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 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Post-Trip Update and the New York Interview

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 is 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 and such. I 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 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 happens it 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 seven o 'clock.

So halfway through our little roundtable in start walking a bunch of Muslims. Because they're gonna be attending the the whole group of akhmedia 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 some I had added in the pictures of p91 from when I was in Australia and all sorts of stuff like that had a great time and then took audience questions and they asked specific questions you know comparing the Quran with the New Testament something I 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 I'm January in February 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 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 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.

And We'll probably do that after the break then because you know just doing Cold a translation on the air is obviously not the best way to do things. But as you may recall and 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 potters freedom.

You will know that he has used this parable for for quite some time. He used the exact same parable in the 1985 basing or basing or work on predestination free will and Here's here's what the the parable is.

Suppose the farmer discovers three boys drowning in his pond. We 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 that 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 potters freedom, you know that I had a few comments about that.

But let's pick up with with dr. Geiser's comments now. They're half, right?

The half the 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? And emphasizing that God is just and those people are justly condemned.

They are totally wrong and 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 he 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 and 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. It'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 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 in a you know swimming in a in a in a pond? You have a straw man God here you you do not have any real connection between the holy eternal God Who is worshipped by the heavenly being saying kadosh kadosh kadosh.

Holy. Holy holy as they As they fly around the throne, that's what the angels do. There really isn't a connection between that God The Holy God of Scripture and a farmer who just you know happens to have decided not to let people swim in a swimming pool swimming 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 you'd want to do so. So the 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 The instead of a a farmer we would need to have a a king and this this king Returns to his castle from doing good amongst the people 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 and the horrific nature of it. But let's add something more these are subjects 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, and it should be noted that this is not the first time they have a long track record of rebellion. They've 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 on the fact they are drowning to again insert some level of biblical truth. We would have to be informed that these men were 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 in their sin.

They even make excuses for it. In fact get mad 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.

Well, the truth is even further removed from the offered parable. If we ask how these rebels respond the attempt to deliver them from their Rebellion, there's only one answer they mock the king's attempts.

Should we seek to open a way for them to the flames those 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 in the parable by Geisler's insistence. But the unregenerate man can do what is pleasing to God in direct contradiction to Romans 8 7 through 8. No rebel sinner outside the grace of God bringing spiritual life is crying out for help.

Even if the proverbial life ring were cast in the pond or a squad of firemen made of 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 desired 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 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 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 he 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 his materials which again, I think once you Have an opportunity of interacting with these this parable and these examples of dr. Geisler uses.

And I I know this is gonna be taken wrong by some people. There's nothing I can do about it but the fact the matter is. There are things that dr. Geisler says here that clearly demonstrate why he will not debate the subject he says he won't debate Christians.

I don't believe that he's debated Christians in the past. I 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 the 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 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 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 the end result. Is it will 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 the absurdity of it just is is mind-numbing. It truly is but that's what you hear people saying.

Grace, Regeneration, and the Limits of Free Will

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 You 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 still a 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 one to catch that. No, thanks. I can do it myself do what myself save myself. Why not even even have at least a tinge of 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 on Suffering. Not willing to then he should perish but God sent Christ to die for all of mankind that the Holy Spirit has come into the world John 16 and Convicting the world of sin of righteousness and judgment that God sent a rope to everybody.

And he tries to get everybody to be safe, but 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 you know, 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 is 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.

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 like oh What was uh? I'm sorry.

What? Yeah, I was thinking of Lazarus, but I was I was just pointing out that Steve Greg remember Steve Greg'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 you know so yeah.

It is Again amazing to try to find some consistency in the Arminian position that leads us to I Irresistible grace.

Tuli. 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 and 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 some level of knowledge of Reformed theology you know that irresistible grace.

To describe the way, it's just described is well. It's again. The only term to be used 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 if you believe the spirits are dead. They couldn't be rebels. No, that's that's not understanding the point but the reality is the power of Regeneration is likened unto 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 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.

So 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 is to reform 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 the debate that I had with the Forrester's on the unbelievable radio program back in July and You'll see that it's Arminianism that gives rise to that not not reform 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. In the Bible teaches universalism is false.

Everybody's not going to be saved. There's a devil and the angels 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 first Timothy 2 for we've heard second 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. Oh 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. Hope everybody did I know the reform 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 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's actually 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 And that loving God cannot save any one of those free creatures that does not cooperate with him. We only have 10 minutes left in this sermon. We're gonna get it done folks. But we're gonna take a break first and get to our phone callers right back right up.

Sponsor Reads and Program Break

Bible works 8 is here full of innovative and essential tools. Users will have a hundred and ninety plus Bible translations 35 original language text 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 Bible works 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 army 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 Bible works is the best Bible software available.

I have used Bible works 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 Bible works 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 Bible works at a omen org and for a limited time You'll receive free shipping and a free mp3 download of the white airmen 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 the 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 recommend it.

You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen 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.

Callers on Psalm 33, Ecclesiastes 9, and Second Peter

All right, hold on Mark and Johnny. 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 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.

He says the young lady I Love you so much. Please marry me. 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 gonna force you to love me. You say oops. Forced love is not love. Forced love is rape.

Well, that's very nice. 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 because you know 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, etc. Etc. And this again is why theology matters. Back at the beginning you might have said well, you know, okay, so he's he's not quite right.

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 and all the rest is 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 Perished 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. I wouldn't want to represent the other side accurately. Again, this is this is one of the reasons that when I wrote the Potter's freedom, you know people I can't believe respond The Norman Geisler.

I just look at everybody. Yeah, 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 is.

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 Calvinist by his unwillingness to actually in great gauge the subject in a meaningful fashion.