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

Well for quite some time we've been telling you they're coming they're coming they're coming and they came

Yes, yesterday the UPS man looking rather haggard Actually, we helped the

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

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

Right hand worked very hard in signing signing books as we were getting them out

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

We got we got most of them out, I think Yesterday, so they're on their way to you.

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

Christian bookstore industry and Realized that that was a stupid thing to say actually stop laughing out there.

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.

So it is available and Maybe next week or sometime after that.

I'm not really sure we can take a look at the book Maybe once the book gets out the initial shipping takes place.

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

Maybe we can do something like that in the future Today, we're gonna be finishing up. Yes. I did say finishing up.

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,

I almost could that is how Horrifically bad this response is in fact as I was sitting here.

I honestly, I I wanted to have the new main page article up on The on The website before the program began today

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

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

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

Notes, basically the read -along notes that I have used so far in the response and that's 25 pages long

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

There'll be about 37 pages worth of material that I'll be uploading to the to the website and then linking to the

Materials At straightgate .com these three dividing lines that we've done in response

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

Section the 25 page thing that I've been using while doing the programs and I there were a couple paragraphs

I had not taken apart and looked up every reference in yet so as I was doing that I Again started encountering so much

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

King James only camp and she's she's moved into the mainstream It's just incredible. I was I'm looking at this

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

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

It seems the author and I put Parentheses s author or authors

Because I am fully convinced that this was done by an undergraduate student somewhere or more likely in fact by a class project

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

It struck two things struck me at the same time and together I went hmm, this is interesting

The first thing was the fact that as I put together the documentation on the incredible misuse of a single phrase

The phrase was mere presentation twice in this article

This phrase mere presentation is used to beat me over the head to say that I engaged in ad hominem argumentation

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

It's where I was actually affirming the sufficiency of scripture saying that the mere presentation of God's truth from the word is

Sufficient for the child of God that That Misuse of the phrase in two different ways indicates to me

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

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

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

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

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.

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

I'm why is this so bad? Why are there page citations that are wrong? Why is it that?

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

To the author or authors of this of this appendix it just it does not matter at all

How could that have happened? It would have happened if this was a class project

And so that's why throughout the throughout the Material I'm gonna be posting on the web today.

I use author Parentheses s so if it's one guy or it's a number of people whatever

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

And I continue it seems the authors of this review felt it would be best to include their worst examples of miscitation

Misreading and simple error in the midst of personal attacks, so we have an entire subsection titled pride and exclusivism

Which begins and now I'm quoting from page 262 of the chosen but free Quote I am

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

While summarily dismissing other reformed theologians CBF sites who do not agree with major points in its presentation

For example, William shed an RT Kendall the author of potter's freedom immodestly announces

Quote I will be demonstrating and quote that Geisler's view quote is in error and quote page 30

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

Now I then comment One has to wonder who these nameless faceless people are who join with the authors in detecting this pride

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

But the great irony is that in the midst of accusing me of being prideful the authors of this review

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

The author of potter's freedom immodestly announce announces quote

I Will be demonstrating and then there is a closed quote that Geisler's view quote is in error quote close page 30

When I first read this I only noted that it is hardly immodest to say that one's view is in error

Unless of course that person does not believe you intelligent enough or old enough or trained enough to even critique their position

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

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

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

The reformed tradition is rich in honest dialogue and debate those who love truth will not be offended by honest direct

Refutation and interaction the politically correct culture. We live in should not be allowed to silence meaningful theological debate

Dr. Geisler himself has written quote third. What about those who insist that drawing lines will divide

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

There is an unhealthy tendency in evangelical Christianity to hide under the banner of Christian charity while sacrificing

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

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

My positive presentation will be limited to establishing facts that are not in evidence from a reading of chosen but free instead

I will be demonstrating that the biblical Argumentation provided by Norman Geisler is in error

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

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

I could not help but be amazed at the use of the quotation marks in CBF Here we cannot blame eyesight

We cannot blame a simple misreading of the text this is purposeful and planned

I said I would demonstrate that the biblical Argumentation provided by Norman Geisler is in error.

I Continued on you may note in talking about a biblical exegesis and that's exactly what

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.

