July 18, 2006

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 at 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Technical Setup and Solo Hosting

Don't worry about that phone number. No, we don't we need to worry about that one today because We are doing this on our own today. Yes, I am I am looking through a glass window Darkly and There's nobody in the chair out there.

No what what I did you're getting a little little inside information here. What it did is last week before rich left. For those you've been like hauling and stuff. There's a little thing on the website says offices are closed.

We actually let rich get away for like one week a year. Okay, and so he's actually doing his thing and That's that's good thing. He's with his family and they're having fun and and all as well so anyway Last week what I did is I took my little digital camera which as you know, you know can do movies type things film video, whatever and he walked through everything you have to do and Getting it to this point wasn't too bad.

I actually had to take a little card transfer the file over to my tablet PC and Then watch it on my tablet PC so I could hear it and do everything and we did a dry run last night in fact, Milo Hotzenbuehler.

Amazingly if I don't don't know how this happened, but Milo Hotzenbuehler heard that we were doing a Test with the server last night and Milo called in and I wish we'd recorded that because we had It was you know One of the most exciting things in my life was the opportunity of interviewing Milo Hotzenbuehler who everyone knows him I mean second to Elvis Parsley, he's probably one of the best known Super rock stars out there and we had we had fun last night.

But we got to this point now the trick I'll be honest with you The trick is going to be once we get done with the program because then I've got to do all this stuff with mp3s and RAM files and Rename stuff and do all these things and that's going to be the real tough part I will confess I don't have a whole lot of hope That I'm gonna get that right, but we'll try I'll follow the little instructions and I'll try to watch the video and listen and We'll try to do our best.

But if you don't hear this until next week is because I couldn't get it done and we had to wait for Rich to do It anyways, so we'll see what we'll see what happens After the whole thing is over with but what that means is I could turn the phones on in fact That's how we had Milo on last night was I turn the phones on but I can't I can't screen them and So who knows what in the world would result.

I mean without screening the calls maybe Charles the brave would call in. Maybe we should do it that way. I was just looking at a at a little hit piece. You know that that Charles is So pathetic it's so pathetic.

What's it like to live your life? With no other purpose than to just follow the people around and try to take shots at him I mean when you know you could never face that person. You know you could never answer their questions.

You know you could never debate them. You know that you can never do anything positive with your life. What's it like to run around do that type of thing? I just I can't I can't even begin to imagine how pathetic a life that is and it's it's it's sad for Charles the brave.

But.

We ought to have that little thing from from Monty Python is his theme. Sir brave brave sir Robin Ran away, that's that's our that's our good buddy Charles. But anyway, maybe he'd call in because I couldn't couldn't screen the calls, but we can't we can't do the phone call thing.

So that's why I've got a bunch of other stuff lined up here we will be able to finish the the Patterson Moller discussion and Then move on from there. I've got some Catholic answers stuff lined up here and all sorts of stuff.

So we will be able to press on from that point as you may have noticed. We didn't finish the Patterson Moller discussion the last time because the phone calls started in so we'll be going to those but first I wanted to read you a An email that came in recently from Jim Hafer ha FER maybe that's half her Hafer.

I don't know no way of knowing just by looking at it, but Those are two of the possibilities. He's a local fellow here and from the way describes himself. I should I should be very very afraid.

But.

Here's here's what the email says it says Mr.. White. I have been reading your debate with Dave hunt, and I cannot believe how ignorant ignorant you are of God's Word. I have spent my in three fields I imagine the word life was supposed to be in there someplace one self-defense while living in training with professional wrestlers.

I Guess you would have to be good at self-defense if you're living in training with professional wrestlers. Number two weightlifting being the heavyweight champion of Arizona. And one of the top-ranked nationally hmm and number three studying God's Word early church fathers doctrinal history Etc you are extremely ignorant of God's truth.

You make the same mistakes that all Calvinist make. You are almost as ignorant of the truth as is John MacArthur. Oh there you go. You belong in the same category categories misspelled as Copeland Hagen and Kenyon.

You are also full of hate and anger and our most as our most Calvinist you are sad. Jim Hafer well at least Jim Signed it, and I have a feeling who gave him that book. I think I think a member of my church.

