Finished Norman Geisler's “Sermon” on Calvinism

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

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

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one And now with today's topic here is

James white Well, I don't know if I'm even gonna do the program right now because as soon as we shut

Milo Hudson Buehler's a very Milo Christmas off everybody in the chat channel started complaining And they didn't didn't didn't want me to come on.

So they just wanted to continue listening. Yeah, I know said to yeah Do a special Christmas intro or something like that Milo Maybe I don't know, but I'm sort of feeling a little low now

I was feeling pretty good up till now, but now I'm feeling a little you flew all this wall

Dividing line and I get that your arms out of I'm gonna tell you something, man. I Anyway, I'll let everybody know where they can get

Milo's a very Milo Christmas Because you're all gonna want that, you know, especially winter in North Dakota I think that one's a classic along with alone again

Those those two are right up there at the top of the top of the list. So Anyway back from New York.

I gave you my report. The only thing I would add is I mentioned on Tuesday that I was going to be doing a

Film interview with a gentleman who is a Former Southern Baptist now becoming a

Roman Catholic. He's doing a film on he's a student at New York University He's doing a film on conversion to Roman Catholicism, and he had asked me if I would do an interview and I Thought it was certainly an unusual request

But I thought about it and thought well, why not? I mean, obviously some people might say well, you know, it could be misused

It could be You know put in the wrong context such as Sarah said well, you know It's opportunity for witness.

And so yeah sure. Let's let's do it In fact, that was the whole reason I stayed over after the debate was to be there

Tuesday evening they've been up in Boston interviewing Peter Kreeft and We're driving back down in New York to do the interview with me the folks at Grace Reform Baptist Church you're very kind to allow us to use the worship center as a nice backdrop and And So we went for about I don't know hour 15 hour and a half something like that he had sent me all the questions he was gonna ask and so I'd had looked them over and Had a really good opportunity of discussing a number of things

But then I knew he'd asked some questions were on the list and I hoped that that would happen I had a really good opportunity of giving a witness

To the gospel and to the gospel of peace and what's really important in those matters

It It was interesting. We closed up the discussion by his saying now

I'm gonna ask you a personal question. Feel free to not answer this but I interviewed someone that I know you have some issues with Steve Ray and I rolled my eyes

And I've looked straight at him with the camera running said I don't have an ounce of respect for Steve Ray not not a bit

I can respect Mitch Pack when some of those other folks and Benjamin Douglas and folks like that.

I have respect for I don't have an ounce respect for Steve Ray and Yeah, that'll be a part that gets on right and he said but He had he had

Was surprised that you did this. So why did you do this? And You know, basically

I said well, why not? But look you're you're asking specific questions about what

I believe and I think I have something to say to someone who is treading the road to you know across the

Tiber and I did get to use the illustration that is going to be in the Beckwith book when I finally get around to writing my chapter

On the justification stuff, which hopefully I can get to this month But I said look anyone who leaves

Rome and does not paddle his boat across the Tiber pull the boat up on the shore Busted into pieces and build a pulpit out of it to preach for more people to come out of Rome has probably left the wrong reasons if you don't leave

Rome convinced that Rome's gospel is an unsaving gospel then I'm really not certain that you're that you're actually on the far shore

I think you may just be paddling around the middle and we were talking about Frank Beckwith at that point and So I thought it went very well

And so I would pray that the Lord would use that and then last evening I was over at New Hyde Park Baptist Church, and I didn't tell the story to them.

I should have but the pastor there Gary He he's the one who got me into so much trouble in 2004 he was the pastor that had asked me about the

Mark Seifried stuff okay, and Yeah Sure, I blame him if he hadn't asked me about that book and never what happened see and So I was back there and we did a little roundtable thing on justification with some food and then

We had scheduled for 730 my presentation on New Testament textual reliability reliability in the

New Testament and I guess when Chris Arnson put together a little handout it said 7 o 'clock so halfway through our little roundtable in We're gonna start walking a bunch of Muslims Because they're gonna be attending the the whole group of Akamedia Muslims out of Amityville Came I'm not certain.

I think the audience was about 60 % Christian 40 % Muslim For that presentation there weren't a whole lot of people there but they were there and so I had added some real neat new things to the presentation

At least one video clip and I had added in the pictures of P -91 from when

I was in Australia and all sorts of stuff like that.

I had a great time and then took audience questions and they asked specific questions. You know, comparing the Quran with the

New Testament and stuff like that. It was very good. And in talking with the Imam afterwards, we want to set something up early next year at some point.

I mean, I'm not sure when. January and February are already really filled. But if I can get a chance to get back there, they have invited me to lecture at their mosque.

And so I would very much like to take up that opportunity and do so. So that was the rest of our trip.

Got back a couple hours ago. I have that traffic to JFK, through JFK, sit at JFK, five and a half hours in an airplane.

