm, this is interesting
05:13: The first thing was the fact that as I put together the documentation on the incredible misuse of a single phrase
05:22: The phrase was mere presentation twice in this article
05:29: This phrase mere presentation is used to beat me over the head to say that I engaged in ad hominem argumentation
05:36: It's used to completely in fact contradictory ways by the authors of this particular review and As I was thinking about that and I've talked about this before it'll be in the web page
05:50: It's where I was actually affirming the sufficiency of scripture saying that the mere presentation of God's truth from the word is
05:59: Sufficient for the child of God that That Misuse of the phrase in two different ways indicates to me
06:10: You know if only one person was writing this wouldn't they remember that they had already accused me of engaging in ad hominem based upon this before This looks a lot like what you'd get out of a group project where you have one group over here
06:24: You do this aspect of the book and one group over there you do this aspect of the book or you do the first hundred pages and you do the next hundred pages or something along those
06:31: Lines or here's what someone did on an initial reading Pass that around the room and you this group over there you work on this paragraph and you you guys over here you come up With allegations that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about in this area, whatever it might be
06:44: That's what it looked like to me. And then I remembered something a little over a year ago a little over a year ago a
06:52: A radio personality contacted me and relayed to me a conversation a 20 -minute conversation that he had with Norman Geisler about me and One of the things that dr.
07:04: Geisler said to him was that he was going to use the potter's freedom in his logic classes as a textbook of how not to do logic a textbook of how to identify bad logical errors and All of a sudden it hit me
07:22: I'm why is this so bad? Why are there page citations that are wrong? Why is it that?
07:28: Anything that I've said about anything doesn't matter what the content original context was the original context of potter's freedom is absolutely positively irrelevant
07:38: To the author or authors of this of this appendix it just it does not matter at all
07:44: How could that have happened? It would have happened if this was a class project
07:49: And so that's why throughout the throughout the Material I'm gonna be posting on the web today.
07:55: I use author Parentheses s so if it's one guy or it's a number of people whatever
08:01: That's what I'm talking about. So I'm talking about one of the saddest examples of the methodology this review page 262 in the second edition of chosen but free
08:12: And I continue it seems the authors of this review felt it would be best to include their worst examples of miscitation
08:19: Misreading and simple error in the midst of personal attacks, so we have an entire subsection titled pride and exclusivism
08:28: Which begins and now I'm quoting from page 262 of the chosen but free Quote I am
08:35: NOT alone in detecting a proud and exclusivistic undertone in potter's freedom For example it calls its view the reformed view page 38 emphasis added
08:45: While summarily dismissing other reformed theologians CBF sites who do not agree with major points in its presentation
08:53: For example, William shed an RT Kendall the author of potter's freedom immodestly announces
09:01: Quote I will be demonstrating and quote that Geisler's view quote is in error and quote page 30
09:10: Better to set forth one's case and let the reader decide that and that is the end of the quotation from Chosen but free
09:22: Now I then comment One has to wonder who these nameless faceless people are who join with the authors in detecting this pride
09:33: I Detected lots of feelings. I could have mentioned in regard to dr. Geisler's book But you do not present such things unless you can back up what you were saying
09:42: But the great irony is that in the midst of accusing me of being prideful the authors of this review
09:50: Purposefully misrepresent me and give clear evidence of their desire to do so How so note the second to last quoted line above which reads and here's the line you need to hear
10:03: The author of potter's freedom immodestly announce announces quote
10:10: I Will be demonstrating and then there is a closed quote that Geisler's view quote is in error quote close page 30
10:22: When I first read this I only noted that it is hardly immodest to say that one's view is in error
10:28: Unless of course that person does not believe you intelligent enough or old enough or trained enough to even critique their position
10:36: But as I was finishing up my notes on the response I looked up the actual context of the citation and again groaned in unbelief and what
10:44: I found Here is the context in the potter's freedom So where where is this phrase coming from this this phrase that I will be demonstrating that Geisler's view is in error
10:55: And that this is immodest and arrogant and so on so forth. Where's where's this come from? Well, here's the actual full quotation from the potter's freedom
11:04: The reformed tradition is rich in honest dialogue and debate those who love truth will not be offended by honest direct
11:11: Refutation and interaction the politically correct culture. We live in should not be allowed to silence meaningful theological debate
11:18: Dr. Geisler himself has written quote third. What about those who insist that drawing lines will divide
11:24: Christians? In response, it must be lovingly but firmly maintained that it is better to be divided by truth than to be united by error
11:33: There is an unhealthy tendency in evangelical Christianity to hide under the banner of Christian charity while sacrificing
11:40: Doctrinal purity that's the end of the quote from dr. Geisler and then I continued in the potter's freedom in the spirit of these words
11:48: I offer a rebuttal of dr. Geisler's work This is not meant to be a presentation of the reformed view so ably accomplished by others
11:55: My positive presentation will be limited to establishing facts that are not in evidence from a reading of chosen but free instead
12:02: I will be demonstrating that the biblical Argumentation provided by Norman Geisler is in error
12:10: It is my hope that the reader will be edified by the consistent focus upon Biblical exegesis for this is truly the heart and soul of reformed theology
12:23: There is the quotation. I continue in the web article that will be posted later this afternoon as I compare the citation to the original
12:33: I could not help but be amazed at the use of the quotation marks in CBF Here we cannot blame eyesight
12:40: We cannot blame a simple misreading of the text this is purposeful and planned
12:46: I said I would demonstrate that the biblical Argumentation provided by Norman Geisler is in error.
12:54: I Continued on you may note in talking about a biblical exegesis and that's exactly what
13:02: I did in the book 28 scholars and pastors whose names are found on the potter's freedom and Hundreds of others who have contacted me since then agree that I did just that the fact that dr.
13:16: Geisler does not even attempt a response on an exegetical level gives eloquent testimony that I did
13:23: Exactly what I promised to do But that is not what is quoted in a new appendix to chosen but free
13:31: No through the purposeful and fascinating use of quotation marks the actual substance of my statement
13:37: Focused upon biblical argumentation is deleted and Geisler's entire view his entire theology is placed in its stead
13:47: This then becomes the basis of the accusation of pride and arrogance on my part How could a young overzealous arrogant prideful at times pedantic apologists like James White dare to say he will prove dr.
13:59: Norman Geisler's entire viewpoint in error how brash But of course the original citation could not be used without deleting its substance
14:09: How strange would it look to accuse me of being prideful simply for saying and proving someone else's biblical?
14:17: Argumentation is an error Can the biblical? Argumentation provided by two sides who contradict one another both be correct well of course not and even dr.
14:28: Geisler well Recognizes that fact and is it not the case that one of his greatest claims to fame is
14:37: His books written against others who claim to be Christians Saying their views are in error hence it follows of necessity that the quotation to be useful to the appendix had to be spun and Changed so it was and such is simply disgraceful
14:58: It's absolutely disgraceful. I ran across that right before the program started and Then I continued on As it continues to beat me over the head for being prideful and exclusivistic
15:19: It then says it claims my position is utterly without substantiation and that its own conclusion is true without question
15:27: That's the assertion of Dr.. Geisler and chose him at free it claims my position.