I gave him that book. And I I wrote back to him and asked if I could share his comments on my blog and respond to them. But then I said and by the way you think you might provide some you know specifics or maybe you could call into the program when we have a skull or call screener anyways and Give us some some specifics now.

I personally am am just extremely honored That he would say that I'm almost as ignorant of the truth as is John MacArthur that that's a. That's hype hype. So anyway, there's You know when I write to folks and and I you know I'm listening to Johnny Hunt right now talking to his youth for example when At least Johnny Hunt's not like this guy you got to give Johnny Hunt credit he sort of takes the Adrian Rogers perspective and It can be very very kind and You know I'm sure is a wonderful man but It's very clear.

They don't listen to the other side and if and if I were to talk with with Johnny Hunt I'd love to have a chance to talk to him. I would I wouldn't approach him like this fellow approached me. I would go you know brother hunt.

I'd like to talk to you a little bit about What John six says because he cites it he just misses the flow of the text and I'd like to sit down with you and look at that and and Have you considered this we consider this if you looked at this you know construction things like that and I would also ask him why he assumes that for knowledge and to for know mean the same thing and How does he explain the fact that when God is the one doing the specific action of for knowing?

That what is for known is all personal. It's never just facts or events or even future events. It's it's persons. How do you for know? Persons. Especially before those persons come into existence. How is that a divine action that then is paralleled with predestination and calling and justification glorification things like that?

So in other words my approach would be let's look at the specifics of the Word of God. I've listened to what you've said and as I listen to what you've said. These are the questions that come up in my mind given what the Word of God says.

Almost never now, you know, I suppose rich could be just hiding all these from me, but rich isn't here right now. So I'm seeing all the email almost never. I mean rich only sends over to me the good stuff and we get some bad stuff.

We get some stuff you just wouldn't believe in emails just and he doesn't even bother sending that stuff. Doesn't waste my time with it and I appreciate that. But almost never is that the kind of approach that is taken in talking to us?

It's always just. You're you Calvinists. You're all mean and terrible and Nasty and horrible and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and it it's it's not no, actually, you need to look at this text in this text and I've heard I've honestly I would I would have to struggle there might be once or twice over the past 15 years, but What I don't hear is somebody saying you know what I've listened carefully and in fact Here's I will demonstrate that I do know exactly what you're saying.

This is why you're saying it this is the consistency of what you're saying and Here's where I would disagree on this this and this and this is why I come to this consistent disagreement and here's how I put together that's not what you get and If we've proven anything on this program as we have played All sorts of people I mean we're equal opportunity aren't we've played Ergon Kanner and we've played Catholic answers and you know, Jimmy Akin and Carl Keating and and Tim Staples and all those folks and and when we can find Mormons addressing subjects we play them and and every kind of Baptist and Dan corner and everything we've played a wide spectrum of folks.

Dave Hunt, you know, I'm in fact One of the one of the folks in my church dropped me a line and there's something I need to listen to by Dave Hunt. He recently addressed the question was the Good Samaritan a Calvinist and I'm I can't even figure out what that one's all about.

But I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet and maybe that'll end up on the dividing line as well, but we play a wide variety of people and The one thing that is consistent about all these people we play is That they don't address the issue the way that we address the issue they don't come at it from listening carefully accurately representing what somebody else is saying and Then demonstrating where it simply doesn't follow from what the Word of God says and that's um, that's an odd thing.

There's no no tways about oh, you're gonna get to hear all my computer sounds. Hear that. Yep. That was one of my little notepad thing. He's going over to the side I can't control that. Well, I could actually not think about I could mute all my stuff.

But you know what? This is live and it's me myself and I today so you're gonna get no Fibby do not call in right now ignore em fib. Oh and channel. Because he's saying telling people to call in ignore him because there's no one here to answer your phones.

So somebody somebody slap him around a little bit. Okay, and he'll he'll get with the program eventually, all right, let's go back to the Discussion we had finished with Patterson addressing a an issue and then dr. Moeller had an opportunity to to do so.

So here's a continuation.

Divine Sovereignty in Evangelism and Prayer

We're gonna have some good discussions about how that takes place, but it's it's still in in very narrow narrow confines. We're on very substantial common ground. For instance when in your local church you send out an evangelism team, you don't say good luck.

You pray that God will open hearts and open minds. Now, isn't he right there isn't he right?