Geisler does not even attempt a response on an exegetical level gives eloquent testimony that I did

Exactly what I promised to do But that is not what is quoted in a new appendix to chosen but free

No through the purposeful and fascinating use of quotation marks the actual substance of my statement

Focused upon biblical argumentation is deleted and Geisler's entire view his entire theology is placed in its stead

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.

Norman Geisler's entire viewpoint in error how brash But of course the original citation could not be used without deleting its substance

How strange would it look to accuse me of being prideful simply for saying and proving someone else's biblical?

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.

Geisler well Recognizes that fact and is it not the case that one of his greatest claims to fame is

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

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

It then says it claims my position is utterly without substantiation and that its own conclusion is true without question

That's the assertion of Dr.. Geisler and chose him at free it claims my position.

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

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

That's put forward or something like that and that I'm saying of myself that my own conclusions are without question true

That's what it sounds like it's saying but as normal throughout this text throughout this review

Context is utterly ignored So when you go to page 262 of the potter's freedom, what are we talking about here?

Well, we're dealing with the subject of particular redemption and in in in fact. We are talking here

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

Arminian ism as moderate Calvinism by redefining the T and tulip the you

Rejecting the L Rejecting the I and redefining it and embracing the P. He calls this

Arminian ism. That's inconsistent Arminian ism Moderate Calvinism and he calls historic Calvinism historic reform theology extreme

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

John Calvin certainly did therefore if you hold to limit atonement you are beyond Calvin and therefore You are an extreme

Calvinist and So that's what's being discussed and what I did on page 260 starting all the way back page 259

I Provide extensive quotations from John Calvin on this very issue and then

I Noted something that a number of people especially those of you have interest in historical things already did note

Let me just read this to you because this is somewhat interesting a lot of people have have a lot of interest in this

Starting on page 260 if this interpretation of all men is read into the passages cited from Calvin however

It becomes plain that Calvin did not hold the unlimited view of the atonement that CBF claims as to the word world

Calvin's view is exemplified by his comments on 1st. John 2 to this passage is quoted by CBF yet for some reason

It seems as this CBS and hey look at that. I found a typographical error. It is seems

Hey, someone else didn't find it. I found myself someone circled that thing so we can get that fixed It seems as a

CBS thinks this quotation affirms a Universal view of the atonement it is highly educational to note that dr.

Geisler insert a whole series of Italics into his rendition of Calvin's words.

Why is it educational? Because he emphasizes the portions that seem to support his thesis

But ignores the direct statements that contradict him Hmm I should have seen this coming, huh go back to page 261

Calvin scholars for centuries have cited this passage as evidence of Calvin's particular

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

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

That believers might be convinced that italics the expiation made by Christ Extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel italics close

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.

I Passover the dreams of the fanatics who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate and even to Satan himself

Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that italics

Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but effectively only for the elect Italics end this solution has commonly prevailed in the schools

Although italics I allow for the truth of this italics close I Deny that it fits this passage that phrase is not italicized

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

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

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.

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

Therefore under the word all in first John 2 2 he does not include the reprobate

But refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth

This is the key affirmation here Calvin completely contradicts. Dr. Geisler's interpretation.

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

Further Geisler italicizes the assertions of others rather than Calvin yet then interprets these as being

Calvin's view Calvin believes John's assertion is meant to give confidence to all believers that Christ is their propitiation

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 his assertion that when John says the whole world He is saying this does not include the reprobate.

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

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

Calvinist is utterly without Substantiation either in Calvin's words or in the readily available scholarly sources

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.

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

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

Calvinist is utterly without Substantiation either in Calvin's words or in the readily available scholarly sources

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

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

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

You are misrepresenting the original source It claims our position is utterly without substantiation and that its own conclusion is true without question

And so I started looking for where did I say?

That my conclusion on Calvin's view of the atonement Was true without question so I started looking through the page

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?

Well, it was the preceding paragraph Let's find it again here further

Geiser italicizes the assertions of others rather than Calvin yet Then interprets these as being

Calvin's view Calvin believes John's assertion is meant to give confidence to all believers that Christ is their propitiation

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

His assertion that when John says the whole world he is saying this does not include the reprobate there's the phrase

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

Any words whatsoever it does not matter where they occur it does not matter what I intended them to communicate

You can pull them out and put them together with other ones to go. Oh look. He's a mean prideful little person

It's incredible I Have honestly Gail rippling er could learn from this she really could because she's not very good at it

I'm just absolutely positively amazed just absolutely amazed at this kind of incredible misuse of the

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

Maybe there's some of you who are Maybe there's some of you who are big

Norm Geisler fans, and you just you just think I have been terrible and horrible I Would like to invite

Anyone I'd like to invite Norm Geisler to call in But anyone who would like to attempt to take up his defense.