15:33: That's dr. Geisler's position is utterly without substantiation page 262 of the potter's freedom and that its own conclusion is true without question
15:41: Now of course again It's presented as if this is some broad sweeping assertion that I'm saying that his entire position is utterly without Substantiation that there's no argument whatsoever
15:53: That's put forward or something like that and that I'm saying of myself that my own conclusions are without question true
16:00: That's what it sounds like it's saying but as normal throughout this text throughout this review
16:09: Context is utterly ignored So when you go to page 262 of the potter's freedom, what are we talking about here?
16:18: Well, we're dealing with the subject of particular redemption and in in in fact. We are talking here
16:26: About John Calvin's view because if you're new to our program haven't heard this before Geisler takes the most unusual position that he identifies his inconsistent
16:40: Arminian ism as moderate Calvinism by redefining the T and tulip the you
16:46: Rejecting the L Rejecting the I and redefining it and embracing the P. He calls this
16:52: Arminian ism. That's inconsistent Arminian ism Moderate Calvinism and he calls historic Calvinism historic reform theology extreme
17:00: Calvinism, and it's extreme because according to him John Calvin Certainly, and he uses that term certainly rejected limited atonement that he certainly believed in Universal atonement he doesn't make it a well, maybe he did maybe he didn't he says
17:21: John Calvin certainly did therefore if you hold to limit atonement you are beyond Calvin and therefore You are an extreme
17:28: Calvinist and So that's what's being discussed and what I did on page 260 starting all the way back page 259
17:40: I Provide extensive quotations from John Calvin on this very issue and then
17:47: I Noted something that a number of people especially those of you have interest in historical things already did note
17:57: Let me just read this to you because this is somewhat interesting a lot of people have have a lot of interest in this
18:04: Starting on page 260 if this interpretation of all men is read into the passages cited from Calvin however
18:09: It becomes plain that Calvin did not hold the unlimited view of the atonement that CBF claims as to the word world
18:16: Calvin's view is exemplified by his comments on 1st. John 2 to this passage is quoted by CBF yet for some reason
18:25: It seems as this CBS and hey look at that. I found a typographical error. It is seems
18:31: Hey, someone else didn't find it. I found myself someone circled that thing so we can get that fixed It seems as a
18:37: CBS thinks this quotation affirms a Universal view of the atonement it is highly educational to note that dr.
18:44: Geisler insert a whole series of Italics into his rendition of Calvin's words.
18:50: Why is it educational? Because he emphasizes the portions that seem to support his thesis
18:57: But ignores the direct statements that contradict him Hmm I should have seen this coming, huh go back to page 261
19:09: Calvin scholars for centuries have cited this passage as evidence of Calvin's particular
19:15: ISM But note how got Geisler cites the passage now. It's a little bit hard a little bit hard to do this because I Don't want to go italic start italics close
19:29: But I guess it's the only way I can do it to try to communicate this to you. It's a lot easier to read this He puts this in for amplification
19:37: That believers might be convinced that italics the expiation made by Christ Extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel italics close
19:48: But here the question may be asked as to Italics how the sin of the whole world sins of the whole world have been expiated italics closed.
19:57: I Passover the dreams of the fanatics who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate and even to Satan himself
20:04: Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that italics
20:10: Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but effectively only for the elect Italics end this solution has commonly prevailed in the schools
20:19: Although italics I allow for the truth of this italics close I Deny that it fits this passage that phrase is not italicized
20:29: For John's purpose was only to make this blessing common to the whole church Therefore under the word all as in first John 2 2 he does not include the reprobate but refers to all who would believe and Those who were scattered through the various regions of the earth for as is meet
20:49: The grace of Christ is really made clear when it is declared to be the only salvation of the world common to comments on first John 2 2
20:59: Dr. Geisel then provides this interpretation Calvin clearly denies universalism and affirms the sufficiency of Christ's death of the whole world even though he denies that this particular passage can be used to teach this and I then comment on his assertion.
21:16: There is a clear error being committed here by dr. Geisler If he wished to italicize the important element of the quote he would have italicized this comment
21:25: Therefore under the word all in first John 2 2 he does not include the reprobate
21:30: But refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth
21:37: This is the key affirmation here Calvin completely contradicts. Dr. Geisler's interpretation.
21:42: In fact as we will see below CBF identifies the idea expressed by Calvin and earlier by Augustine as an obvious case of Eisegesis reading into the text that does not deserve an extensive treatment
21:57: Further Geisler italicizes the assertions of others rather than Calvin yet then interprets these as being
22:03: Calvin's view Calvin believes John's assertion is meant to give confidence to all believers that Christ is their propitiation
22:09: But that this does not mean that Christ's death is offered for the reprobate if we interpret this in Calvin's Context his words are clear.
22:18: It is without question his assertion that when John says the whole world He is saying this does not include the reprobate.
22:26: This means he does not believe Christ died for every single human being Dr. Geisler italicizes the statement of the schoolmen about the sacrifice being sufficient for the world but efficient for the elect
22:37: Despite the fact that Calvin denies. This is the meaning of the passage in Conclusion then we see that the assertion that Calvin Certainly denied limited atonement and that this means that those who hold this view are extreme
22:52: Calvinist is utterly without Substantiation either in Calvin's words or in the readily available scholarly sources
23:02: There is the end of my quotation now that last paragraph that I read to you Is at the end of a section on Calvin's view of the atonement that begins on page 253 and That is found on page 262.
23:18: So there's 10 pages 10 full pages of argumentation 10 full pages of citations 10 full pages of material from other scholars on this particular subject and the last
23:29: Final concluding statement is in conclusion Then we see the assertion that Calvin certainly denied limited atonement certainly is in quotes by the way because that's exactly what he says and that this means that those who hold this view are extreme
23:44: Calvinist is utterly without Substantiation either in Calvin's words or in the readily available scholarly sources
23:55: So I concluded that that was the assertion that I made Now When we look back at the appendix we have the sentence it claims my position
24:13: My position about what? Well in context he would have had to said it claims that my assertion that Calvin certainly believed in Universal atonement is quote utterly without substantiation page 262
24:29: That is the only scholarly way That that phrase could be used if you take it out of its context if you apply it in a general context
24:45: You are misrepresenting the original source It claims our position is utterly without substantiation and that its own conclusion is true without question
24:58: And so I started looking for where did I say?
25:04: That my conclusion on Calvin's view of the atonement Was true without question so I started looking through the page
25:11: And if you've got the book you might look through the page yourself, and I started looking through the page. I finally found it Do you know where the author the scholarly author of this review gets the statement and that its own conclusion is true without question?