I mean, I really I really appreciate what dr. Moeller says there. If people were consistent in their theology and if if Ergon Kanner was consistent for example and With with his omnibenevolence stuff and equality of opportunity stuff Wouldn't it be much more logical to say good luck.

I Mean, why do you pray that God would open hearts and minds? Why isn't that a violation of their libertarian free will? Or are you just simply saying opening hearts and minds means he's he's Giving an entrance to but it's still gonna be up to them.

See there's the God can't do anything about it. He's and isn't he opening everyone's heart and mind equally? How would it be that God would not work as hard on one person as on another person doesn't that deny.

Omnibenevolence.

If you adopt this this kind of viewpoint that it seems that the canners are intent upon adopting It's heretical. It makes no sense. You can't fit it in with Scripture. How in the world can you can you stand there and say?

Well, God has shown absolutely equal love to every single person on the planet. That that's not possible. I Mean I keep using this illustration, but it's because it it seems so striking to me when Israel is in Egypt.

There's that text that talks about how how God is allowing the Iniquity of the Canaanites to be filled up and then when he brings Joshua in what's his command to Joshua? Show mercy to these my my children whom I love as much as Israel.

No wipe them out man woman and child. Time for judgment to come. How do you fit that with some kind of? Undifferentiated doctrine of omnibenevolence. It doesn't absolutely makes no sense whatsoever and so if if if God is doing this equal opportunity thing and he's trying equally with every person then Two things are clear a God can't save anyone by himself.

That's just the way he's set it up is probably what they would say secondly. That means that if you're saved it's because you were better than in some way shape or form those That are not saved because God didn't God gave 100 with you.

He gave 100 with them. They're not saved you're saved. Therefore. You're the one who made the difference you somehow were more susceptible to spiritual influences. You were kinder nicer more moral more intelligent something then the other people who are not safe and So all the glory has to go to you since you're the one who made the final determination.

God's trying equal with everybody else, but the whole reason is really when people say well if you're a Calvinist. Then why in the world would you ever pray? Well, why do you pray? I pray so that I can be changed.

I'm not trying to make God better. I'm I'm lining myself up with God's will. But why in the world are you praying? What do you what are you asking God to do you can't ask him to violate people's free will because that's you know God's a gentleman.

You know we've all heard that one before so What are you asking him to do if he's already giving 100 he can't give a hundred and one percent. I mean we sort of joke around with that. You know I've got all these workout videos and stuff that I do and give a hundred and ten percent.

Well a hundred and ten percent isn't really physically possible. You're that or a hundred percent is only ninety percent see. So if God's doing everything he can. Then how can there be anything more for him to do?

Why are you praying and Moeller has touched upon the reality that very frequently our prayers are significantly better than our theology. And that's I think what he's saying here.

You know when we listen to ourselves pray. We really do hear a strong confidence in the sovereignty of God. And we when we listen to ourselves pray. When we're we're praying. You know just just in recent days a woman speaking to me about her own brother, and how she was praying for his salvation.

Well, we know what she's doing there. I believe that that's the kind of prayer that God honors and. And it's a prayer deeply rooted in the fact that she's praying that God will do a work in his heart through the Holy Spirit.

To call him to Christ. We are compelled Commanded to go and preach the gospel. We do so knowing that God does save sinners. And so you know when we go out to preach the doctrine of election is what should give us confidence to know God really does save.

And. It's it's not it's not just that we are supposed to be out there. You know doing marketing techniques to decide to whom we're going to share the gospel. We share the gospel of all persons everywhere.

Knowing that God will bless the preaching of the gospel.

Agree a thousand percent that that's exactly right. We do not need to know the identity of the elect. Many of the worst arguments put forward by those who oppose reform theology Assume that we do know the identity like we do not know their identity and so we can have boldness to proclaim the gospel to all and that that's just that's just.

It takes a tremendous amount of pressure off of Individuals to try to get people to do something That they don't want to do and to try to take the place the Holy Spirit and bring conviction and bring spiritual life.

Dr.. Patterson. Dr. Molo. This is a follow-up question. That's not on the list here, but for our listeners here today. Could one of you maybe share a little of how these two strains of theological thought have been a part of our heritage and thinking about the Charleston Association of the Sandy Creek Association maybe just to give a little history of how this has been ongoing throughout our existence.