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

We'll be right back And welcome back to dividing line

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

Looking for certainly I would like to give priority To anyone who would like to say that well actually no, dr.

Dr. Geisler's right and Here's the excuse here's I'm sorry here's the explanation

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.

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

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.

Geisler You should kept your nose out of this in the first place, etc. Etc. Etc Maybe you just like to say no.

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.

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

How how did this get into print? I don't know. I can't I Cannot explain

How this got into print outside of the fact that when someone such as dr. Geisler who's written 40 or 50 books

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

And I do not in any way shape or form hold Bethany house accountable For this at all.

They're my publisher. They've been great to me the God who justifies it just came out from Bethany house

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?

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

Absolutely shaking their heads in the exact same way that I am going hot. What is this?

There is only one person ultimately accountable for this and that is dr. Norman Geisler. It's his book

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

It's his responsibility it's his book and so fundamentally he's one has to answer the question

Why couldn't you get page numbers, right? Why can't you allow any context whatsoever to be even slightly relevant?

Why are there quotations where you used? Quotation marks to change the meaning what's with all this ad hominem?

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

Read you another section of what's could be on the web page today It is a section titled.

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

But I really couldn't fit exegesis with anything that was really related to beef in any way shape or form

The vast majority of this response should never have seen the light of day Given the character of the

Potter's freedom as an exegetical reply to chosen but free the logical response would involve exegetical rebuttal and argument

But of course is exactly what is avoided by this reply no exegesis of any

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

Exegetical element here's improper exegesis one paragraph as Readers of Potter's freedom can detect for themselves.

The author is convinced of his exegetical skills and chides CBF for its alleged lack thereof

Yet Potter's freedom repeatedly reads some men into passages that clearly emphatically say all men pages 140 and 142

It insists against the context that second Peter 3 9 where God desires that all men to be saved is

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

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

God's action It distorts the word saves to saves himself page 64 and so on That's what it says

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

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?

Well, the Potter's freedom contains literally hundreds of pages of positive positive exegetical presentation

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.

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

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

But since I provide a contextual and linguistic arguments that are completely ignored How can this be called a meaningful or scholarly response?

Not only that but just going back and leaving leaving the web page article. In fact, I may expand this part part

I better stop expanding ours get too big Specifically it says here

That I insisted against the context the second Peter 3 9 is not speaking about salvation.

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

Accurately summarize in one sentence the argument that it's then completely closing its eyes to and ignoring

Unbelievable Then It says it says again according but it claims that John 1 12

Through 13 does not say received when the very word is used by John in this text page 185

Well by now, you've probably started figuring out Exactly what's going on here, right?

When we go to page 185, we're probably we can probably start predicting

That in reality We're not gonna find anything on page 185 that substantiates

Geisler's assertion, right? In fact, we're probably gonna find exegesis that would have to be responded to but has been ignored, right?

Well, you would be exactly right. That's exactly what's going on Here's the quotation but the objection

Does raise an interesting issue? Does the text itself indicate a relationship between believing and the new birth?

There are certainly some points that dr. Geisler would have to consider to make his assertion carry weight number one

John as is his custom refers to Christians as the believing ones toys piscu sin

English translations normally miss this important element of John's gospel the contrast between true saving faith which is

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

It is literally even to those who are believing in his name or the believing ones who believe in his name

The term believing is a present participle the verb born is

The heiress passive form in its context. It is plainly said to be an act of God all human agency is denied

Number three it follows then that verse 13 is a description of the believing ones of verse 12

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

It is an amazing example of how preconceived notions can be read into a text

That chosen but free can say the text makes the new birth dependent upon an act of free will

When the text says the opposite Now in case you got lost

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

The assertion is made that I in my writings assert

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.

Well, is that what I said? Did I say the word received does not appear in John chapter 1 verses 12 through 13?