Low rumbling headache that even Advil doesn't seem to do anything for right now.

So we're we're looking at that. So anyway, I'll tell you what.

While you find out what text someone has a translation question about, maybe I'll go ahead and jump back into the

Norm Geisler sermon. And then we'll pick up pick up the question from from Mark.

And we'll probably do that after the break then, because, you know, just doing cold translation on the air is obviously not the best way to do things.

But as you may recall, in listening to Dr. Geisler, we had just encountered his illustration of the boys swimming in the pond.

If you have the current edition of The Potter's Freedom, you will know that he has used this parable for for quite some time.

He used the exact same parable in the 1985 Basinger and Basinger work on predestination free will.

And here's here's what the parable is. Suppose a farmer discovers three boys drowning in his pond where he had placed signs clearly forbidding swimming.

Further noting. Look at that. There's a typographical error that we need to fix.

It should say noting their blatant. It says nothing. Noting their blatant disobedience, he says to himself, they have violated the warning and have broken the law.

And they have brought these deserved consequences on themselves. Thus far, he is manifesting his sense of justice.

But the farmer proceeds to say, I'll make no attempt to rescue them. We would immediately perceive that something is lacking in his love.

And supposed by some inexplicable whim, he should declare, even though the boys are drowning as a consequence of their own disobedience, nonetheless, out of the goodness of my heart,

I will save one of them and let the other two drown. In such a case, we would surely consider his love to be partial and imperfect.

There's the published version of it. As we're going to see, he is going to say that last action is a perfect representation of what

Calvinists believe. And if you've read The Potter's Freedom, you know that I had a few comments about that.

But let's pick up with Dr. Geisler's comments. Now, they're half right. The half they're right on is

God is just, God has a law, we disobey his law, and we justly take the consequences of our sin.

Half right. But the other half is a tragic error. While they're half right in emphasizing that God is just and those people are justly condemned, they are totally wrong in saying that God is not so loving that he doesn't want to do anything about it and try and rescue those people.

And any farmer who had a fence and a sign like that and would stand there and watch three people drown may be all just, but he's not all loving.

The God of the Bible is both. But, the extreme

Calvinist says, what actually happened was this. Everything in the story is the same up to the point he sees the three boys and he says to them, you saw the sign, you're justly drowning.

But, you in the blue suit. And he throws a rope to one of the three and pulls him in, folds his arms and watches the other two drown.

That's exactly what the traditional five -point Calvinist believes.

That is not exactly what the traditional five -point Calvinist believes. And Dr.

Geisler, I think, should know that. He should be aware of that reality.

But, since he's been using the same arguments for 20 some odd years or more, probably even longer than that, it just does not seem to me that he hears any of the response.

He even said that his opponents don't know what to do with this parable. And yet, there have been a number of published responses to this parable demonstrating its fundamental flaws and problems.

I noted them in The Potter's Freedom. The first is, of course, likening God unto a farmer who comes across these three boys swimming in a pond.

You have a straw man God here. You do not have any real connection between the holy eternal

God who is worshipped by the heavenly beings saying, kadosh, kadosh, kadosh, holy, holy, holy, as they fly around the throne.

That's what the angels do. There really isn't any connection between that God, the holy

God of Scripture, and a farmer who just happens to have decided not to let people swim in a swimming pool, a swimming hole.

Secondly, it does turn God's law into a very arbitrary thing because the farmer could have just as easily turned it into a community swimming hole if he had wanted to do so.

So the very nature of the law that has been broken is trivialized in this perspective.

And, of course, the very concept of sin is trivialized because it's just some good old boys swimming. We're not talking about murder here.

We're not talking about anything like that. So it trivializes God, trivializes His law, and trivializes sin.

So on each one of these levels, it is a worthless parable, unworthy of anyone who would want to seriously address this particular subject.

And so I presented a counter parable that would be more biblically accurate.

And basically what I said, instead of a farmer, we would need to have a king.

And this king returns to his castle from doing good amongst the people of the land to find a group of men robbing, raping, and murdering his family and friends.

They have intentionally set fire to the castle, and if they do not quickly escape, they will perish in the flames. At least this would capture a little more of the seriousness of sin and the horrific nature of it.

But let's add something more. These are subjects of the great king who have benefited greatly at his hand. He has provided them with great material blessings in the past.

They have sat at his table and enjoyed his hospitality, yet they treat him in this fashion. Unlike the parable, these rebels have sinned against the king.

In the parable, they sinned against a no -swimming sign. Personally, it should be noted that this is not the first time.

They have a long track record of rebellion. They have often found mercy at the hand of the king. But let's move even further. These good old boys are not even described in Geisler's parable.

We are told nothing about them other than the fact they are drowning. To again assert some level of biblical truth, we would have to be informed that these men, who are found by the king engaging in heinous crimes against his very own family in the king's castle, are not crying out for deliverance from their activities.