25:25: Well, it was the preceding paragraph Let's find it again here further
25:30: Geiser italicizes the assertions of others rather than Calvin yet Then interprets these as being
25:36: Calvin's view Calvin believes John's assertion is meant to give confidence to all believers that Christ is their propitiation
25:43: But that this does not mean that Christ's death is offered for the reprobate if we interpret this in Calvin's context his words are clear it is without question
25:55: His assertion that when John says the whole world he is saying this does not include the reprobate there's the phrase
26:03: Without question what am I talking about? I'm talking about the specifics of Calvin's interpretation of first John 2 2 and specifically that he's saying that it's not the sacrifice of Christ was not for the reprobate and Yet that it seems it's cut and paste time folks any any phrase
26:26: Any words whatsoever it does not matter where they occur it does not matter what I intended them to communicate
26:31: You can pull them out and put them together with other ones to go. Oh look. He's a mean prideful little person
26:37: It's incredible I Have honestly Gail rippling er could learn from this she really could because she's not very good at it
26:47: I'm just absolutely positively amazed just absolutely amazed at this kind of incredible misuse of the
27:00: English language Just just unbelievable well We're gonna take your phone calls today because I'm gonna you've been listening for two weeks now
27:12: Maybe there's some of you who are Maybe there's some of you who are big
27:17: Norm Geisler fans, and you just you just think I have been terrible and horrible I Would like to invite
27:24: Anyone I'd like to invite Norm Geisler to call in But anyone who would like to attempt to take up his defense.
27:32: I've got a lot of questions for you Maybe you just like to comment on this and and and vent your utter frustration as well eight six six eight five four sixty seven sixty three eight six six eight five four six seven six three
27:47: We'll be right back And welcome back to dividing line
27:58: My name is James white waiting for the phone lines to start melting under the heat of all your calls at eight six six eight five four sixty seven sixty three
28:06: Looking for certainly I would like to give priority To anyone who would like to say that well actually no, dr.
28:17: Dr. Geisler's right and Here's the excuse here's I'm sorry here's the explanation
28:24: For why the original context of what you said is irrelevant That you should be fair in Bending over backwards to make sure that when you quote dr.
28:36: Geisler you need to quote him in context and exactly with what he's saying, but Chosen but free does not have to worry at all about what you were saying
28:48: You don't have to quote in context because you're too young You'd you I can't possibly know enough to even disagree with dr.
28:55: Geisler You should kept your nose out of this in the first place, etc. Etc. Etc Maybe you just like to say no.
29:02: I do have a an explanation for exactly why dr. Geisler's right eight six six eight five four sixty seven sixty three is the number and Maybe you would just like to comment on what you have heard over the past few weeks.
29:16: I think there's a lot of folks that just Simply sits that you sit there and you go you've got to be kidding me
29:24: How how did this get into print? I don't know. I can't I Cannot explain
29:32: How this got into print outside of the fact that when someone such as dr. Geisler who's written 40 or 50 books
29:39: Submits something to his publisher. The assumption is that he knows what he's talking about and That there's not going to be an examination of it on that level
29:48: And I do not in any way shape or form hold Bethany house accountable For this at all.
29:54: They're my publisher. They've been great to me the God who justifies it just came out from Bethany house
29:59: They did a great job. I do not believe there is any Any knowledge whatsoever on the part of the editorial staff or anybody else about how bad this was?
30:11: I do not think it is their job to sit there and go get my book and Sit there and look up these references and I would imagine that those who are if there is anyone doing that are sitting there
30:25: Absolutely shaking their heads in the exact same way that I am going hot. What is this?
30:32: There is only one person ultimately accountable for this and that is dr. Norman Geisler. It's his book
30:38: It's got his name on it, and I don't care if he did farm it out to somebody else and I don't care if he is busy
30:43: It's his responsibility it's his book and so fundamentally he's one has to answer the question
30:49: Why couldn't you get page numbers, right? Why can't you allow any context whatsoever to be even slightly relevant?
30:56: Why are there quotations where you used? Quotation marks to change the meaning what's with all this ad hominem?
31:04: What's going on here? Why did you do this? he's the only one that can answer that question and And So that question needs to be asked of him eight six six eight five four sixty seven sixty three if you would like to join with the discussion today, let me
31:21: Read you another section of what's could be on the web page today It is a section titled.
31:27: Where is the exegesis? I tried to come up with something to be like where's the beef but not only is that old now
31:32: But I really couldn't fit exegesis with anything that was really related to beef in any way shape or form
31:38: The vast majority of this response should never have seen the light of day Given the character of the
31:45: Potter's freedom as an exegetical reply to chosen but free the logical response would involve exegetical rebuttal and argument
31:53: But of course is exactly what is avoided by this reply no exegesis of any
31:59: Disputed passages offered no exegesis of the many passages the original book simply forgot were relevant is provided one brief section subtitled improper exegesis at least raises the issue of the interpretation of the text but it is tremendously surface level and simply says and I quote here's here's the entirety of the
32:24: Exegetical element here's improper exegesis one paragraph as Readers of Potter's freedom can detect for themselves.
32:31: The author is convinced of his exegetical skills and chides CBF for its alleged lack thereof
32:39: Yet Potter's freedom repeatedly reads some men into passages that clearly emphatically say all men pages 140 and 142
32:48: It insists against the context that second Peter 3 9 where God desires that all men to be saved is
32:54: Not speaking about salvation It claims that John 1 12 through 13 does not say received when the very word is used by John in this text
33:03: It overlooks the context that speaks of unrepentant people Romans 9 22 Claiming Romans 9 affirms that the only difference between vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy is
33:11: God's action It distorts the word saves to saves himself page 64 and so on That's what it says
33:20: That's that's actually a part of the quote and so on Which is another one of the reasons I sort of have to sit back and go man
33:27: This sounds like something somebody else put together. It's just sort of jumbled together and so on Unreal Well, how do we respond to this?
33:36: Well, the Potter's freedom contains literally hundreds of pages of positive positive exegetical presentation
33:43: And this is the extent of the response offered to it The Potter's freedom documents dozens of examples of eisegesis on the part of dr.
33:51: Geisler this is all the response that can be given and Even in offering these few sentence sentences the appendix stumbles over itself and making clear errors yet once again note the first allegation
34:03: Without responding to a single argument or point of exegesis this response simply asserts that I must be wrong in my understanding of the term all
34:11: But since I provide a contextual and linguistic arguments that are completely ignored How can this be called a meaningful or scholarly response?
34:20: Not only that but just going back and leaving leaving the web page article. In fact, I may expand this part part
34:25: I better stop expanding ours get too big Specifically it says here
34:33: That I insisted against the context the second Peter 3 9 is not speaking about salvation.
34:39: I Didn't say that I said in 2nd Peter 3 9 that it's talking about the elect of God and That the parousia has been delayed so that all of the elect of God can be gathered in it doesn't even
34:54: Accurately summarize in one sentence the argument that it's then completely closing its eyes to and ignoring
35:05: Unbelievable Then It says it says again according but it claims that John 1 12
35:11: Through 13 does not say received when the very word is used by John in this text page 185
35:20: Well by now, you've probably started figuring out Exactly what's going on here, right?