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

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

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

Dependent upon an act of free will when the text says the opposite That's what

I said How can anyone read that and say you're saying the word received isn't in the text?

No, the sentence is in fact Nothing is said in the text that the new birth is received by an act of free will

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

I Cannot figure it out, but that's exactly what it is done 866 8 5 4 67 63

I'm going to begin to sing If those of you who have been making comments concerning this issue maybe

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.

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?

Dr. Geisler in this appendix. You are more than welcome to call in Everybody's going.

Yeah, right Sure, someone's gonna call in and talk to you about dr.

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

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?

Maybe this illustrates this whatever it might be 8 5 4 67 63 let me go ahead and tell you how

I finish the web article Here's here's what I say. The concluding section is called drop back 10 and punt

Those who need point -by -point response can do so by clicking here obviously what that means is

Maybe James just gives us the phone numbers too fast. Okay, let me try this 6 6.

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.

I Just sometimes the comments made the chat room are just so utterly distracting anyways There surely is no reason to drag

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

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

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

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

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

Geisler has written at the end of this review

Dr. Geisler says he prays That I will channel my quote considerable talent and zeal

Toward the more pressing need of defending Christianity again deny the fundamentals of the faith

Not those who affirm them end quote while this may sound like a noble sentiment

I have to wonder Why did dr. Geisler write chosen but free?

Why did he choose to identify the faith of reformed Baptist churches conservative

Presbyterian churches and many others as? Irrational and unbiblical are we to understand that he has the right to do this

But those of us at the pointed end of his sword must ignore his highly errant and flawed attacks upon our faith

I Honestly do not understand the basis of such a statement

One thing is beyond all doubt This response proves even more clearly than did the text of the

Potter's freedom That dr. Geisler has no response to reformed scholarship

In closing I would like to ask dr. Geisler to consider well the nature of this appendix as I have said

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

But whatever its provenance it exists today as part of the second edition of chosen but free and the front of the book says

Norman Geisler that Places the above documented errors a word that seems extremely weak to cover the kind of misrepresentations.

We have seen squarely in his realm of responsibility and Hence, I will say with all seriousness

Dr. Geisler Do the right thing? Pull this appendix print a retraction and Simply do what is right?

You do not attack Any fellow believer with such terms as arrogant overzealous pedantic and prideful while utilizing this kind of utterly inane

Misrepresentation and argumentation as a shield it is simply scholarly negligence

Unless dr. Geisler can explain how this kind of material has some relevance to the actual topic at hand

It should be pulled from circulation with apologies to all concerned, but especially to his own readers

There simply is no other course to follow That's how

I conclude the review By calling upon dr. Geisler to pull this review and print a retraction there simply is

No other course of action open to any person Who is honest?

That is how bad This response is and we've proven it.

We've documented it. We've been very careful to do so Unlike the review we have quoted everything in context

You can look up the page numbers our page numbers happen to be correct. You can look them up for yourself

Dr. Geisler you only have one choice do the right thing well 866 8 5 4 67 63

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?

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

I have to buy these Roman Catholic books. They are so Expensive fact I've got one up here My office is a mess.

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

Middle Ages by Brian Tierney Published by EJ Brill, you know how much this cost?

105 bucks not including shipping and I'm looking at it here, and it's 75 pages shorter than the

God who justifies someone ought to figure out the numbers the percentage cheaper

The God who justifies over tyranny so all of tyranny stuff is expensive. He's a good scholar got a lot of good stuff

Worth it. I guess you got to have that kind of stuff. Mm -hmm. Well, anyways putting I'm I put that away

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

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

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

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

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.

That's cool with me. I can understand You know y 'all just don't want to Talk about these things

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

I have this in my hand well, it is not for the cover Anyone who wants to see if you don't get the

Christian Research Journal, I would recommend it to you It's well worth getting I'm one of the what do they call me?

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

Well, there it is contributing writers now used to be a contributing something other but to contributing writers

And isn't it funny that both Norm Geisser and I are listed Hey Charles Stromer is listed.

How Charles Stromer getting there. Is that the same guy like the senator or something? Charles Stromer is written for the

Christian Research Journal Hmm. Mm -hmm. Very very interesting. Anyways, I write for the

Christian Research Journal, and there is a two part of Charles Schumer Oh Well What can

I say there's a two -part debate that is being printed in the

Christian Research Journal and The first part of the debate appears in this edition and the second part

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

The debate entitled the divine sovereignty human responsibility debate by James R.

