Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
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 -4602, or toll-free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341.
And now with today's topic, here is James White.
And if you're hearing us, it is a minor miracle, or maybe a major miracle, or a miracle somewhere between major and minor. We are back. I'm sure there are some folks going, say, hey, we're just going to talk about Dr. Graham and God killed their network.
No, actually, I think we finally just exorcised a few demons from our...
Say them Pentecostals are always right. You just got to lay hands on the thing.
You laid hands on it, ripped it right out of there.
That's right. I said, laid hands on it and said, bye-bye.
Bye-bye. We're taking this piece of equipment right out of here. It's going on the pile over there. It goes back to the store and says, uh-uh, we ain't using that no more.
Hasta la vista, baby.
Ah, well, it is good to be back. We were all ready to go yesterday. And just a few minutes forehand, I heard screaming from the other room as the patchwork, bubble gum, rubber banded, band-aided...
We endorse duct tape here and bailing wire.
String and can setup we had designed just rolled over. And like a cockroach, when you hit it with Raid, it shivered a few times and then died. So anyway, but hey, 24 hours is 24 hours. And we've got 42 folks in the chat channel at the moment.
Well, not really. Two of them are bots. But hey, we love our bots and channels so much, we sort of personify them anyway. So anyways, welcome to Radio Free Geneva, volume number two in the Jack Graham saga.
If you were not with us on Tuesday, we began a review. We got exactly seven minutes and 58 seconds into the portion of the sermon where Dr. Jack Graham from Prestonwood Baptist Church was doing his best Dave Hunt impersonation.
Though in the portion we get to today, he actually goes beyond Dave a couple of times. For those of you who did not hear the last program, it would help a little bit, I think, if you were aware of the fact that Dr. Graham describes this particular theology.
He's referring to Calvinism, though he won't call it that. He is attacking Reformed theology, though he will not identify it clearly. I don't know what the reason for that is, but that's what's going on.
And he identifies it as arrogance, near blasphemy. This is not a kind review in any way, shape or form. And so in responding to it as forcefully as we have in demonstrating its many errors, its constant misrepresentation, strawman argumentation, even miscitation of scripture, we'll see today.
We are simply responding in a way that is commensurate with the level of the attack launched itself. Of course, we need to realize this is preached at church with 24 ,000 members. I doubt very seriously there are 24 ,000 people there.
I would imagine that even through all the services where it was preached, probably not more than 7 ,000 or 8 ,000, maybe 10 ,000 at the most, actually heard the sermon. But then it has been distributed since then.
And so I had heard about it when it was first preached. It was right around the time that we headed out for the debate against John Dominic Crossan. So be that as it may, we are about eight minutes into the portion.
We have already heard a number of the standard attacks upon Reformed theology. Some of the worst are yet to come. So we continue on with Radio Free Geneva, Responding to the Worst of Anti-Calvinism, and here with Dr. Jack Graham.
...others to damnation.
The good news of salvation is for every place and every person and every problem because God's love is unconditional. His mercy is from east to west. And we can say, I can stand up here and say to you, God loves you, every person.
Yes, God loves you and you and you and you and you and you, and there's no one that God does not love.
All right, let's continue providing a response to what Dr. Graham is saying. I'm not sure how the gospel is an answer to every problem. I just discovered, we just discovered just a few moments ago on a completely different issue, why for two years I keep having problems with my motorcycle.
The mechanic that was working on it today discovered that the previous owner had inserted a secondary fuel filter into the line that's not supposed to be there, and it's filled with sand and gunk. So it doesn't matter how many times you clean the carburetors out, it's just going to keep dumping stuff into it because it's trash.
And so the gospel is not an answer to why my carburetors kept clogging on my motorcycle. So I'm not sure what he means by that. That almost sounds to me like the old gospel is an answer to all of your problems type stuff.
I'm not sure what that's talking about. But, of course, he transitions immediately into this idea of God loves everyone. And what is the implicit statement? This is what we need to do. When you hear someone talking like this, people ask me all the time, when you're doing your debates, how do you stay so calm?
How do you stay collected? One of the things you have to do when you're in a dialogue, when you're in a debate, when you're in a situation like this, is you must listen to what's being said. And when there are unstated, implicit things that are right there, they're right on the table but they're not coming to the surface, you've got to bring them out.
You've got to bring them out and you've got to make sure that it's clear that people see what's actually being said. We saw this before in Dr. Graham's statements and how when he talked briefly about limited atonement, we need to bring out what he was saying.