35:27: When we go to page 185, we're probably we can probably start predicting
35:33: That in reality We're not gonna find anything on page 185 that substantiates
35:39: Geisler's assertion, right? In fact, we're probably gonna find exegesis that would have to be responded to but has been ignored, right?
35:45: Well, you would be exactly right. That's exactly what's going on Here's the quotation but the objection
35:55: Does raise an interesting issue? Does the text itself indicate a relationship between believing and the new birth?
36:04: There are certainly some points that dr. Geisler would have to consider to make his assertion carry weight number one
36:10: John as is his custom refers to Christians as the believing ones toys piscu sin
36:17: English translations normally miss this important element of John's gospel the contrast between true saving faith which is
36:27: Almost always expressed through the use of the present tense indicating an ongoing living faith Versus false faith, which is almost always placed in the heiress tense making no statement about its consistency or vitality
36:38: It is literally even to those who are believing in his name or the believing ones who believe in his name
36:45: The term believing is a present participle the verb born is
36:51: The heiress passive form in its context. It is plainly said to be an act of God all human agency is denied
36:58: Number three it follows then that verse 13 is a description of the believing ones of verse 12
37:05: Nothing is said in the text that the new birth is received by an act of free will
37:12: In fact, the exact opposite is stated clearly the ones born not of the will of man
37:19: It is an amazing example of how preconceived notions can be read into a text
37:25: That chosen but free can say the text makes the new birth dependent upon an act of free will
37:33: When the text says the opposite Now in case you got lost
37:39: For various reasons. Let me just repeat that last section because here's the basis of it in the new edition of chosen but free
37:49: The assertion is made that I in my writings assert
37:56: The quote is it claims that John 1 12 through 13 does not say received When the very word is used by John in this text.
38:04: Well, is that what I said? Did I say the word received does not appear in John chapter 1 verses 12 through 13?
38:12: No, I didn't did I? Point three was it follows then that verse 13 is a description of the believing ones of verse 12
38:21: Nothing is said in the text that the new birth is received by an act of free will in Fact the exact opposite is stated clearly the ones born not of the will of man
38:37: It is an amazing example of how preconceived notions can be read into a text that CBF can say the text makes the new birth
38:45: Dependent upon an act of free will when the text says the opposite That's what
38:51: I said How can anyone read that and say you're saying the word received isn't in the text?
38:58: No, the sentence is in fact Nothing is said in the text that the new birth is received by an act of free will
39:11: Now how can that be misread that way I don't know I've given I've given up I can't figure it out
39:16: I Cannot figure it out, but that's exactly what it is done 866 8 5 4 67 63
39:31: I'm going to begin to sing If those of you who have been making comments concerning this issue maybe
39:38: I've just you know, maybe I have just absolutely Nailed it to the floor and Everybody goes well, you know that that's it.
39:49: This is a bad review and you don't care Maybe that's why I don't know But 8 6 6 8 5 4 67 63 anyone who would like to defend?
40:00: Dr. Geisler in this appendix. You are more than welcome to call in Everybody's going.
40:08: Yeah, right Sure, someone's gonna call in and talk to you about dr.
40:13: Geisler's appendix and defend him sure They're gonna do that. Yeah, right. Uh -huh, and we're all voting for Gary Condit next time around right sure
40:23: But aside from that some of you may wish to call in and say hey, you know, this is incredible Maybe this is the reason or what?
40:31: Maybe this illustrates this whatever it might be 8 5 4 67 63 let me go ahead and tell you how
40:38: I finish the web article Here's here's what I say. The concluding section is called drop back 10 and punt
40:48: Those who need point -by -point response can do so by clicking here obviously what that means is
40:57: Maybe James just gives us the phone numbers too fast. Okay, let me try this 6 6.
41:03: Oh, by the way, it's on the title bar of the chat room there Whoever just said that mm -hmm 8 6 6 8 5 4 6 7 6 3, okay.
41:20: I Just sometimes the comments made the chat room are just so utterly distracting anyways There surely is no reason to drag
41:26: Oh what I'm saying is that when I put it up there there's going to be a hyperlink inserted that point and all my notes
41:32: Are going to be able to you can just go right to the notes that I've been using and read those That's where it's gonna be like 37 pages worth of stuff here
41:40: There surely is no reason to drag this particularly painful experience out much further all who have benefited from the work of Norman Geisler in the past cannot help but feel a true sense of embarrassment at the publication of this response
41:57: I'm actually thankful that I am the object of this review for if it had been offered in response to enemies of the faith
42:07: They would have known no bounds to their joyous Documentation of its every error and would have used this as an argument against everything good that dr
42:19: Geisler has written at the end of this review
42:24: Dr. Geisler says he prays That I will channel my quote considerable talent and zeal
42:31: Toward the more pressing need of defending Christianity again deny the fundamentals of the faith
42:37: Not those who affirm them end quote while this may sound like a noble sentiment
42:44: I have to wonder Why did dr. Geisler write chosen but free?
42:52: Why did he choose to identify the faith of reformed Baptist churches conservative
42:57: Presbyterian churches and many others as? Irrational and unbiblical are we to understand that he has the right to do this
43:09: But those of us at the pointed end of his sword must ignore his highly errant and flawed attacks upon our faith
43:16: I Honestly do not understand the basis of such a statement
43:22: One thing is beyond all doubt This response proves even more clearly than did the text of the
43:30: Potter's freedom That dr. Geisler has no response to reformed scholarship
43:37: In closing I would like to ask dr. Geisler to consider well the nature of this appendix as I have said
43:46: I do not believe he wrote it I Believe someone else perhaps even a group cooperate in piecing together disparate and inconsistent comments on the text of the book
43:59: But whatever its provenance it exists today as part of the second edition of chosen but free and the front of the book says
44:07: Norman Geisler that Places the above documented errors a word that seems extremely weak to cover the kind of misrepresentations.
44:16: We have seen squarely in his realm of responsibility and Hence, I will say with all seriousness
44:23: Dr. Geisler Do the right thing? Pull this appendix print a retraction and Simply do what is right?
44:33: You do not attack Any fellow believer with such terms as arrogant overzealous pedantic and prideful while utilizing this kind of utterly inane
44:50: Misrepresentation and argumentation as a shield it is simply scholarly negligence
44:58: Unless dr. Geisler can explain how this kind of material has some relevance to the actual topic at hand
45:04: It should be pulled from circulation with apologies to all concerned, but especially to his own readers
45:13: There simply is no other course to follow That's how
45:20: I conclude the review By calling upon dr. Geisler to pull this review and print a retraction there simply is
45:33: No other course of action open to any person Who is honest?
45:41: That is how bad This response is and we've proven it.