Despite the mounting flames and heat, they continue their violent behavior, destroying everything that reminds them of the king and his rule.

They are enjoying themselves immensely. They love the rebellion and their sin. They even make excuses for it and, in fact, get mad at anyone who would call their activities sinful.

Indeed, they so enjoy their activities that they encourage others to join them in their attack upon the king.

But the truth is even further removed from the offered parable. If we ask how these rebels respond to the attempt to deliver them from their rebellion, there is only one answer.

They mock the king's attempts. Should we seek to open a way for them through the flames so as to save them, they would each invariably laugh at him and mock his actions.

They would throw debris in his face and run away into the smoke, cursing his name. Indeed, if they had the power, they would pull the king into the burning building and make sure he perished in the flames, laughing with glee the entire time.

They would surely never cry out for deliverance or seek escape from the danger that surrounds them. This is part of the error brought into the parable by Geisler's insistence that the unregenerate man can do what is pleasing to God in direct contradiction to Romans 8, 7 -8.

No rebel sinner, outside of the grace of God bringing spiritual life, is crying out for help. Even if the proverbial life ring were cast into the pond, or a squad of firemen made into the rebels in the smoke, they would not cooperate with the rescue effort.

And even at this, we are missing an important element of biblical truth. They lack the capacity, due to spiritual death, to take advantage of any kind of assistance, even if they desire to do so.

On every level, the parable fails to correspond to the reality of biblical teaching.

I went on to point out that, in essence, the reality is that the king's son goes into the flames and he rescues undeserving sinners, and he does so perfectly.

But he would be under no obligation to rescue every single one of those rebel sinners.

If it was his desire to demonstrate the full range of his attributes, not just love.

These folks are mono -benevolent theologians.

Only love needs to be demonstrated. What if God wants to demonstrate his justice? That's what Romans 9 says he's actually doing.

If he wants to demonstrate the full range of his attributes, then the son saves perfectly those rebel sinners, changing their hearts, taking out their heart of stone, giving them a heart of flesh, an act that Dr.

Geisler has mocked as a rewiring of someone in some of his materials.

Again, I think once you have an opportunity of interacting with this parable and these examples that Dr.

Geisler uses, and I know this is going to be taken wrong by some people, there's nothing I can do about it, but the fact of the matter is, there are things that Dr.

Geisler says here that clearly demonstrate why he will not debate this subject. He says he won't debate Christians. I don't believe that.

He's debated Christians in the past. I think the reason he won't do this is because he knows that these illustrations just simply won't hold up.

They could not hold up to any type of biblical examination. I think that's the reason that you don't hear the interaction that really should be taking place on this subject.

I confess to you that neither do I find this in the Bible, for all the reasons we gave,

God loves all, and neither in the depth of my heart, made in his image with a moral sensitivity, can

I believe that such a God, such a God, is a

God worthy of our commitment. Because a God who is not all loving is not worthy of all our love.

A God who says, love the Lord your God with all your heart. A God who says, I am love, and who tells me that he loves only some people, and that he wouldn't even try to rescue the other two, is not an all loving

God. Well, and that's just simply wrong. I mean, this is the same kind of error that Dave Hunt makes as well, in saying that unless God tries to save equally, and of course they do not grant to God the ability to actually save anyone, the death of Christ only makes men savable, but unless God does not,

God has to try to save everyone equally. How can anyone look at the history of redemption and say

God's been doing that? How can anyone make that argument? I've never understood it. Are you seriously telling me that a young person born in a

Christian family is experiencing the same level of redemptive attempt on God's part as the

Amorites did when the children of Israel were in Egypt? When no prophets are sent, they're allowed to in essence stew in their sin to fulfill their coming judgment, their entire destruction on the part of God?

Those are equal? That's ridiculous. That's absurd on its face. I don't know how anyone can make that argument, but people say it all the time.

That's the end result is that God's been trying to save everyone equally. How can you look at the entire history of the

Bible and come to that conclusion? He was trying to save the Babylonians equally with the Israelites, the

Egyptians equally with the Israelites, Pharaoh equally with Moses. The absurdity of it just is mind -numbing.

It truly is, but that's what you hear people saying. Here's what

I think really happened. Everything in the story is the same up to the point where the farmer says, you saw the sign, you disobeyed it, you're drowning, at which point the farmer throws a rope to all three boys, and he does everything he can to rescue them.

However, for the parable to continue to be truthful to Dr. Geisler's position, he cannot save them.

He can try. He can make a way of salvation possible. But if any one of those three boys decided to stay and drown, there's nothing

God could do about it. Nothing he could do about it. That's the only way to make the parable actually fit.

One person accepts the rope, and the other two say, no thanks,

I can do it myself, and drown. The Bible says God is...

To catch that, no thanks, I can do it myself. Do what myself? Save myself?

Why not even have at least a tinge of biblical accuracy here, and realize they don't say no thanks.