But he frequently wouldn't bring out what he was saying. Here, we have the same type of situation. God loves you and you and you. And what's the unstated, false statement? Equally in the exact same way with the result that God would never do for one what he wouldn't do for another.
See? That's the statement that's being made. And it's being made loudly. It's being communicated even if the words aren't being spoken. The concept is being spoken. Of course, when you're talking with someone where they already have that concept, all you have to do is refer to it.
You don't even have to do it by name. You don't have to do it by word. And this is simple apologetics here. This is listening to what somebody's saying. He's using a pre-existing, false notion in the minds of his listeners.
And I don't know that he's doing it intentionally. But it's just the natural way of doing it. And we need to bring this out. So when you're talking with someone and they go, God loves you and you and you.
It sounds like that guy on Saturday Night Live. And you and you and you. Then you need to bring out. So what you're saying is, the love of God for Moses was identical to the love of God for Pharaoh. Right?
And then stop. Because, folks, if you're talking to somebody who has any knowledge of the Bible itself, they immediately go, well, hmm. Obviously, God did something different with Moses than he did with Pharaoh.
And God showed mercy. Oh, mercy. So if God's love is supposed to be equal for every single person. And God's love is supposed to be. God loved the Israelites just as much as he did the Canaanites that he had them wipe out.
Right? Equally. Tried to save the Canaanites in the exact same way the Israelites. Right? That's your presupposition. Right? That way you bring it out. And so few of the conversations we have on the subject actually get down to that level and start getting that stuff out and getting it out on the table.
If you've been talking with somebody for a long, long time, that's probably what's going on. Is there are all these presuppositions and assumptions that are laying down there. And they're just below the surface.
And they keep impacting everything you try to do. They need to be brought up. And that's exactly what's going on here. And probably I think this is where it's followed up with the normal emotional appeal to keep making sure that, you know, you keep the folks all emotionally riled up and so they don't see that, you know, God's love in common grace for certain people looks different than his redemptive love for other people.
And it seems that the Bible teaches that. So you can't let them start thinking about that. So you keep the emotions going.
And Jesus died for all this past week. I led a decision service for the third through sixth graders in our Bible school. And I looked into their beautiful young faces, so attentive, so alive, so alert, and shared with these 10, 11, 12-year-olds how they could make life's most important decision, life's most important discovery.
I spoke to them of the grace of God and the love of God. I was able to look at those children and tell them, God loves you and Jesus died for you, that Jesus loves all the little children of the world.
Well, that's what I was referring to. That was my recollection.
That was what was next. Now, don't get me wrong. I had the gospel preached to me at a young age, and I'm very thankful that I did. But the gospel that was preached to me was the gospel that talked about my sin and the Savior and the need for repentance and the need for faith.
And I'm not going to get into the whole discussion of child evangelism at this particular point in time. But no one could possibly argue with the fact that a child of the age of eight, for example, a child of the age of nine, will very naturally do what they recognize as pleasing to mommy and daddy.
And unfortunately, the history, especially of Baptists in the United States as a group, is one that documents over and over again young people who, quote-unquote, made a decision. They did what all their other friends were doing in a service.
Who, at the age of 20, have no concern for the things of God and, in point of fact, look back upon the religious activities of their childhood with disdain. And they are now significantly more difficult to reach with the real gospel because they were given a soft gospel without repentance.
And they were encouraged to do religious things that they now trust in, though there has been no change whatsoever in their hearts, no change whatsoever in their priorities, etc., etc. That, unfortunately, is a reality that we see all around us all the time.
What we can do about that is another issue. But the point being, Dr. Graham is saying, I could tell them that Jesus loved them. So, Dr. Graham, you have one of those little boys, one of those little girls, makes a profession of faith, and then they turn away.
And I guess you would probably say, oh, it means they didn't really have faith. At least I would assume that's what you would say. I don't know. And they are going to end up in hell for eternity. Were you lying to them?
Or do you really believe that God's love for the redeemed who surround his throne, united with his Son in perfect salvation, who will spend eternity in love with God, that God's love for them is of the same nature, same kind, same intensity, no difference from the love that God will have for those in hell for eternity, that God's heart will ache and break, and God will be unhappy throughout eternity because of the unsatisfied fulfillment of his love for those individuals.
And for those little kids, you looked into their eyes and you said, God loves you, and Jesus died for you. Well, that may make you feel very, very good. That may make you feel very, very warm. That doesn't make it true.
Because if what you're telling them is, Jesus died for you, but his death is not enough, you must add your autonomous faith to his death, then that is an insult, no matter how warm it makes you feel. And I don't think the issues of the gospel should be decided by trying to get people's emotions all excited.