45:46: We've documented it. We've been very careful to do so Unlike the review we have quoted everything in context
45:55: You can look up the page numbers our page numbers happen to be correct. You can look them up for yourself
46:03: Dr. Geisler you only have one choice do the right thing well 866 8 5 4 67 63
46:15: I am now taking I'm taking the new edition of chosen, but free it's going up there on top of what is this book anyways?
46:24: Rome and the African Church in the time of Augustine by J. E. Merdinger You know how expensive that was I think is about 45 bucks every time
46:30: I have to buy these Roman Catholic books. They are so Expensive fact I've got one up here My office is a mess.
46:37: Yeah, it's underneath the Hebrew lexicon here origins of papal infallibility 1150 to 1350 a study on the concepts of infallibility sovereignty and tradition in the
46:50: Middle Ages by Brian Tierney Published by EJ Brill, you know how much this cost?
46:58: 105 bucks not including shipping and I'm looking at it here, and it's 75 pages shorter than the
47:08: God who justifies someone ought to figure out the numbers the percentage cheaper
47:15: The God who justifies over tyranny so all of tyranny stuff is expensive. He's a good scholar got a lot of good stuff
47:23: Worth it. I guess you got to have that kind of stuff. Mm -hmm. Well, anyways putting I'm I put that away
47:29: I'm putting the Potter's freedom over here on top of where I keep my books You have to put there. I don't want to knock down the
47:36: Digital camera that's over there I'm in book writing mode. So my office is a mess absolute mess and The sad thing is
47:45: I have not been able to get it cleaned up for quite some time because I'd normally clean it up between Book writing projects there is no between book writing projects anymore
47:56: And therefore the office is a complete and total mess. Oh, look at what's in my hand now Hey, hey, oh man, watch it
48:05: I Have in my hand the current edition, you know, we haven't mentioned this So since no one wants to talk about the potter's freedom fine.
48:12: That's cool with me. I can understand You know y 'all just don't want to Talk about these things
48:19: I hold in my hand the current edition of the Christian Research Journal This is volume 23 number four from the year 2001 and Why do
48:36: I have this in my hand well, it is not for the cover Anyone who wants to see if you don't get the
48:44: Christian Research Journal, I would recommend it to you It's well worth getting I'm one of the what do they call me?
48:50: I'm not really sure what it might my title is I mean, it's not really a title, but they just they do list Folks who are
48:59: Well, there it is contributing writers now used to be a contributing something other but to contributing writers
49:06: And isn't it funny that both Norm Geisser and I are listed Hey Charles Stromer is listed.
49:12: How Charles Stromer getting there. Is that the same guy like the senator or something? Charles Stromer is written for the
49:19: Christian Research Journal Hmm. Mm -hmm. Very very interesting. Anyways, I write for the
49:26: Christian Research Journal, and there is a two part of Charles Schumer Oh Well What can
49:35: I say there's a two -part debate that is being printed in the
49:41: Christian Research Journal and The first part of the debate appears in this edition and the second part
49:49: Lord willing will appear the second Edition if we can find the person that I am debating who seemingly has disappeared for the final corrections to his material and So what we have here is
50:04: The debate entitled the divine sovereignty human responsibility debate by James R.
50:10: White and George Bryson Mr. Bryson is high up in the Calvary Chapel movement and the first two opening statements and first two rebuttals are found in this edition of the
50:21: CRI journal the next two will be in the next one and I think it's well worth reading.
50:27: I I will be very honest with you. I don't understand what mr Bryson's saying I I Just don't get it.
50:36: But anyways, I Did make a comment about the cover and I have told
50:41: I've told Elliot Miller this so I did and and I don't think there's Gonna be too many folks are gonna disagree with me on this one
50:50: The front Go to equipped org if you want to see this cover if you don't get it go to equipped org
50:56: Check out this cover. It is a drawing of Oprah Winfrey but it's really hard to even describe this because The entire cover is nothing but her face and there's nothing there's no border.
51:09: So it's just Smack dab up against the I mean, it's it's huge and it's orange
51:18: And it's well, I'll tell you it's hideous It's absolutely
51:25: Hideous it honestly sort of looks like Oprah was was walking toward a camera tripped fell and smacked her face right against the camera lens
51:34: And that's what you'd get it and That's the only way
51:40: I can describe it. It is absolutely positively hideous and even when I keep it here on my on my desk
51:48: I I keep it backside up Because it is it is it's it's hideous but get it anyways and Take off the cover do something.
52:02: I don't know but get it anyways because it could be an interesting debate that we're gonna have so Anyways, I'll tell you what we have
52:11: We have all of one caller so far. I Truly truly appreciate that one brave person who has not called however to talk
52:22: About chosen but free and the potter's freedom, which is fine. That's okay.
52:28: We will she's melting Someone the chat channel just looked at just looked at the cover and she's melting
52:36: Well, look if you're you can't really see it, but if you actually have the CRA journal if you look on page
52:42: You do do do do do do do do do do do do do there it is I suppose
52:48: I should have some paper back here. I can go Like certain famous people Page 12 page 13, you'll see of the
52:58: Is this illustrated by Tom Fluherty? flu h a r t y and All I can say to Tom who illustrated this article
53:10: Do not run into Oprah in a dark alley okay, because She could take you out so It's just oh
53:22: Man, there's a blue one on page on page 12. Is that supposed to be Oprah on? Page 12.
53:29: Is that really supposed to be? Oh, that looks like one of you know who that looks like That that looks like the angel dude in that one
53:39: Original Star Trek that he his face got all he was that famous attorney. What was that guy's name?
53:45: I'll bet you someone in the chat room is gonna know this He was a famous attorney and he appeared on Star Trek is this angel sort of alien dude that had like Did some of these kids or something or whatever and it turned out he was that's what it looks like that cannot be
53:59: Oprah That's not possible. I Can't remember who it was Someone will tell me during the break because we need to take a break and as you can tell
54:05: I'm just babbling So we're gonna take our first phone call. Maybe our only phone call who knows and If it's if the phone call doesn't go long enough
54:13: I will start singing so you can call it eight six six eight five four sixty seven sixty three if you want to stop this
54:18: We'll be right back That's how that break was not long enough because I didn't finish my mrs.
54:24: Fields semi -sweet chocolate chip cookie. Mmm, man. Those are good. Oh Now I can't reach my water either hmm
54:36: The trials What am I going to sing everyone is asking what You didn't really you really didn't have to come in here to do that.
54:44: I could I could thank you very much though. I Yep. Yeah. Well, thank you. Wonderful. Well, I tell you a true do -loss there
54:54: What am I gonna sing? Um, I don't I'll take requests You know,
54:59: I like a mighty fortress I think a mighty fortress is really good So you all can you know, we'll take on some requests and and see what we can do and by the way
55:08: I should mention this anyone the chat channel Who leaves
55:18: Before I start singing I Log everything I will I will note the times and you will be kick -man
55:25: So you're gonna have to listen now. I know I can't control whether you're still listening But anyways,
55:32: I don't mean has his Steve camp CD standing by well, I've got a few CDs staying by to I've got a Cademan's call
55:37: CD and stuff like that. You know, if we need to go to music we can go to music What can we say? Anyways, we do have a a brave caller who has called in and Old brave caller do dost thou wish to defend the mighty
55:54: Norman Geisler? You don't you do not wish to do so No What do you want do you want me to sing
56:07: I can hear you in the background there rich.