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

CRI journal the next two will be in the next one and I think it's well worth reading.

I I will be very honest with you. I don't understand what mr Bryson's saying I I Just don't get it.

But anyways, I Did make a comment about the cover and I have told

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

The front Go to equipped org if you want to see this cover if you don't get it go to equipped org

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.

So it's just Smack dab up against the I mean, it's it's huge and it's orange

And it's well, I'll tell you it's hideous It's absolutely

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

And that's what you'd get it and That's the only way

I can describe it. It is absolutely positively hideous and even when I keep it here on my on my desk

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.

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

We have all of one caller so far. I Truly truly appreciate that one brave person who has not called however to talk

About chosen but free and the potter's freedom, which is fine. That's okay.

We will she's melting Someone the chat channel just looked at just looked at the cover and she's melting

Well, look if you're you can't really see it, but if you actually have the CRA journal if you look on page

You do do do do do do do do do do do do do there it is I suppose

I should have some paper back here. I can go Like certain famous people Page 12 page 13, you'll see of the

Is this illustrated by Tom Fluherty? flu h a r t y and All I can say to Tom who illustrated this article

Do not run into Oprah in a dark alley okay, because She could take you out so It's just oh

Man, there's a blue one on page on page 12. Is that supposed to be Oprah on? Page 12.

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

Original Star Trek that he his face got all he was that famous attorney. What was that guy's name?

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

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

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

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

We'll be right back That's how that break was not long enough because I didn't finish my mrs.

Fields semi -sweet chocolate chip cookie. Mmm, man. Those are good. Oh Now I can't reach my water either hmm

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.

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

What am I gonna sing? Um, I don't I'll take requests You know,

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

I should mention this anyone the chat channel Who leaves

Before I start singing I Log everything I will I will note the times and you will be kick -man

So you're gonna have to listen now. I know I can't control whether you're still listening But anyways,

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

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

Norman Geisler? You don't you do not wish to do so No What do you want do you want me to sing

I can hear you in the background there rich.

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

Warren ski suggested something to me maybe and this is probably the way it is on page 12

I'll bet you anything that the purple lady is the author of the article article

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

Hey, don't get mad at me. I Did it to myself and you see what's supposed to be going on here

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

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

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

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.

So anyways, yes Mr. Bryson and I are having a little debate and on the subject of divine sovereignty and human responsibility

Right because there was something see I know that a lot of those that are opposed to the reform understanding

Don't necessarily object to calling faith a gift from God But in this in this article

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

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

Ephesians 2 and I'm just kind of wondering exactly what his standpoint is on it.

Well Unfortunately, I Will be the first person to assert that I don't understand what he's saying.

I Have I've listened to his real audio sermons. I've looked at his book

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

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?

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

That in regards to Ephesians chapter 2 Actually on the citation, okay

It says 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 on page 40, right?

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

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

First of all, he's misunderstanding what Calvin said here If you look up in the

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

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.

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

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

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

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

I'll be I'll be very honest with you is I can remember very very clearly in Sometime before Christmas of last year

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

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?

Well, of course Someone who will remain nameless that name was raised, but he wasn't interested in doing it.

So we Once George Bryson was chosen He and I got together and we talked on the phone

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.

And so we had agreed to do the first part on the decree of election and The second part on the will of man.

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

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

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

Anyways of man's depravity and the nature of saving faith in the next part of the debate

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.

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

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,

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

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.

We cannot do ignoring of course The fact that our inability is due to our own sin

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

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

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

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

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

Very confusing presentation and I'm just hoping that my presentation plus the opportunity of rebuttal

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

Very very smart That's just that that looked at it. This is like I don't what what what's he saying?

I don't think that I do understand what he's saying because just a year ago.

I used to think that way Yeah, well, I understand what the Armenian is saying what I'm saying is

I don't George Bryson's particular spin on things Seems somewhat non -standard.

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

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

X Y or Z So I yeah, I know what he's saying but When he attempts to say well,

I actually agree with some of the things that James White is saying I I don't know that he really is

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.

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

Uh -huh, and I spoke to a man named Brad Smith Don't know if you've heard of him.