Charleston and Sandy Creek in Southern Baptist History

As I've often said there are basically two rivers. Are two Smaller rivers that run into the larger River of Southern Baptist life. One of them is the Charleston tradition which was more Calvinistic and One of them is a Sandy Creek tradition located right down below us here.

And by the way, you should all stay over a day and take a trip down and see the sandy old Sandy Creek Church. Located just about 30 miles south of us here, and it's well worth the journey down that Sandy Creek tradition was much more revivalistic.

Was.

Less Calvinistic though. To be perfectly fair about the whole matter. It was certainly a long way from being Armenian. I just note that.

I'm not going to any any detail on this, but Gene Bridges has mentioned some of the errors in trying to make these two different streams as if they were Completely different, and I've heard other people say it at least you know Patterson knows better, and he knows that.

That there was there really wasn't any Buddy who was completely Isolated from Reformed theology, I mean it was just You couldn't get away from it because you can't get away from the Bible and So it that that's what's being referenced right there.

Because the Sandy Creek statement of faith is Has a very Calvinistic strain to it also. So these two streams though one revivalistic and one That was I would say somewhat more reformed flowed in to the river that made up Southern Baptists.

Where Southern Baptists were so different than Baptists in England is that we've been able to keep that together Without such a falling out that we ruined ourselves in England. The particular Baptist Eventually did become anti missionary and anti evangelistic While the general Baptist on the other hand advocating a general atonement, which I would argue far.

But the general Baptist cut loose from the particular Baptist doctrinal emphases became Universalist and even God forbid Unitarians and so the splitting of the two did them no favors. Well I.

Don't know if there's a real parallel. I mean, let's let's realize even to this day when I was over at speaking the Metropolitan Tabernacle Last week some of the statistics that I heard were rather interesting.

And and you've got to realize that folks over in the UK a lot of them look over here at us in the United States. And they go what do you people have to complain about? You've got church on every corner a Large um I don't know three four times as many people as far as percentage of population go to church regularly.

United States as in the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom's in better shape than Europe is as far as that goes and The secularization of those nations has been underway a lot longer. It has been here.

And so I don't I don't know that those are really fair comparisons and certainly Particular Baptists in the UK to this day. I mean look at look at the folks at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. They had they had people in speaking Who are very missionary minded very much a part of missions work very evangelistic.

They have I? Spoken the the gospel service of the Edmonton Baptist Chapel, and they have an entire service. That is just that it is it is a gospel presentation service, and they do things a little bit differently over there.

And so I I don't think that's a fair a fair view. Certainly you can you have Hyper-Calvinist and you have people that go that direction. There's imbalance everywhere. It doesn't speak to anything any more than the fact that there were Baptists who became.

Well, what's the one thing that these folks love to keep bringing up. Johnny Hunt brings it up. Patterson brings up. But the charismatic controversy of the 70s and 80s well you had Baptists that went that direction.

Is that somehow prove something about Baptist Theology or something. I don't think so. So I don't I just don't see it.

That's really a solid comparison and push them in opposite directions that were very unfortunate Thank God in Southern Baptist life. We have iron sharpened iron as dr. Moeller mentioned just a moment ago, and we have helped one another and Those who are of a more Calvinistic persuasion have helped The soul winners to be sure their language was biblical and and that their practices were biblical and on the other hand those who were Evangelists and the soul winners their passion has been shared with their Calvinistic brethren and the two have worked together by the grace of God, that'll be the the tone of the future and If we allow Satan to have his way, we'll divide up over it as we certainly should not.

Well.

And you know people obviously Probably start thinking about questions like the the canner saga that has been going on at that point and I simply point out That for quite some time one of us was referring to the others as our brothers.

And we're not being treated as such. It took quite some time for me to give up on that that approach itself. I would much rather have the conversation with Eric and canner in October. To be more along these lines at least as far as the tone is concerned though I do wish there was much more interaction Especially on a biblical level in this particular interest in this particular discussion than there actually was.

Now I would simply add to that and a fine historical review there and very very Proximate as we consider Sandy Creek here in Charleston to our south, but this is a living history. We're here because the Lord has brought Southern Baptist to a particular point in history again.