56:14: That's great. Let's just join on in it's okay. It's that's all right Yeah, you know what before you ask the question, you know
56:28: Warren ski suggested something to me maybe and this is probably the way it is on page 12
56:35: I'll bet you anything that the purple lady is the author of the article article
56:42: Kate Maver and The blue dude, I'll bet you that's Tom Fluherty I'll bet you the dude who did the illustration put himself in there and maybe that's his way of saying
56:53: Hey, don't get mad at me. I Did it to myself and you see what's supposed to be going on here
56:58: Is that Oprah over here in the corner the other hideous thing there? it sort of looks like her face just sort of like a got splattered like a like a the cover of an orange onto a flat surface
57:10: That's supposed to be the Sun see and he's like the moon and these are planets and that's that's what's going on there
57:16: And that doesn't quite translate onto the cover, but that's what's going on And those are that's okay in the article, but the cover the only term
57:23: I can come up with is hideous Absolutely. Oh Anyways, I just wanted to mention that because someone had pointed that out to me and and it made sense.
57:31: So anyways, yes Mr. Bryson and I are having a little debate and on the subject of divine sovereignty and human responsibility
57:40: Right because there was something see I know that a lot of those that are opposed to the reform understanding
57:48: Don't necessarily object to calling faith a gift from God But in this in this article
57:55: Bryson doesn't express that at least I don't remember as I was reading it I don't remember him calling it a gift from God in it
58:01: It almost sounded to me and I'm looking for the passage where he talks about the reception of great faith and he doesn't call it a gift from God or he almost makes it sound like we're actually misunderstanding
58:14: Ephesians 2 and I'm just kind of wondering exactly what his standpoint is on it.
58:20: Well Unfortunately, I Will be the first person to assert that I don't understand what he's saying.
58:31: I Have I've listened to his real audio sermons. I've looked at his book
58:36: I've listened to him on radio programs tapes were sent to me from a radio appearance he did over the course of a few days over in LA and I find a
58:46: George by Bryson's expressions on this subject tremendously confusing and I have had a number of other people read this material and they look at me and go, huh?
58:57: So, I don't know. I I cannot answer that now. I know that some That the citation on page 40 from Calvin's New Testament commentaries
59:09: That in regards to Ephesians chapter 2 Actually on the citation, okay
59:14: It says if faith is the means to receive the gift of eternal life and salvation
59:19: It should not be confused with that gift as it is in Calvinism on page 40, right?
59:25: That's exactly what I was about to look at and the quotation from Calvin that is above that and by the way I'm not sure why but I can hear the folks on the side of the wall coming through my headphones
59:36: Over a microphone somehow not sure how it's happening But I thought I would let them know that so that they could be very guarded in what they are saying anyways, yeah
59:45: First of all, he's misunderstanding what Calvin said here If you look up in the
59:51: Potter's Freedom, I gave an extensive page and a half almost two and a half page quotation from Calvin on that and He's very clear in exactly what he's talking about there
01:00:03: But you're right if faith is the means to receive the gift of eternal life and salvation It should not be confused with that gift as it is in Calvinism.
01:00:11: So basically what he's saying is well If you're saying that faith is a gift and Salvation is a gift then they must both be both be the same gift, which is not the case at all all of salvation including faith
01:00:29: Regeneration adoption of sons forgiveness of sins. It is all of grace and it's all a gift he doesn't seem to recognize that what we're talking about is the ability to believe the result of Regeneration where the slavery to sin that Jesus described
01:00:46: John chapter 8 is broken The the rebellion against God the fact that we have a heart of stone and not a heart of flesh
01:00:53: That heart of stone is removed a heart of flesh is given to us, etc. Etc. That stuff simply isn't isn't addressed by George Bryson and and it's it's like Well part of the problem here and part of the problem with this debate
01:01:09: I'll be I'll be very honest with you is I can remember very very clearly in Sometime before Christmas of last year
01:01:18: Standing in the front yard of my parents home on my cell phone Talking with George Bryson about how we were going to organize this debate
01:01:28: Sierra I had contacted me said we want to do a debate on this. Obviously, you're a logical person to do that Who should we get for the other side?
01:01:35: Well, of course Someone who will remain nameless that name was raised, but he wasn't interested in doing it.
01:01:41: So we Once George Bryson was chosen He and I got together and we talked on the phone
01:01:49: I said well, we need to have some sort of Organization here so that we're talking about the same issues at the same time.
01:01:58: And so we had agreed to do the first part on the decree of election and The second part on the will of man.
01:02:09: So in essence start with God Start with God's sovereign decree in the first one and the second one deal with the will of man the nature of man
01:02:17: Well as you've probably read it, that's not exactly how it worked out. I did that That was what my presentation was on I didn't have anything in my presentation where I focused upon the passages about man's inability and things like that In my presentation, he didn't do that He sort of did the scattergun the whole nine yards type approach
01:02:38: And so in my rebuttal all I could do was very briefly mention those things I have a much fuller presentation obviously in 1800 words
01:02:46: Anyways of man's depravity and the nature of saving faith in the next part of the debate
01:02:52: But he sort of preemptorily tried to take that out. I don't think that it worked But that's that's in essence what's going on.
01:02:59: So in the next part of the debate I focus as we had agreed when we were on the phone on the issue of the will of man the
01:03:08: Impact of sin man's deadness and sin, etc, etc I don't know if he's denying that faith is a gift from God well,
01:03:17: I think his argument is that faith is the capacity and the ability of every single individual and That would be very similar to Geisler's view where if he says that the non elect person
01:03:33: Does not have the capacity for faith that person has been dehumanized That since faith is something that is commanded believe and repent that the ability to believe in the ability to repent must be a natural part of Man's capacity or God's command is to do something.
01:03:49: We cannot do ignoring of course The fact that our inability is due to our own sin
01:03:55: That would be like saying that it's unjust for us to have stoplights Because there will be people who are drunk who can't stop
01:04:03: It's unjust of us to command people to do things that they cannot do just because they happen to have consumed four six packs of beer
01:04:11: No, it's not unjust at all, but that's the argument that's used by Norman Geisler and seems to be the arguments being used here
01:04:17: I'll be honest with you and I said this in my rebuttal I don't find Bryce's position at all consistent his use of terminology is not consistent
01:04:24: He'll say one thing at one point and then go and turn around contradict himself and another point So I I found it to be a very
01:04:32: Very confusing presentation and I'm just hoping that my presentation plus the opportunity of rebuttal
01:04:38: Will be useful to folks and As I said a lot of a lot of people there's someone in the chat room right now brilliant brilliant person
01:04:48: Very very smart That's just that that looked at it. This is like I don't what what what's he saying?