They blaspheme. They reject. They show hatred.

I mean, let's try for at least a modicum of biblical accuracy here. ...long -suffering, not willing that any should perish.

That God sent Christ to die for all of mankind. That the

Holy Spirit has come into the world, John 16, and convicted the world of sin, of righteousness, and judgment.

That God sent a rope to everybody, and he tries to get everybody to be saved.

God sent a rope to everybody. There you have peanut butter prevenient grace.

Well, God's given enough grace to everybody to be saved, but it's all up to us. Isn't that exactly what

Rome says? Yeah. That's where the connection is to be found.

That's where the dividing line is. Necessity of grace versus the sufficiency of grace.

Reformation, everything. Norm Geisler's not on the Reformation side of this matter. He's on Rome's side of this matter.

And that's the problem. But there are some people who refuse to accept.

And because God is loving, he can't force himself on people who won't accept his love.

Yeah, that's why God is loving, is that he can't force himself on anybody. Now, okay, so he knocked

Paul to the ground and blinded him and voices from heaven. But, you know, like, oh, what was,

I'm sorry, what? Yeah, I was thinking of Lazarus, but I was just pointing out that Steve Gregg, remember

Steve Gregg's argument I played years ago, that despite all that, Paul still could have said no, and God would have had to find somebody else.

So, yeah, it is, again, amazing to try to find some consistency in the

Arminian position. That leads us to I, irresistible grace,

T -U -L -I. Irresistible grace, according to the traditional

Calvinist, goes like this. God can use so much power on people that he can overpower them and he can save anybody he wants to save, even against their will.

I remember this is one of the reasons why Chosen But Free demonstrated that Dr. Geisler is a philosopher, not a theologian, or a historical theologian.

Or at least he doesn't have any intention of accurately representing the positions that he is arguing against.

Because, obviously, even if you've followed, well, he hasn't presented enough for you to be able to do that, but if you have some level of knowledge of Reformed theology, you know that irresistible grace, to describe the way it was just described is, well, again, the only term to use is absurd.

How can you put this in categories of force and resistance when you're talking about a spiritually dead person?

Now, they are rebels, there's no question about that. And people go, well, if you believe the spirits are dead, they couldn't be rebels.

No, that's not understanding the point. But the reality is, the power of regeneration is likened unto resurrection.

Resurrection. Resurrection. And that is not, well, forcing someone against their will.

That's, it is amazing that instead of, you notice that that's not a phrase found in Scripture, forcing against his will.

What you do find is taking out a heart of stone, giving a heart of flesh. Is that not radical?

But is it not biblical? So, why not use biblical categories here? Well, because they're fundamentally, for Dr.

Geisler and those who follow him, it is a philosophical assertion that is the centerpiece of his theology. And all the exegesis and all the biblical parameters have to fall into place to defend that philosophical, that central philosophical assertion, that is the autonomous will of man.

And that he exercises his saving grace just on some people, in spite of the fact that they're dead and in rebellion against him.

He uses overpowering and irresistible grace to save just some people.

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. That is Reformed theology, and I think if Norman Geisler were consistent, he wouldn't sing it.

Because he doesn't want an overpowering grace. He wants a grace that's just enough to meet his wonderfully autonomous free will, so that he can control salvation.

There are two things wrong with this. One, he only uses it on some people if he had it.

And this is why I believe that the early Puritanism, which was five -point Calvinism, eventually paved the way for Unitarian and Universalism in America.

Because if you put these two premises together, tell me what you get. God can save anyone he wants to, even against their will.

That's what they believe, irresistible grace. God loves everybody and wants to save everybody.

But what's the conclusion of those two premises? Everybody's going to be saved. Actually, the source of Universalism is far more logically connected to Arminianism than it is to Reformed theology.

And, in fact, just look at who's promoting Universalism. Look at those who are promoting

Inclusivism. Are they Reformed? No, in no way. And, in fact, just listen to the debate that I had with the

Forsters on the Unbelievable Radio program back in July. And you'll see that it's

Arminianism that gives rise to that, not Reformed theology. Because if God can save anyone he wants, even against their will, and he is all -loving and he wants to save everyone, then everybody is going to get saved.

So, extreme Calvinism leads to Universalism, and the Bible teaches Universalism is false.

Everybody's not going to be saved. There's a devil and the angels that are going to hell, and there's everyone who rejects

Christ is going to hell. Everybody's not going to make it. Let me give you a verse and a quote from C .S.

Lewis. Turn to Matthew, chapter 23. In Matthew, chapter 23.

Now, what have we heard so far? We've heard 1 Timothy 2, 4. We've heard 2 Peter 3, 9. I made the argument in the

Potter's Freedom that you put those together, Matthew 23, 37, and that's pretty much all Norman Geisler has.

I have a feeling we're heading that direction again. Jesus is pleading with Jerusalem.