And that's what's going on here. Yet according to this theological system that is so aggressively taught in some sectors of Christianity today, I would honestly have to look at many of those little boys and girls with their bright eyes and beautiful faces and warm hearts.
I would have to look at them and say, No, God has chosen you, but God may not have chosen you. God loves you, but I can't tell you that God loves you. God loves this one, but he doesn't love that one.
God has chosen and predestined that one to be saved, and God has predestined that one to be lost. I could not honestly look in the faces of those boys and girls if I believe what some believe and tell them that God has called them to salvation, that God loves them and will save them if they ask Him.
Now that is a lie.
It is a straightforward lie. It is a lie for which Dr. Graham is accountable because there is absolutely positively no excuse for a man in his position with his resources to not know the truth of this issue.
It's not my fault that Dr. Graham does not choose to read what Reformed people say. It is not my fault that he chooses to read the worst and not read the best. It is not our fault that he does any of that, but it remains a lie.
He didn't have to. The information was available to him. It's still a lie. First of all, when he looks into the little faces of those people, they are sinners under the wrath of God. Don't talk to me about their little warm hearts.
Those little warm hearts will demonstrate what they're really full of in time. It's so easy to say, oh, they're just so innocent. No, they're not. That's what Pelagius believed. Hello? But secondly, you don't stand in front of a people, any group, and say, God loves you, but He doesn't love you.
We don't know who the elect are. And if Dr. Graham would take the time before standing behind the Holy Pulpit to actually study the issue underhand, he would know that no Reformed person, no Calvinist, is ever going to stand up and say, God doesn't love you, God hasn't chosen you, because we do not know.
And so the entire presentation was absolutely false. It was designed to do one thing, stir up emotions, nothing else beyond that. Nothing at all. There is no truth in what was just said. And there is no reason why Dr. Graham should not know the truth on the subject.
None. He could have picked up his phone and called any number of people to have known what the truth of that issue is. But he chooses instead to deliver to his people, as the pastor of that church, pure misrepresentation, pure falsehood.
They're not benefited by that in any way, shape, or form. So if you've heard that presentation before, it's a lie. I have never stood before an audience and said, God loves you, sir, but ma 'am, He doesn't love you.
I don't know the elective choices of God. What I can say to any audience, and it was also another falsehood, I can't tell them that they need to repent and believe. Yes, you better tell them that they need to repent and believe.
That's the only thing you can tell them. That command goes out to all. And the underlying assumption of Dr. Graham's position is, is that God is under some obligation, somehow, to then enable every single person to respond.
Remember, they are fallen sons and daughters of Adam. They love their sin. And the assumption is, God, somehow, is under some obligation to change every single one of them and get them back to some moral neutral point.
But that's not grace. That's not mercy. If you say God's under obligation, now you're talking about legal parameters, and now we can only talk about fairness and justice. You don't want fairness. You don't want justice.
You want mercy and grace, and those transcend those categories. Okay? So, everything in that brief little period of time, that last little clip I played, was simply a straw man. An emotionally driven straw man.
Unfortunately, we hear it all the time. And I hope that everyone listening is prepared and ready to give an answer when you hear it, because you need to shut it down fast. As soon as you hear that, you need to say, nothing you just said even begins to touch the truth.
And boy, that'll get somebody... What do you mean? And you need to be ready to give a response like that. And honestly, once you can get past that, you might actually be able to start communicating something to somebody.
Because that's the big emotional trigger that keeps people from hearing what you're actually trying to say.
And that slanders the character of God. It is an arrogance that verges on blasphemy.
I told you that this was a pretty vitriolic attack. And, of course, if I believed that anything he just said was true, he'd be right. But, of course, everything he just said totally misrepresents the side he's attacking.
The Bible says in the simplest of terms, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him would not perish, but have everlasting life.
Yes, it says it in plain terms. How many times have we gone through John chapter 3? How many times have we addressed the very fact that John 3 .16 itself specifically says that God's love resulted in what?
That a particular people, the people who believe, have eternal life. How many times have we discussed what whosoever means over and over and over again? Is this information not available to Dr. Graham?
No, it's gotten down to Texas. We've got some good brothers and sisters down there, down in Texas. They'd be happy to explain it. I spoke at the Founders Conference down in Dallas. It's not that far away.
They could have picked up a phone and called any one of those fine folks down there at the church I spoke at, and they would have been very glad to explain. But they didn't get that chance, did they? Because Dr. Graham doesn't want to hear what they have to say.