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

To go and preach in their focus and he said no, but they don't accept They wouldn't allow a hyper

Calvinist, that's what they call it a hyper Calvinist to to preach and our pulpits

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

Calvinist And I said, well, I have a table is an election and believe me. He is a reformed Calvinist I don't know.

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

Misused it is thrown at us out of a tremendous amount of ignorance and In essence what they're attempting to say a hyper

Calvinist and I am in my first exposure to the term Calvinist Really came in Bible College and It was to a hyper

Calvinist this fellow Sat down sat behind me in Chapel I went to a

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

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?

The the main hallmark of a hyper Calvinist is that they are not involved in evangelism

They do not feel there is any responsibility whatsoever Any privilege given to us to be involved in the proclamation of the gospel

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

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

Evangelism and of course to call me a hyper Calvinist is absurd I mean, you know

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

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

The phrase extreme Calvinist and a lot of people have assumed that extreme Calvinist and hyper Calvinist the same thing

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

Calvinist, that means you're a hyper Calvinist so on and so forth So John MacArthur most definitely does

Believe in predestination election, which is the issue they focus upon most of them don't even know what the other issues are

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.

And so yeah, it is interesting to Hear that kind of response

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

They told me told me that they wanted to give me a little pamphlet written by Pastor Chuck Smith called

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

Of course that caught me by surprise, you know exactly which elements of the tulip do you actually accept myself?

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.

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

Right. Well in the in the art in the pamphlet that they sent me he expresses Okay, this is what

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

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

I mean you may use different words, but you're really saying the same thing and It seemed to me.

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

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

Saints But on a different basis, right? Right. So I called him up a second time To try to get a clarification.

This was last Monday and they said to me that well

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

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

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.

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

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.

I just Someone in the chat room just put it up and it is on the web If you go to library

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

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

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

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

Oh, that's great. You know what the Council of Trent said that The Council of Trent said that of course the

Council of Trent anathematized anyone Who would say that apart from God's grace we can earn anything from God?

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

Say something they they emphasize something and So here you have this this assertion.

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

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

No one can be saved. Well apart from God's grace. No one can be saved. Everybody says that the question is does

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

You can pretty much guess That they're gonna come down the other side because those who come to understand the doctrines of grace

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

You can say that mankind is clearly fallen and lost in sin all you want

Until you say what that means You're not really getting anywhere at that point

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

God's grace can either be resisted or received by the exercise of human free will There you go.

That's that's there you go pure Semi -Pelagian synergism exactly on that level

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

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

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

Catholic Church that means that Unless you don't have to necessarily have a formal communion you can have an informal community

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

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

How did they express the meaning of the anathemas and all of that stuff well?

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

Where their opponents would be put to death? So they're always responding more to a

People outside the specific area where the Roman Catholic Church holds sway for example after the

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

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

Council of Constance in the second decade of the 15th century

That the result of that anathema tization was is being turned over to the secular authorities to be burned so But but the way

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.

I'm what I'm asking you That's absurd. First of all, that is absolutely positively assert those secular authorities

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

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

They were the ones in control their own popes at the time preached that the religious authority was superior to the secular authority

That is that is absolutely Ridiculous it truly Do understand that but what

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?

Distinction between what anathema and you're going to hell Well the phrase going to hell no,

I mean just just think about in the context of The Council of Constance.

I'm sorry the Council of Florence a statement that Jews heretics and schismatics cannot possibly merit get eternal life

The given was that outside of the sacraments and grace the church everyone was going to hell

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

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

So the real emphasis was more upon It's a given that everybody is on a bobsled to hell

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

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

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

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

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

Who are hard dabbling with? Well a large portion of theologians in Roman Catholicism today who are dabbling with universalism

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?

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

Georgia Bryson. I Don't know. I mean there the issue has been raised possibly doing

Something maybe even on the Bible Answer Man in regards to the CRI journals, but nothing has been mentioned to me at all

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,

I don't know what's coming up as far as debates to go All righty. All right. Okay.

Thanks for calling All righty, that'll do it for the dividing line

That will do it for the dividing line today and for whoever was just doing that particular hang -up and handling the controls

Uh Next week no discussion of Norman Geisler or chosen but free will be allowed

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

Maybe we'll be able to continue the possibility of my singing next week here on the dividing line, but probably not.