He's saying to them, in verse 37, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her, how often

I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.

Now, notice these next five words. But you were not willing.

I wanted to save all of you. Notice? Catch it? I hope everybody did.

I know the Reformed folks in the audience did. I wanted to save all of you. He just changed from address to the leaders, about gathering the children, to wiping out the distinction.

And that's why so many people misquote this and just drop the children because in their mind there is no distinction.

They do not see this as a judgment on the Jewish leaders. They don't see the distinction between leaders and their children.

They just ignore the context, go to the one verse. Once again, Dr. Geisler demonstrating a tremendous level of eisegesis based upon tradition.

I love all of you. I sent the Holy Spirit to convict all of you.

Notice that none of that is actually in the text. This is a judgment text, the strongest judgment text in all of the

Gospels. And somehow Dr. Geisler can read it as, I love all of you. But you were not willing.

That tells me two very important things about this universe in which we live.

There is a loving God, and there are free creatures. And that loving

God cannot save anyone of those free creatures that does not cooperate with him. We only have ten minutes left in this sermon.

We're going to get it done, folks. But we're going to take a break first and get to our phone callers. We'll be right back right after this.

BibleWorks 8 is here. Full of innovative and essential tools, users will have 190 plus Bible translations, 35 original language texts and morphology databases, 29 lexical grammatical references, and an abundance of additional resources.

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

Seminary professors and students will be enriched by the way BibleWorks 8 shows the most common words in the pericope, book, or chapter, plus provides a wider range of formatting options and faster access to copying preferences.

Scholars, your research just got easier with the ERMI, External Resources Manager, a handy tool to collect, organize, and display resource files from your computer as well as the

Internet. Dr. James White says, BibleWorks is the best Bible software available. I have used BibleWorks software for years, and each new release has brought many new and useful tools to the program.

This is the program that runs 24 -7 on my office computer, and it is the one that's running on my laptop when

I engage in debates. It is simply the number one research tool for anyone doing serious exegesis of the text.

For over 15 years, BibleWorks has assisted all users in their study of the original languages, and that enables you to do one thing, focus on the text, and that translates to focusing on the truth.

Order your copy of BibleWorks at aomen .org, and for a limited time, you'll receive free shipping and a free

MP3 download of The White Airman Debate. The Trinity is a basic teaching of the

Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how He relates to us. James White's book,

The Forgotten Trinity, is a concise, understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters. It refutes cultic distortions of God, as well as showing how a grasp of this significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a

Christian. And amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the

Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur, Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church, says, James White's lucid presentation will help layperson and pastor alike.

Highly recommended. You can order The Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at aomen .org.

Hello everyone, this is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the Gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program, the need for a no -nonsense presentation of the

Gospel has never been greater. I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday, yet they have never been confronted with their sin.

Alpha and Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the Gospel in a clear and concise manner, making no excuses.

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

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

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

Thank you. We'll get to you, but we want to try to wrap this up.

Love can never force someone to do something against their free choice.

Suppose a young man loves a young lady and he says to her, I love you, I want to marry you.

Will you marry me? And she says, no. I respect you, I like you, but I'm not interested in marrying you.

And he says to the young lady, I love you so much, please marry me. And he begs and pleads and persuades and he courts her and gives her gifts and flowers.

And he says, please marry. And she said, I told you, I do not want to get married.

And please don't press the issue any further.

And the young man gets frustrated and he says to her, I love you so much, I'm going to force you to love me.

You say, oops. Forced love is not love.

Forced love is rape. Well, that's very nice. It has very little to do with the Bible, of course, because the alternative of not loving

God is going to hell. So that sort of changes everything. Again, all of Geisler's illustrations just collapse upon even the most basic examination from a biblical perspective.

We're talking about the holy God, we're talking about a creature. We're talking about a rebel creature who is rightly condemned. And we're talking about the biblical terminology of taking out that heart of stone, giving a heart of flesh, regeneration, new life, et cetera, et cetera.

And this, again, is why theology matters. Back at the beginning, you might have said, well, you know, okay, so he's not quite right on the biblical view of what regeneration is.

He's not quite right on the deadness of man and sin. Okay, he didn't deal with any of those texts that talk about man's incapacity to do good.

But now you see the result. Now you see how error builds upon error, which builds upon error, which builds upon error, and now gives you this mutated presentation where God can't save anybody without their cooperation and God is all loving, but, you know, he doesn't have to demonstrate his holiness and all the rest of this mess that is

Norman Geisler's Arminianism. And it started back at the beginning. Theology matters.

It builds upon itself. And as I understand it, in all due respect,

God, perish the thought, is not a divine rapist. He works only persuasively on people, never coercively.

God will never force you to do something against your will. Yeah, he'll never raise you to spiritual life.

He will never give you a new heart, a new soul. That wind that blows across the

Valley of Dry Bones stops at every dry bone and asks very nicely if it wants to come to life.