He has an agenda, and he's pursuing it.
It doesn't say God so loved the elect, or God so loved his chosen ones, or God so loved part of the world. But God so loved the world. And you know, we'd better be careful about adding and subtracting from the Bible and playing little theological games with truth.
Why don't we just believe the Bible and take God's Word as it is? God loves every person.
Well, of course, we both say on the other side, why don't we just believe what the Bible has to say? Only one of us, however, is willing to engage in dialogue and then actually go to the texts that are relevant and engage the text on a meaningful level and so on and so forth.
It's real easy to say, my opponents don't believe the Bible. But then, just this morning, we received a response from Dr. Graham's secretary. We contacted him, wanted to know if he'd be willing to debate before the conference in Cruz next year.
And of course, I don't think anyone's going to faint when you discover that we were turned down instantly, of course, in that invitation as Dave Hunt won't debate and Norman Geisler won't debate and all these folks that are very, very brave in calling people arrogant and blasphemous, but they won't defend their position in debate.
Odd thing, isn't it? Seems so to me, too.
That's what the Bible teaches. Now, let me cool down a minute. Some teach that God's grace is irresistible. In other words, that you have no choice in the matter of whether you receive Christ or reject Christ.
That's a stop right there. Irresistible grace is, of course, one of those wonderful canards that people love to attack. Normally, their objections are based upon previous parts of the theological system, but they love to attack it by misrepresenting it.
And in this particular instance, when it says, you have no choice, what is that a statement of actually? That's a statement, of course, of total depravity. That is the effect of sin. You're dead in sin and that you are unable to hear and that the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God and all the rest of that.
Those biblical teachings that, of course, Dr. Graham doesn't even attempt to respond to. That's actually a different point. The point of irresistible grace is that when salvific grace, the grace that brings salvation, Titus chapter 2, the grace that he kept referring to before but hadn't read the context enough to know which verse it was in, when that grace comes to save, it cannot be stopped.
That God, in his sovereignty, will save his people in the way he chooses to save his people, at the time he chooses to save his people, and that we as dead sinners are unable to change the sovereign work of the Spirit of God when he raises us to spiritual life.
That's what irresistible grace is about, not what was just said. So, once again, you start off by attacking what you do not understand. But, again, that's what happens when you rely upon Dave Hunt for your research information.
Once the grace of God appears to you, it attacks you and forces you and coerces you to believe. You couldn't say no if you wanted to. Wow. Attacks you.
It attacks you. Forces you to believe. Oh, I would not want to have to stand before God when he says to Jack Graham, you characterized my sovereign act of removing a heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh as an attack.
You characterized my work of regeneration and resurrection to spiritual life as coercion and force. Why? It wasn't because you didn't have the opportunity to know the truth. It's because you loved your tradition so much that you would present it as if it were the final word.
I would not want to be in that position. Goodness gracious.
That, well... Because God's grace, they say, is irresistible.
Now, indeed... God's grace, which of... what grace are we talking about? Salvific. See, it doesn't even make the distinctions that we ourselves make. We're talking about the grace that brings salvation.
Remember, part of the truth doesn't make all the truth. That's for sure. Indeed, the grace of God is wonderful. Indeed, the grace of God is compelling. Indeed, the grace of God... Once the grace of God moves in our lives, drawing us to Jesus, that grace is so powerful and so wonderful.
Now, listen to this description.
Is this saving grace? Is this grace that actually accomplishes something? Or is he going to, like Rome, and like all Arminians, have to reduce grace in opposition to the Reformation and I would say in clear opposition to the biblical teaching.
Is he going to have to reduce grace to that which tries to save but which cannot do so? Is that not always what has to be done when you attack God's freedom and salvation? He's going to have to turn grace into something that cannot save and that I would then say to you is unworthy of the description of it that for eternity we will sing the praise of God's glorious grace because a grace that cannot save without my addition, a grace that cannot save without my help, is not worthy of my praise for eternity.
The grace of Ephesians chapter 1 is not grace that just tries. It is grace that succeeds.
It accomplishes. But the grace of God is not irresistible in the terms that are mentioned in that God does not force us. God does not impose his will upon us. Did you catch that?
God does not impose his will upon us. Tell that to Paul, will you? As he's laying on his backside on the road, God didn't impose his will on Paul. No, no, no, no, no, no. Tell that to Lydia. Tell that to Lydia.
God opens her heart. How dare he touch her heart? That's the center of her will, and we know the will has to be free on a libertarian basis, right? A bunch of folks down in the Gulf Coast, God's will's been imposed on them through nature, huh?