01:04:54: I don't think that I do understand what he's saying because just a year ago.
01:05:00: I used to think that way Yeah, well, I understand what the Armenian is saying what I'm saying is
01:05:06: I don't George Bryson's particular spin on things Seems somewhat non -standard.
01:05:13: It's it's certainly not historical Arminian ism in the sense of The the systematic theologians who were part and parcel of developing that perspective so it's
01:05:24: It's a little bit different In you know, he'll try to affirm Sovereignty and then turn around and say but that doesn't mean
01:05:32: X Y or Z So I yeah, I know what he's saying but When he attempts to say well,
01:05:39: I actually agree with some of the things that James White is saying I I don't know that he really is
01:05:46: At all the only way I think he's just redefining the terms just right Exactly, you know one thing that I just did and I told rich about it.
01:05:55: I don't know if he passed it along to you That I spoke on the phone on the radio program that Calvert Chapel has delivered an answer
01:06:02: Uh -huh, and I spoke to a man named Brad Smith Don't know if you've heard of him.
01:06:09: Uh No, okay, and Jeff Johnson from my Calvary Chapel over in Downey Mm -hmm and I was talking to him about Predestination and I wanted to know exactly what their take was on it or if they would allow a reformed theologian such as yourself
01:06:23: To go and preach in their focus and he said no, but they don't accept They wouldn't allow a hyper
01:06:28: Calvinist, that's what they call it a hyper Calvinist to to preach and our pulpits
01:06:34: He says I said, so you wouldn't accept a guy like Pastor John McArthur He says well, I don't know that Pastor John McArthur is a hyper
01:06:39: Calvinist And I said, well, I have a table is an election and believe me. He is a reformed Calvinist I don't know.
01:06:45: I don't know what hyper means. Well, see that that's that's a term We need to define because it is very frequently
01:06:53: Misused it is thrown at us out of a tremendous amount of ignorance and In essence what they're attempting to say a hyper
01:07:02: Calvinist and I am in my first exposure to the term Calvinist Really came in Bible College and It was to a hyper
01:07:13: Calvinist this fellow Sat down sat behind me in Chapel I went to a
01:07:19: Christian Bible College and this person sat behind me in Chapel and one day I was telling him about What we had done the night before in going out and witnessing to Mormons at the
01:07:28: Easter pageant and he has looked at me and said why do you do that if they're elect they're gonna get saved and I'm I looked at him like What in the world you're talking about?
01:07:37: The the main hallmark of a hyper Calvinist is that they are not involved in evangelism
01:07:43: They do not feel there is any responsibility whatsoever Any privilege given to us to be involved in the proclamation of the gospel
01:07:51: That we can just sit back and enjoy our little spiritual lives and Despite that God's gonna save his elect and that's that there is no responsibility to be involved in that and Some people attach other things beyond that to hyper
01:08:09: Calvinism But as I have seen it expressed and I've seen people live it out. That is the primary element of it that there is no
01:08:17: Evangelism and of course to call me a hyper Calvinist is absurd I mean, you know
01:08:23: We're in Salt Lake City. We're in Mesa To call to call me a hyper Calvinist and say we just believe we can just sit back and not proclaim the gospel and all
01:08:32: The rest of stuff is absolutely absurd, but the vast majority of people who use the term don't know what it means anyways And so we need to define that and of course one of the things that was confusing about chosen, but free is that it used
01:08:46: The phrase extreme Calvinist and a lot of people have assumed that extreme Calvinist and hyper Calvinist the same thing
01:08:51: Well extreme Calvinist is a silly phrase. Anyways, it didn't have any historical basis and it's and it's really should not be used by anyone but Some people assume that means if you're extreme
01:09:02: Calvinist, that means you're a hyper Calvinist so on and so forth So John MacArthur most definitely does
01:09:09: Believe in predestination election, which is the issue they focus upon most of them don't even know what the other issues are
01:09:15: They wouldn't even know what some of us reform folks argue about even amongst ourselves But That's that's what they would be focusing upon.
01:09:24: And so yeah, it is interesting to Hear that kind of response
01:09:30: They're going on the basis of a tradition that they have been taught But you know, the interesting thing about it is that I was talking to them
01:09:38: They told me told me that they wanted to give me a little pamphlet written by Pastor Chuck Smith called
01:09:44: Calvinism or minionism in the Word of God, right? And basically what they were trying to explain is that there are elements of both, you know
01:09:50: Of course that caught me by surprise, you know exactly which elements of the tulip do you actually accept myself?
01:09:55: But then they had to cut me off because if they go to the next caller They sent it to me and I read it through and I think it's on the website.
01:10:02: I'm not sure I'm sorry I think it's on the website because I've read something by Chuck Smith Where he comments on each of the points and talks about what's true and what's false about each one
01:10:11: Right. Well in the in the art in the pamphlet that they sent me he expresses Okay, this is what
01:10:17: Calvinists believe. This is what the Armenians believe. This is what we believe now He says that they try to find a balance without going to the extreme because they feel that Armenians water down the sovereignty of God and Calvinists go to extreme by saying that you know, we don't have a choice and As I was reading that I was obviously
01:10:37: I understand a little bit better than that But as I was reading that I was noticing that I couldn't find exactly where they really deviated
01:10:46: I mean you may use different words, but you're really saying the same thing and It seemed to me.
01:10:51: I mean, he didn't believe that grace was resistible. I mean, he did believe that grace was resistible He didn't believe in the complete and total depravity of man
01:10:59: He didn't believe in complete unconditional election that was based solely upon the choice of God I mean the only thing that you might say that he agreed with in the pamphlet was the perseverance of the
01:11:09: Saints But on a different basis, right? Right. So I called him up a second time To try to get a clarification.
01:11:17: This was last Monday and they said to me that well
01:11:23: You know, they said they couldn't speak for Pastor Chuck Smith. I didn't get a chance to talk to him but they basically said that That they don't agree with Arminius because James Arminius believed that God Predestined people on the basis of him knowing what they would have chosen
01:11:39: When in reality they quoted John 15 16 where it says you did not choose me But I chose you and I'm just going puzzled in my head how they understand that passage
01:11:48: So they're trying to in some way harmonize it and stand in the middle for some Some unknown reason and then you know, it was really brief.
01:11:57: They have to go to a break They let me go on and after the break They told me that there were a couple of good books that I could get
01:12:02: One was chosen but free by Norman Geisler and the other one was a pamphlet by George Yep, I hear you and by the way, that's that is on the web.
01:12:13: I just Someone in the chat room just put it up and it is on the web If you go to library
01:12:19: Chuck Smith books It is there listed on the web and I'm looking exactly what you were just what you were just talking about And this is what
01:12:27: I've looked at before to try to figure out exactly what they're saying and yes, they they try to avoid the crass elements of arminianism, but in reality, they still hold to the perspective of of being synergistic
01:12:47: For example, I'm reading here. It says We believe that all our sinners are enabled by human performance to earn deserve a merit salvation
01:12:56: That sounds real good. And you know what the one of the sad things is today is that many evangelicals will read that and go
01:13:02: Oh, that's great. You know what the Council of Trent said that The Council of Trent said that of course the
01:13:09: Council of Trent anathematized anyone Who would say that apart from God's grace we can earn anything from God?