That is what we're being told. And yet, I, Irresistible Grace, by the five -point

Calvinist says, God will force you to do things against your will.

To do things against your will. Yeah, he won't change your will.

You know, he doesn't give you a new heart or anything like that. He wouldn't want to represent the other side accurately. Again, this is one of the reasons that when

I wrote The Potter's Freedom, you know, people are like, I can't believe you responded to Norman Geisler. I just look at everybody and I go, he wrote a horrible book.

He has not thought this stuff through. He does not respect Reformed theologians. And so he is repeating embarrassingly silly arguments that have been refuted over and over again.

And that's why he creates so many Calvinists. It's because a person who seriously takes what he's saying and then examines it for consistency goes, whoa, there is a problem here.

Massive paradigm shift here. Even someone who can respect what he's done in other areas goes, wait a minute, he's not showing any of the same diligence in this area.

Why might that be? And so much to his chagrin, he's been very busy at creating

Calvinists by his unwillingness to actually engage the subject in a meaningful fashion. Not the

God of the Bible. Not the God who is love. Because love never forces itself on anyone else.

C .S. Lewis said this in his great book called

The Great Divorce about heaven and hell. He said, in the end, there are only two kinds of people in the world.

One says, thy will be done, O God. The other one,

God says to them, thy will be done. Now in the end, when this service is all over and you're given a chance to respond to this wonderful grace of God that he loved everyone, there are only two kinds of people in this building.

One says, thy will be done, O God. And the other one, God says, have it your way.

Thy will be done. That's the way it is in a free universe with a loving

God. Because love can't force someone against their will. Love has to respect the will of the other.

In Milton's Paradise Lost, Milton put some profound words in the mouth of Satan.

Satan says, quote, I would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven.

And outside of the regenerating grace of God, that is the statement of every person.

But you see, by denying to God the capacity to actually change a person's heart, you have the result.

God tries to save, but he can't save. He can only save those who cooperate with him, even though biblically there really isn't anybody who would do that in the first place.

The same choice that Satan had. You want to reign in hell? You want to have it your way?

God will say, you got it. But you want to serve in heaven. It's either thy will be done or thy will be done.

Irresistible grace is contrary to the nature of God as love.

Irresistible grace. Isn't that sad? Irresistible grace, the beautiful truth that God can change the hearts of rebel sinners, bring us to spiritual life.

When we are his enemies, when we are totally under the dominion of the enemy of our soul, when we are incapable of doing what is good and pleasing,

God has the power to save us. And when theology becomes trumped by philosophy, you just heard that beautiful truth mocked and derided and rejected as being against God's character of love.

Oh my, how sad. Grace is contrary to the nature of human beings as free.

In fact, very clearly the Bible says in Acts chapter 7 that the grace of God can be resisted.

You remember... Every time I hear someone go to Acts chapter 7 as their only key text to the resistance of divine grace, again, this could be taken wrong, but I immediately realize this person should not be taken seriously.

Because no serious Arminian who actually knows what the issues are believes that Acts chapter 7 has anything to do with the idea that God was attempting to save the stiff -necked

Israelites and they successfully fought off his resurrecting power. But that's the only thing the text is about.

And as soon as someone says that, all I know is they went to a concordance and looked for resisted and Holy Spirit.

And ah, here it is. Again, as we've seen, how many times we found

Norman Geiser completely ignoring context. Not only misrepresenting Calvinism, but completely ignoring context.

It is a sad thing to observe. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, and in Acts chapter 7, we read in verse 51 that he spoke to the people who were hard -hearted against Christ and said, 751,

You stiff -necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the

Holy Spirit. Who circumcises the heart? The Spirit of God and regeneration. He's addressing those who are uncircumcised.

Do they always resist the convicting power of the Holy Spirit? Well, of course. It's descriptive.

That's all it is. Nothing here that's even slightly reputational, and anyone who is even semi -serious about the subject would know that.

That's what, again, is just amazing in listening to this kind of stuff. God allows us to resist

His love, for if He didn't, He couldn't be loving. He would have to force it down our throats.

Now, there's a passage that's often used by the extreme Calvinists. I want you to turn there.

It's in Romans chapter 9. Only five more minutes. Because this is their stronghold. This is the verse they fall back on when they say that God's grace is irresistible.

Romans chapter 9, verse 13. As it is written, Jacob have

I loved, but Esau have I hated. A verse.

Nothing like jumping in the middle, ignoring the context. Remember, when Geisler addressed this in Chosem and Free, he broke it up into three different sections.

He never provided a coherent interpretation of the entirety of the text at all, because I don't think he's ever been challenged on it.