What, your God isn't in control of what happens in this world? Dr. Graham keeps talking about the sovereignty of God, the sovereignty of God. Well, then let it flesh out. Let it be consistent.
My, my, my. Unless God would be a despot, a dictator.
Oh, or a king. We can't let that happen. We can't have a king upon his throne. We need a servant to serve us. Remember Spurgeon's statement there? Remember Spurgeon? I've included a number of my books.
We'll allow God to be anywhere. He can be lighting the lights of heaven. He can be dispensing gifts from his almonery. But let God ascend his throne, and the teeth of man will begin to gnash.
And you're hearing it right now. God has given us, in Christ, the opportunity and the awesome responsibility to either reject the gospel or receive the gospel. To reject Christ or receive Christ. So I believe and reject these aberrant theologies because of the character of God and because of the cross of Christ, that Jesus died for all men.
So, where did we get that? Okay, we've already mentioned it, but if you're just listening for the first time, just mention it again. It comes straight out of Dave Hunt's book. It's almost a quote directly.
But none of this have we heard any compelling biblical argumentation at all. We've seen a bunch of straw men cobbled together with out-of-context statements. And that's all we've got so far. But it gets worse.
And that he will, therefore, bring unto himself all who will be saved. He said, if I will be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself.
John 12, verse 32. If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself. What does all men mean? Well, all always means all. But in the context, the Gentiles have come seeking Jesus. And so the Jewish person, first century, would have understood those words as Jews and Gentiles.
And we know that the cross is, in fact, a stumbling block and foolishness to large portions of the human family. So we know that being lifted up does not result in this vague drawing of every single person.
And besides that, the fact of the matter is there have been hundreds of thousands and, in fact, millions of people who have died without ever being drawn, who lived their life without ever hearing the name of Christ.
Unless you could become an open theist and say, well, God never knew they were going to exist, then you have to deal with the fact that God created this universe and he knew that was going to be a reality.
What do you do with that?
What do you do about it? When he draws all men, some will come in faith and some will come in unbelief.
Some will come in unbelief? You will actually seek to attempt to defend a use in John where, in talking about the drawing of God, the resultant coming is coming in unbelief? Isn't the negation of coming unbelief itself?
I mean, again, the context of these passages mean nothing in this system. You don't have to worry about what the context was. As long as you can cobble something together with the quotes, the context is irrelevant.
Now, here comes the Matthew 23, 37. Here it comes again, folks. Nothing new here, but can you believe it? Now, those of you who have read the blog already know this, but can you believe it? We all know exactly how this works.
We've seen it happen before. We have seen Dave Hunt do this. This is what started this whole thing, isn't it? Remember Dave Hunt misciting Matthew 23, 37? And we've heard Norman Geiser do it. We've even heard R .C. Sproul, amazingly enough, miscite Matthew 23, 37.
And we always hear Matthew 23, 37 being quoted in such a fashion as to ignore its context. What you do is you go over to Luke and you get the crying passage, okay? Shedding tears over Jerusalem. And then you import it into Matthew 23, which is actually a passage of judgment upon Jewish leaders.
Now, all those contextual issues are only relevant to people who actually want to handle the Bible right, want to honor it, want to believe what it says. Doesn't have much to do when you're just trying to sort of flail away.
But listen to what happens here.
He prayed over the city of Jerusalem. And as he looked over the city and the lostness of people there, he wept with copious tears. Sobs and heaves are described in the Scripture when it says Jesus wept over that city.
And he cried out, Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Oh, how I would have gathered you to myself like a hymn would gather the chicks. But you would not. Not you could. You would.
Well, there you go. Once again, the blinders of tradition are so thick and so powerful that a man can stand before the people of God who would never in so many other subjects so abuse a passage. Ignore what it says.
It does not say. Read it for yourself. It does not say how often I would have gathered you. But you would not. That's the Arminian version. That's not the Bible. That's tradition. It doesn't say that.
It says how often would I have gathered your children. But you would not. Addressed to Jewish leaders, it is a statement of judgment. It has nothing to do with irresistible grace. And yet, tradition can be so absolutely overpowering that a man can stand there in front of television cameras and with his words being recorded, and words disappear off the text of the page.
I mean, it's not, you know, I remember talking to a former Mormon missionary who had come to know Christ. And he was talking about how he had his Bible, and when he was on his mission, he was a good missionary.
He was a good missionary. He had taken the time to actually read his Bible, and he had marked it. And when he had marked it, he had marked, he had gone through John chapter 5, and he says, now as a believer, I go back and I look at what I wrote, and what I marked, and he said, it's unbelievable, these tremendous promises of salvation absolutely positively skipped over.