This is God's sovereignty. We don't we don't exist as a denomination because we deserve to. We know better than that. But I think one of the healthiest parts of what's going on here is that we're talking about one of the greatest doctrines of the Christian Faith we're talking about what is Confessed in our confession of faith and made clear and taught in our churches what undergirds the gospel, but what's really important?

And I think dr. Patterson one of the things that makes our situation categorically different than that in Great Britain is we're talking about this as we're doing it. The you know, it would be insidious and wrong for Southern Baptist to say hey, let's stop witnessing and Let's put a moratorium on missions until we talk all this out.

That is not what's going on here. We are here to do the business of the convention to put more missionaries on the field and to plant more gospel churches and to Encourage each other to be more fervent and faithful and evangelism as we are doing that.

It's good for us to talk about what the gospel is as a matter not only of our friendship But of our accountability to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ into the scripture. Which we have so hard fought to define as that inerrant infallible Word of God.

So this is healthy. It's a sign as I said in my opening comments of theological health. Some people get a little in fact in the local church associations and the SPC pastors meetings. Some people say well, you know We need to stay away from issues of controversy.

Generally speaking. The only thing we're talking about is the issues of controversy find out what is the itch and Scratch it with a mutual accountability to the Word of God and go and talk about these issues of substance and do it as You're witnessing to the lost.

In light of what you're saying, dr Moller, let me read question number nine for those who are putting this up on the screen. Because of the controversy around this issue how much of the pastor's view on election should be part of their teaching.

Is it a good idea for a teacher to defend or attack one view of election on us in a Sunday morning pulpit?

Well, generally speaking the categorical rule is the pastor agrees with me should speak and if he does not he should remain silent. No, let me say that I think this question originates in a genuine problem Where should the doctrine of election be addressed explicitly where Scripture addresses it what we desperately need in this denomination is a wholesale return to expository verse-by-verse and that means as a matter of accountability.

We're going to have to preach the text that otherwise are resistably skipped by an awful lot of preachers who don't want to have to deal with these things if you have if you're committed To verse-by-verse exposition then let the word do this thing and just preach the word don't bring any agenda into it on the other hand.

We are have an obligation as preachers to help people to understand the big picture. And so this should be just a part of the healthy teaching ministry of the church. I would say this I want to be known for my commitment to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't want to wear a label so that the first thing someone says about me is this is his doctrine of election. The doctrine of election is sweet and precious. God has given it to us and revealed it to us so that we might know him and might glorify him in the knowledge of his electing purpose, but that is in order that we would understand the preeminence of Christ.

The glory of the cross and the grace and mercy of the God who loves us so much that he sent his only son to die for us. In one sense, a lot of these doctrinal issues absolutely important serve as the foundation and as the the girders the superstructure of the building.

But what we want people to see is the fullness of the building and that is the glory of the gospel and the glory of Christ.

I just like to add two things. I agree there. I think Doug Motors just said, I just like to expand it just this much. It's imperative that we preach the whole counsel of God folks. And even if you do expository preaching, if you choose your book carefully, you may be able to avoid certain subjects.

We're responsible for preaching over a lifetime of preaching the whole Bible, all of it, every bit of it. And it is a substantive mistake to think that we can do anything else and have a biblically literate people.

And so I want to underscore what Dr. Miller said and add an exclamation point at the end of it. Finally, let me just say it's also inconceivable to me that the preacher would have any secret doctrine that he didn't make crystal clear to his people.

If he believes something to be the case, he needs to preach it openly and honestly. Anything else is a failure of integrity.

We have a lot of in-depth biblical discussion. You're not really going to get anything accomplished there as far as coming to some conclusions on whether a certain text can be taken away one side or the other is taking it.

I would love to hear Dr. Moeller and Dr. Patterson discuss the meaning of foreknowledge, for example, or what does it mean that no man is able to come to me unless the Father sent me draws him. Could we discuss that?

Could we demonstrate that John 12, 32 has nothing to do with this? And could we actually walk through the text and see that if you say all men are drawn, that means all men are going to be raised up? That kind of thing, it's very rare to get that to happen.

That's why I've been saying from the start, I would love to go to each one of Ergin Kanner's classes at Liberty University on Tuesday the 17th and walk in there with nothing but a Greek New Testament and discuss John 6 and go through it point by point by point.

The chances of that happening are significantly less than the chances of the Arizona Cardinals winning the Super Bowl this year, but it's something that I've certainly laid out there and would be willing to do.