01:13:20: Well, but no what I'm saying is people don't hear they don't understand why why do we emphasize the solas well because the solas
01:13:28: Say something they they emphasize something and So here you have this this assertion.
01:13:37: Well that the unable by human performance to earn deserve a merit salvation in fact, I met with some Mormons just a couple of About a week and a half ago and They said all the same thing they emphasized the exact same thing as well, you know without God's grace
01:13:52: But see that's what synergism is all about it goes on to say we believe the wages of sin is death and apart from God's grace
01:13:58: No one can be saved. Well apart from God's grace. No one can be saved. Everybody says that the question is does
01:14:06: God's grace Actually save there's the issue And if that's not addressed then they're not addressing the issue and you can pretty much
01:14:15: You can pretty much guess That they're gonna come down the other side because those who come to understand the doctrines of grace
01:14:25: Will emphasize those things and they will emphasize that because they recognize that is the main area of Compromise on the part of those who deny it so it's not there
01:14:38: You can say that mankind is clearly fallen and lost in sin all you want
01:14:43: Until you say what that means You're not really getting anywhere at that point
01:14:52: So you look through election you look through atonement. You look through grace and all these things and You know the last line under grace clearly
01:15:04: God's grace can either be resisted or received by the exercise of human free will There you go.
01:15:10: That's that's there you go pure Semi -Pelagian synergism exactly on that level
01:15:18: Exactly like Rome now of course Rome then uses all sorts of other issues as to how grace is dispensed but it's still human synergism and Sure because I you know you speak a lot about Anachronisms and things like that About the
01:15:38: Roman Catholic Church and it seems to me that when I look at the common everyday Roman Catholic apologist and that I listen to on the radio or Whenever I listen to some other tapes or books or whatever that they speak of You know terms like anathema or in the
01:15:54: Catholic Church, and they read They understand them the way the Second Vatican Council interprets them that you know no one can be saved outside the
01:16:02: Catholic Church that means that Unless you don't have to necessarily have a formal communion you can have an informal community
01:16:09: Catholic Church and still be saved including atheists mm -hmm and You know if you're anathema that doesn't mean you're going to hell it just means you're excommunicated
01:16:17: But I'm wondering and I haven't read Roman Catholic apologists of the centuries past Right, and I don't know maybe you have maybe haven't
01:16:25: How did they express the meaning of the anathemas and all of that stuff well?
01:16:30: Yeah, there's obviously been a tremendous shift over time. I mean remember Roman Catholic apologists of the past Lived in an age where they defended the faith within a culture
01:16:41: Where their opponents would be put to death? So they're always responding more to a
01:16:53: People outside the specific area where the Roman Catholic Church holds sway for example after the
01:16:59: Reformation They're responding to people in Protestant countries While they don't really have any opponents in their own country at that point in time because their opponents would be imprisoned deprived their
01:17:10: Liberty Tortured or put to death so obviously that that has a huge impact upon the issue of what anathema meant because everyone knows that When Jan Huss was anathema tized by the
01:17:31: Council of Constance in the second decade of the 15th century
01:17:37: That the result of that anathema tization was is being turned over to the secular authorities to be burned so But but the way
01:17:49: Tim said it on the Bible answer man is that they believe that he was excommunicated and then held him To come to be the secular authorities and they felt that heretics should be killed.
01:17:58: I'm what I'm asking you That's absurd. First of all, that is absolutely positively assert those secular authorities
01:18:05: Had no choice if they did not bring about the death of that person They themselves we brought up uncharged and themselves burned it is absolutely one of the most inane
01:18:18: Ridiculous excuses ever thought up by the human mind That all the Catholic Church had nothing to do with that it was just the secular they knew what was gonna happen
01:18:27: They were the ones in control their own popes at the time preached that the religious authority was superior to the secular authority
01:18:35: That is that is absolutely Ridiculous it truly Do understand that but what
01:18:41: I'm wondering is it was there any Roman Catholic that that existed back then that actually made that distinction or Was that a given?
01:18:49: Distinction between what anathema and you're going to hell Well the phrase going to hell no,
01:18:59: I mean just just think about in the context of The Council of Constance.
01:19:04: I'm sorry the Council of Florence a statement that Jews heretics and schismatics cannot possibly merit get eternal life
01:19:13: The given was that outside of the sacraments and grace the church everyone was going to hell
01:19:19: Therefore the real issue was who's going to heaven and the only way you can get to heaven is through the sacraments of the church
01:19:24: No way you can have the sacraments of the church Of course is if you're in fellowship with the church and you're under the authority of the church
01:19:30: So the real emphasis was more upon It's a given that everybody is on a bobsled to hell
01:19:36: The issue is how do you get off that bobsled and the only way to do that? is through Faithful adherence to the teachings of the church and the the sacraments of the church
01:19:46: So that becomes the issue the issue of trying to defend that and then the change that eventually takes place leading to what we have
01:19:52: Today that takes place over time and it takes place only after the Reformation But up to that point extracles in Noah's Solace was very clearly involved
01:20:01: The understanding on the part of the people that outside of the grace Channels the sacraments of the church there was no salvation and I don't
01:20:09: I don't know of anybody who who had a different viewpoint than that at all, but That's certainly the viewpoint that the church held and that has of course changed over time to where you have the vast majority of theologians today
01:20:21: Who are hard dabbling with? Well a large portion of theologians in Roman Catholicism today who are dabbling with universalism
01:20:28: So, you know, that's the whole the whole issue there. So alrighty, sir Already are you going to be debating any guy on this issue anyone?
01:20:37: I'm sorry in the recent future I remember I spoke to your daughter on the chat room. She told me that you weren't gonna be debating
01:20:43: Georgia Bryson. I Don't know. I mean there the issue has been raised possibly doing
01:20:49: Something maybe even on the Bible Answer Man in regards to the CRI journals, but nothing has been mentioned to me at all
01:20:56: I mentioned a couple weeks ago Dave Hunt doesn't seem quite as excited About the debate issue that he once did and So, you know,
01:21:06: I don't know what's coming up as far as debates to go All righty. All right. Okay.
01:21:11: Thanks for calling All righty, that'll do it for the dividing line
01:21:16: That will do it for the dividing line today and for whoever was just doing that particular hang -up and handling the controls
01:21:26: Uh Next week no discussion of Norman Geisler or chosen but free will be allowed
01:21:34: We will actually talk about something else because it's obvious. That's what you want to talk about as well So we'll be here next week if you'll be here next week
01:21:41: Maybe we'll be able to continue the possibility of my singing next week here on the dividing line, but probably not.