I didn't see them. I just didn't see them. That seems to be the point here, too. Dr. Graham has heard his tradition, just like Dave Hunt. That's why he hears Dave Hunt, is that they're speaking the same tradition, and it blinds him, it controls him.
Would be that God would send somebody into his life that would say, you know what, brother, it troubles me that you can misquote the scriptures, that you can apply a standard to this subject that you do not apply anywhere else.
Let's look at what the scriptures actually say. My, what a voice he could have for a while. The problem is when you're the pastor of a 24 ,000-member church, you get hold of what the church is all about, you get hold of what the gospel is all about, and your church doesn't remain at 24 ,000 members for a long time, because that's when you start discovering that about 20 ,000 of them haven't a clue what the gospel is.
And you dare start preaching godliness, and oh my goodness, all of a sudden there's a much more enjoyable show down the road.
We mentioned John 3, 16 earlier. Don't turn to it, but let me read you some of the rest of John 3, because it's pertinent to this issue. Verse 18 says, He who believes in him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already.
So it's clear, you can believe or you cannot believe.
Yep, there are believers and there are unbelievers. Now, what you're about to hear, however, should make you sit back and go, you've got to be kidding me. I want to read a section of scripture to you.
Romans chapter 12. Romans 12 begins the practical godly exhortation section of Paul's epistle to the Romans. And he's just gotten done with Romans 9, 10, 11, and the mystery of God, and Israel, and the hardening, and all these other things, right?
Romans chapter 12. Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is a spiritual service of worship. Who is that addressed to?
Who is Paul writing to? And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Whose mind has been renewed in Pauline theology? Are we talking to believers here? Yes, we are talking to believers here.
So that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good, and acceptable, and perfect. For through the grace given to me, I say to everyone among you, the church there at Rome, not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think, but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.
So who is being addressed? Believers, renewed minds in the church, think to yourselves soberly as God has allotted to each the measure of faith. For just as we have many members in one body, and all members do not have the same function, so we who are many are one body in Christ.
So, who is the context? The body of Christ. Simple reading, right? Didn't take a seminary education to do that, correct? Exactly.
Why do I do that? Well, listen. Because he has not believed in the name of the Son, the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation. That light has come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Jesus is saved. Light has come into the world. This is the grace of God that has appeared to all. But some have received the light, and others have rejected the light.
Just briefly, before he gets to the application here, I wish you would have read Titus 2. Just once. Would have been nice. Because the grace referred to there is the grace that saves. Not that tries to save.
Not that makes salvation a possibility. It is the grace that saves. I don't think I've ever heard one of these anti-Calvinism sermons that has more misused a single passage. Maybe John 3 .16. But certainly not Titus 2.
The way that Dr. Jack Graham did here.
Unbelievers can believe or they can not believe. They can receive the gospel and be saved, or they can reject the gospel and be condemned.
Let's not even touch on the number of times that Jesus said the opposite in John 6 .44, John 8, John 10, etc., etc.
It is the cross of Christ and the call of Christ who says, Come unto me, all you that labor and are heavy laden. Come unto me, and I will give you rest.
Amen. And who is going to know that they need rest and that they are weary and heavy laden except those who, by the work of the Holy Spirit, come to recognize their own spiritual bankruptcy? John 6 comes to mind again.
Somebody says, well, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Okay, here we go. Wait a minute. Doesn't God have to give us even the faith to believe? You'll hear it this often. Doesn't God have to, because we're so dead and depraved in our sin, God has to give us even the faith to believe?
We are so dead. There it is again.
The spectrum of death. We are so dead. I'm sorry, but he's going to affirm this,.
Then just listen to what happens. He has to regenerate us before we can even believe in him. Now that's a little backwards, isn't it? God has to regenerate us, but this is the way this logic, or illogic, goes.
Ah, it's illogic to believe that spiritually dead people can't do spiritually good things. That was just identified as illogical. Now, is he going to deal with Philippians 1 .29? Is it a good deal with 1 John 5 .1?
Is it a good deal with any of those passages that teach that? Of course not. Does he have any idea about those passages in their application? I certainly hope not. I don't get any feeling that he does.
I don't get any feeling that he does. No. Some of you are wondering, where did this guy go to school? Southwestern. Master's degree. But you know what? You could go to many a Southern Baptist seminary and get a Master's degree without having any idea what these issues are.