Commercial Break and Upcoming Events

This would normally be the point where we take a commercial break, so I will act like a commercial announcer here and remind you of our upcoming conference in Orlando, the Pulpit Crimes Conference, which we would like to invite you to attend.

Folks like Tom Askell will be there and myself and Steve Camp, and you can meet the omnipresent Michael Fallon, who makes all these things happen there as well, and walk up to him and give him a good smack on the back and thanks for all your hard work.

Of course, the cruise coming right afterwards, the beautiful Viendom, the Holland America Viendom down into the Caribbean. Of course, the big thing going on right before the cruise and the conference is the debate with John Shelby Spong.

I would like to once again encourage all of you to be in attendance at that debate if you possibly can be. Those of you who have never been to a debate, you may think in listening to MP3s or even watching DVDs that you really get the sense of a debate from that.

The information is the same. However, the context and the atmosphere can just never be the same unless you're there. I think most people who have been to a couple of them and then seen others via DVD or just listened by MP3 will tell you there's something about being there.

The people that were at the Barry Lynn debate were at a debate that the context and the ambience, the environment will never be able to be reproduced. I imagine this is going to be a tremendously interesting encounter between myself and John Shelby Spong.

He is an entertaining speaker. We are coming from about as far apart from one another as we possibly can. I know that. I know that it's going to be incumbent upon me to do the translation work. That is in my experience.

Bishop Spong has a hard time really communicating with someone as conservative as I am. I think that most of the time he does not believe that we will listen to him. I have been listening to him and will be doing more listening as we get closer to the debate.

I do know where he's coming from. I know what he thinks is real scholarship over against pseudo scholarship. He's going to have a lot of supporters there. I very much believe that there will be far more people in support of his position than there were at the Barry Lynn debate by a factor of 10 or more.

I have been saying please do not make plans to go to Lynchburg as much as you might want to try to sneak in there. You have no guarantee that you could be able to get in. It's not going to be a controlled situation.

We will find the time to discuss what took place when we get to the Pulpit Crimes Conference in Orlando just about two weeks later. Please don't make that kind of plan. If you're going to make a plan, if you're going to do something, what would help us the most and support us the most would be to be a part of the Pulpit Crimes Conference and to support us in that way.

And so that would be my request for you to do so. And that is our commercial break, which when you're doing this all by your lonesome, you just sort of continue on and do your thing. Now, this next thing I'm going to be playing for you, this next clip section.

Critique of a Roman Catholic Apologetics Clip

Well, good grief, it's almost an hour long. Obviously not to get it done today, but going to get started on it. I really, really, really thought and maybe should have. I just, you know, having to do this on my own and with everything else going on, I just didn't have the time to do it.

What I want to try to do is try to find the time to go through this and to edit out certain elements of it. Just various that would not have in any way, shape or form have touched on the actual meaning of what was being said.

Just edit out certain phrases so that you wouldn't know exactly where this individual is coming from. And then play it for you. And the whole reason would be to demonstrate a point that I've made over and over again.

I am not making the genetic fallacy. I am not saying that because two different theological perspectives say similar words, that that means that they are somehow necessarily connected. I certainly have studied the King James only movement enough to know the danger of the genetic fallacy and how many times people argue about, oh well, you use the Westcott and Hort text, or the modern texts are indebted to Westcott and Hort, and they were terrible, horrible, nasty people, and therefore you are too.

You know, that kind of silly argumentation is, I think, beneath anyone who would name the name of Christ. You just don't engage in that kind of irrationality. However, I have made the statement many times, and it is a true statement, and you can only take it so far, but you need to take it as far as it is allowed to be taken, logically and truthfully.

That the non-reformed, quote-unquote evangelical, agrees against the reformers with Roman Catholics on the issue of the nature of man, the nature of sin, not in the sense of different kinds of sin, mortal venial, but the fact that sin does not actually enslave us, so that our libertarian free will is enslaved and no longer libertarian, and the nature of grace, the idea that grace can try, but grace can fail to bring about salvation.

Will a man, in the grace of God, the modern non-reformed or anti-reformed neo-evangelical, like Charles the Chicken-Hearted Brave, are much more comfortable with Roman Catholicism than they are with John Calvin.