Twenty. But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the things formed say to him who formed it,

Why have you made me thus? Verse 22. What if God, wanting to show his power and wrath to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

I'm not going to respond to this. I'm just going to let this thing wrap up. But I just would invite anyone to listen to Geisler talk about this and then go listen to the

MP3 we have linked from the front page where I work through Romans 9. Compare it for yourself.

I think that speaks as loudly as anything good. This passage is a very strong passage in the

Bible, and many people have great difficulty with it. Let me try and help you through the difficulty of this passage.

First of all, verse 13. Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated. Sounds like a strong,

Calvinistic God, doesn't it? Sounds like God loves some people and hates other people.

Look in the margin of your Bible, if you have a cross -reference system, and see what

God is talking about. 9 .13, in the margin of my Bible, says Malachi 1 .2.

He's not talking about the individual Jacob and the individual Esau before they were born and say,

I hated one, I loved the other, I predestined one to heaven, I predestined one to hell. He's not saying that.

He's talking about the nation Jacob. Yeah, even though the text actually specifically says before the twins had done anything good or bad, anything good or evil, that God's choice and election might stand not by the one running or willing.

But I guess that was just a nation that really didn't have anything to do with Jacob and Esau, I guess, maybe. But like I said,

I wasn't going to refute that because it's rather easily refuted and we did that before. It's real. And the nation

Esau, which was Edom, and he's talking after they had lived and after Edom had done all those evil things to try and kill and detour his people from their redemptive purpose, and God said,

I hate that. He didn't hate the individual Jacob. He didn't hate the person

Jacob. He hated the nation Edom for their evil deeds against Israel.

He's not talking about predestination of an individual. Secondly, he's talking about predestination or choice for an earthly purpose, not for a heavenly destiny.

He's talking about why did God set apart his people Israel, and then is going to regraft them as a nation back in.

He's not talking about individual predestination. He's talking about corporate election of a nation for a temporal purpose of bringing in the eternal

Savior. Furthermore, if you look at this phrase, Esau have

I hated, you will find out that the phrase in the Bible, hated, really means loved less.

It doesn't mean hate. Remember Jesus said, if a man loves his father and mother more than me, he's not worthy of me.

And then he went on to say, unless a man hates his father and mother. When I love more and love less and hate seem to us to be two different things.

Not so in the Hebrew idiom. To hate meant to love less. Turn back to the book of Genesis for a proof of that.

In the book of Genesis, you remember the story. In Genesis chapter 29, the context here is about Jacob loving

Rachel. In Genesis 29 verse 30, it says, Jacob also went into Rachel, and he also loved

Rachel more than Leah. So get the phrase. He loved one of his sisters more than the other.

Then verse 31, And the Lord saw that Leah was, on a King James and many translations, it correctly translates it, hate.

In the New King James, which most of us have, it says, when the Lord saw that Leah was unloved.

It's the word for hate. So, the Lord saw that Leah was hated, is used in parallel to Rachel was loved more.

Hate means to love less. Why did God love Edom less?

Because their evil deeds. He didn't love them less because he didn't want them to be saved.

He didn't want them to go to heaven. Hate, in the context of Romans 9, means love less.

And it means love less to this corporate group of people, a nation, not to an individual.

Loving overtures to reach you will make you more hard. Not because he's trying to make you hard.

He's trying to soften you. But because your rejection of it will become even more emphatic the more he tries.

Let me illustrate it by the sun. The same sun that melts wax hardens clay.

What's the difference? The sun or the agent receiving the softening rays of the sun?

If you are receptive like wax to God's love, it will soften your heart.

If you are hard and reject that, the same love will turn you the other way.

Did you ever pet a kitten and it purrs? Suppose you turn the other way and you're still petting it and the kitten purrs.

And that's where it ended. I don't know why it ended there, but it was a YouTube series of videos, so maybe somebody ran out of count space or something.

I don't know. But that's all I have in this sound file. Not a good way to finish, but we did finish.

And I don't know what I can say. I've heard that some of the folks in the channel are working on taking all of these responses all the way back to June and putting them into one

YouTube presentation. So if that gets posted, then I will certainly link to it and make a reference to it because many people have found the response we did to Chosen But Free when it first came out to be very helpful back in around 2000.

And so we've taken the time to do it again. Let's get to our phone callers who have been patiently waiting, and let's talk with Mark.

Hi, Mark. Hello. Hi, how are you doing? I'm doing well. Well, that was a good series on Guide Luther.

Yes. I had two questions. The first one was with Psalm 336, and I was just curious about the translation of the word host and just what the original intention of the author was, because as I was reading through several different translations, starting with the

Nazbi, you know, it just says that he created, and by the breath of his mouth, all their hosts.

But as you progress through the more dynamically -based translations, they more and more start to emphasize that he created stars, that what is being talked about here is stars.

And yet, it seems like the original meaning of the Hebrew word is host and the angels and the armies in heaven and stuff like that.

And so I was just wondering if the original intention of the psalms is just to talk about stars, or if there is a deeper meaning with he created the angels and stuff like that.