The doctorate's a demon in another area. Doesn't mean that you ever had to deal with these issues. Ever. So that's why I say, I'd like to believe he's never been exposed to this. Willfully has never been exposed to this.
Just one of those people that just says, I'm not going to talk about it. Put it aside. God has to regenerate you.
Before you can ever say, I received Christ. No, the Bible says, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Straight out of Dave Hunt, same error.
Notice the equivocation. It does not say, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be regenerated. Regeneration and salvation. You mean they're the exact same thing? So regeneration is the same as justification, sanctification, adoption?
Well, of course not. But he's not applying the standards he'd apply to other things to this subject because Calvinism's not worth it. It's just not worth being as serious about this as it is other things.
You say, but doesn't God have to give us faith to believe? Didn't you say salvation is of the Lord? Absolutely. Even our faith comes from God. And guess what? Romans 12, 3 says that God has given to every man, to all men, a measure of faith.
There it is, folks. Told you it was coming. Romans 12, 3 says God has given to every man a measure of faith. Every Muslim today, God has given a measure of faith. With every Buddhist today, God has given the same measure of faith by which every Christian stands.
What does that say about your faith? What does that say about saving faith? I don't know what to say about something like that. How... I... A passage clearly about the body of Christ says right there, for just as we have many members in one body, and all the members do not have the same function, so we who are many are one body in Christ and individually members of one another.
So if that's true, then we are individually members of the Buddhists and the Muslims and the atheists and the Zoroastrians and, oh my goodness, talk about turning a text on its head, just looking around for some way to make Arminianism, cobble it together, keep it from just falling apart.
I... How do you refute something like that? There's nothing to refute.
It's just like, well, you know, you read the text. It doesn't quite say that. And that's about it. Unbelievable. Every person has been given by God this faculty, this opportunity to believe. Now notice, notice, faculty and opportunity, not faith.
You weren't given faith. I mean, that's what he said before. Now it's a faculty and opportunity. It's a potentiality. Ah, the equivocation of the Arminian. You've got to listen carefully because, boy, I'll tell you,.
They do it fast. So the grace of God has appeared to all.
And I am totally convinced. The grace of God that saves has appeared to all. What's that? The seventh or eighth time that's been misquoted? Did he not have notes this morning? Did the teleprompter fail?
I'm sorry, but if you're going to stand before the people of God, you're responsible for what you say. I'm not asking for perfection. None of us are perfect. We all need grace extended to us. But when you stand before a people and you talk about a system of theology, the system of theology that brought about the Reformation and gave you the freedom to stand there and call it arrogance and blasphemy, then please do your homework.
Be serious. My goodness. Who's calling these people to account? They don't have any accountability. I can guarantee you, maybe I'm wrong here, but there's a 99 chance there is not a functioning plurality of elders at that church.
What do you want to bet? How much do you want to bet? I mentioned at Moody Bible Institute during the question and answer period, I said so many of the problems in the church, and I'm including theological problems in the church, would not exist if the church would take seriously the Bible's own command as to how it is to be ordered.
And if there was a plurality of elders, if there was someone else who could stand up and say to this man after the sermon was over, Sir, that was wrong. I am your equal, I am your fellow elder, and what you just said, you kept misciting the Bible, misquoting the Bible, and you were wrong.
But that situation doesn't exist. I've been in Southern Baptist churches, and let me tell you something, I know what it's like to be in a church with 20 ,000 members, and the guy who's in charge of that, you don't walk up to him and tell him that.
You don't do that. No, no, no, no. No staff member's going to be going up to him and saying, you know, Dr. Graham, I noticed you kept misciting Titus 2 .11. I noticed you missed a few words in Matthew 23.
You don't do that. And if we just had a truly functioning church order, a real ecclesiology,.
That situation might not exist. That every man, every woman, every boy, and every girl is deeply loved by God, graciously offered salvation in Christ, and has the opportunity to say yes or no to the good news, to the grace of God.
If I did not believe that, I would shut my Bible and shut my mouth and never preach again. Well, there you go.
There you go. That's why he doesn't care about being accurate and representing the position. That's why he doesn't care about whether he's misciting the Bible itself. There's his overriding commitment.
Unless my tradition is true, I won't preach. That's what was just said. There is tradition. There is slavery to tradition. And if you're a Roman Catholic listening to this, I want you to hear what I'm doing here.
There's a bunch of people offended that I would even respond to the recent past president of the Southern Baptist Convention. How dare you do that? No wonder your ministry is so small. Duh! But when I look at a Roman Catholic and I say, you are subjecting the scriptures to a higher level of authority in your tradition, I am consistent.
And when they're on my side of the fence, I'm just as loud in saying to them, you're doing the same thing. We are consistent in making that application. We have to be. That's the only way you can honor the truth.
That's how strongly.
I believe what God has said in his word. No, that's how strongly.
You believe your traditions. Because what you just summarized, you never quoted from scripture. At least not without changing scripture in the process. That's how strongly you have been enslaved to your traditions.
And remember, I think in God's providence, God brought these words out of Dave Hunt's mouth. But on that radio program on KPXQ those years ago now, when I said to Dave Hunt, Dave, that's your tradition speaking, he responded, James, I have no traditions.
My response to him was what? Dave, the man who thinks he has no traditions? Is the man who is the most enslaved to his traditions. And here you have it. Tradition being identified as the word of God. And that is dangerous.
Just show me a verse in the Bible. Just show me a verse in the Bible where it says a person came to Jesus in repentance and faith, believing in him,.
And yet he refused. Ah, Dr. Graham, no Calvinist ever believed any such thing. The whole system that you are trying and failing miserably to critique says that there will never be one who would come to Christ in repentance and faith who would do that outside of the regenerating action of the Holy Spirit of God to begin with.
That's the whole point. If the person has come to Christ in true repentance and faith, it's because God has brought them. It's because God drew them. That's the whole point. You are attacking a straw man.
You don't know what you're talking about. I just don't understand how someone could come to the pulpit so utterly unprepared to address the subject they've chosen to address. I can't conceive of it. I just...
You won't find that because there isn't one. There sure isn't because that's not what we believe.
Listen to Hebrews chapter 2 and verse 9.
Let's jump all over the subject here, okay? Now we go back to Hebrews 2 and 9 and we're going to try to address the issue of the atonement. It's not the subject that we were just talking about, but we just keep leaping all over the place.
He, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man. Okay, let's see.
Actually, so by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, and bringing many sons to glory. Now wait a minute.
He might taste death for everyone. But now it says He brings many sons to glory. That sounds like Isaiah 53 where many are justified. What's this many and everyone? To perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.
Wait a minute. The author of their salvation. That sounds like He's talking about the elect there. Isn't it? For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified. Are all sanctified? Is every person sanctified?
Are all from one Father, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren. Does God call the reprobate brethren, Dr. Graham? We have the same group in mind, do we not? Saying, I will proclaim your name to my brethren in the midst of the congregation.
I will sing your praise, and again, I will put my trust in Him. And again, behold, I and the children whom God has given me. Is that everyone, Dr. Graham? Is that what the context of Hebrews 2 says? Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
Hmm, who is that? Well, everyone's subject to slavery, yeah. And who is it who's made alive? Therefore, he had to be made like his brethren in all things, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertained to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Well, did he, Dr. Graham? Did he make propitiation for the sins of the people, every single one of them? Then upon what basis are they condemned? And so on and so forth. Context, context, context.
Christ is dead. He died for all. Isaiah 53 and verse 6 says, All we like sheep have gone astray. Every one of us had turned into our own way. But the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us.
All. So, answer the question, Dr. Graham. If he bore all our iniquity, then upon what basis does he condemn? Why does that same passage then go on to say with such clarity about the many who are justified by this righteous servant?
Not the all, the many. Oh, he tries, but justification is dependent upon what? The free will of man, possibly? See the result of this whole system? Oh.
No wonder the prophet Isaiah would later announce, Ho! Everyone who thirsts. Yeah, and who thirsts?
Men stood before the incarnate Son of God and listened to the gracious words coming from his lips in the synagogue Capernaum, and they did not even know that they hungered and thirsted spiritually. They simply wanted to fill their bellies.
Is that not true? Why did they walk away? Well, because they chose. No. What was Jesus' response? All the Father gives me will come to me. When it comes to me, I will never cast out. Do not grumble among yourselves.
No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. See the clarity of the Word of God? Well, we're out of time for this edition. We even skipped our break.
There's not much left to go, so next time around, I would love to hear from some of you. If there's anyone out here, anyone listening, that would want to try to defend, misciting Matthew 23, 37, misciting Titus chapter 2, who would want to defend this kind of stuff, tell you what, next Tuesday is your opportunity to call in.
877 -753 -3341 will be the same number next Tuesday as it is now. I'd like to hear from you when we finish looking at this sermon. One of the worst of the worst in anti-Calvinism. Radio Free Geneva here on The Dividing Line.
We'll see you Tuesday. 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.
Join us again next Tuesday morning at 11 a .m. for The Dividing Line.