Well, the term is, when we hear of Lord of Sabaoth, that's the root term in the

Hebrew. Evidently, from what some of the translations are saying, you can find utilization of this to refer to the stars of heaven,

I guess. I've never done a word study on that particular Hebrew term, so I really can't comment on anything more than that.

I'm sorry about that. Normally, my understanding was that the host of heaven is in the armies of heaven, but evidently, at least in the viewpoint of the translation committees of some translations, this has something to do with the stars of heaven.

I do not know why that is. Okay, and then the second question I had just had to do with your...

I listened to your conversation on the unbelievable radio program about hell, and you made a comment, which was very good, by the way.

And you made a comment about why should we not think that people are still sinning or shouting out their anger towards God in hell.

Well, and at that particular time, through my Bible reading, I was going through Ecclesiastes, and there's a passage there in chapter 9, verses 5 to 6, which

I don't know if it conflicts with your idea there, but it says, "...for the living know they will die, but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.

Indeed, their love, their hate, and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun."

There's your answer right there. They will what? They will no longer have a share in what?

All that is done under the sun. Yeah, the whole point of Ecclesiastes 9 .5 is not that the dead are no longer active or anything like that.

It's talking about the fact that once we leave, we tend to be forgotten. We don't have anything to do with this world.

The whole context of Ecclesiastes 9 has to do with activity in this world. It's not making any commentary on what takes place afterwards.

That's not really a part of the Old Testament revelation very much at all. So you have much more revelation concerning that in the

New Testament and Luke 16, things like that. The point of Ecclesiastes 9 is that from the perspective of the living, the dead are no longer a part of, they're no longer active.

Their memory perishes, et cetera, et cetera. It has nothing to do with what the dead themselves are doing in the afterlife.

Okay, well, thank you for those answers. All right, thank you very much, sir. Thanks for calling. Bye -bye.

Let's talk with Johnny. Hi, Johnny. Hey, how are you? Doing good. Good. Hey, I was calling to find out about the issue of 2

Peter. You know, I'm aware that in prior conversations I've had with you, that liberals tend to date the

New Testament as late as humanly possible. And you said that they even have a smaller

Pauline corpus of like seven books and stuff like that. But particularly, and I remember

I was reading in Bart Ehrman's book on the Da Vinci Code, he was actually saying that he dates the epistle of 2

Peter to around the year 120. And I was wondering what would be the best, where would

I be able to get a good book that discusses the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter and in relation to the

Pauline corpus that they don't believe to be from Paul? Well, in answer to the second question,

Rich is actually looking at the book that I would recommend. It's sitting on the desk next to him.

And it is William Hendrickson's commentary on the pastoral epistles,

Timothy and Titus, I believe. Is that correct? The bottom one? Yeah.

In the introduction to Thessalonians, pastoral epistles, and Hebrews, you will find a extensive discussion on the part of Dr.

Hendrickson on the issue of the arguments that are made against the

Pauline authorship of the pastorals. And he really goes through that. I also went through his outline in Bible study,

I don't know, about November, December of last year at the Phoenix Formed Baptist Church.

And he is correct in saying the majority of scholars follow his perspective, but we need to parse that phrase.

What that means is that the majority of people who go through theological education are taught that, and so they rather naturally accept it.

That does not mean that the majority who have actually studied the issues come to that conclusion. It's just that that has become the standard way of looking at things in the broader theological realm.

The reasons for that are very naturalistic. The same thing with 2 Peter. And that is, well, when

Dr. Ehrman explains his arguments in his class that I've listened to, basically he creates what he thinks the theology of the book is, and then he recreates an idea of what the church looked like in the early years.

And since 2 Peter doesn't fit with his theories as to what the early church would have looked like, then it must have come later.

Of course, I just go, well, I don't buy your theory as to what the early church looked like, and therefore the entire basis of your doing this evaporates.

There's clearly a relationship between 2 Peter and Jude. What that means is he looks at that and says, well, there really weren't these false teachers in the early church.

They came along later on, and so since these people are fighting against these later on, then this has to have come from later on.

It's a naturalistic assumption that the apostles could not possibly have given valid warning about what was coming in the future.

And once you're a naturalistic materialist, well, that's how you do with all of it. So any decent conservative commentary is going to tackle those issues in a fairly straightforward manner.

But again, a lot of commentaries that are published out there just sort of accept that and move on from there, unfortunately.

But those would be some of the resources I'd look at. Okay? Okay. So, Hendrickson, we cover 2

Peter? I think there is a volume on 2

Peter. I'd take a look at it. Yes. Okay. All right. God bless. Thanks for calling. God bless. Thanks for listening to The Dividing Line.

Lord willing, we're going to be here for a few weeks. So we'll see you next Tuesday on The Dividing Line. God bless.

The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries. If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org. That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G. Where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.