March 9, 2004

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 good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line. Getting started a little late today, so we'll go to 6 .05

Mountain Standard Time, just adjust things. That's why we don't do anything on the network, because it wouldn't work that way.

And so we are here and we have a lot to do today. I have 11, 12 cuts lined up to play for you.

But before we get to those things, we have a special announcement this evening.

I am looking at a web page that isn't, as far as I know, isn't linked yet, but I'm looking at the web page anyway.

It's a very well done web page, looks very nice. It's going to be on our site here soon, hopefully later this evening or sometime.

And some of you may recall that when Mr. O 'Fallon, who arranges all of these cruises and things that we do, when he was on with me, we sort of, in a joking way, talked a little bit about the fact that we were arranging a debate and that we couldn't quite yet say what that debate was going to be about, but that we would over time.

And so today we get the opportunity of announcing what debate is going to be taking place as part of our conference there prior to the debate.

This is going to be November 5th and 6th. The night of November 5th,

I believe that would be a Friday evening. At 7 o 'clock we will be having a debate.

This will be over there in California. This is all going to be on the website, so don't freak out about the details right now.

I'm not going to invest too much time on that. But we are going to be having a national conference. The second day is titled

The New Challenges to Justification. We have a number of tremendous speakers that are going to be speaking for us at that time.

But the debate that will be taking place on November 5th at 7 p .m.

The title is Are Roman Catholics Part of God's Covenant People? The subtitle is

Does Trinitarian Baptism Make One a Member of the New Covenant? And my debate partner, the gentleman

I will be debating on that subject, is Mr. Douglas Wilson. Yes, Douglas Wilson, author of many books, a well -known speaker.

He has appeared many times at the Ligonier Conferences.

Many of you have benefited from Doug Wilson's books. And so we are going to be having a debate.

Many of you know that this is a very important issue, an issue that we have been discussing many, many times.

And the issue is, is a person made a part of the New Covenant by baptism, by Trinitarian baptism?

I do not believe that a person is. I do not believe that baptism, apart from faith in the

Gospel, is anything more than something which, in reality, is displeasing to God.

And that I see no evidence whatsoever, anywhere in Scripture, that baptism can ever even be called

Christian baptism outside of faith and repentance in Christ and without the

Gospel being present. So that those who would say that Roman Catholicism, because it has

Trinitarian baptism, that this Trinitarian baptism joins you to the New Covenant, therefore the means of evangelizing

Roman Catholics is to grab them by their baptism and call them to covenant faithfulness. I reject this.

I reject it biblically. And we are going to be having a debate on that subject on November 5th, 7 p .m.

And then the next day, I'm going to go ahead with what's on here, because I haven't, I've been just about finished with the book.

I've been working very, very hard on it till all hours of the morning. And so I've just been really, really, shall we say, out of it.

That and many other things. And so I haven't had an opportunity to go, OK, guys, everything on this page is absolutely fixed in stone now, right?

I can say this without having to back up later on. All the people listed for the conference here on this screen are, in fact, we've already talked to them and they're committed, right?

Hello? Anyone? Anybody at all? Mr. O 'Fallon, sir, person, wherever you are, if you could affirm that for me before I read these names, that would really help me out a lot.

Or anyone who might be somewhere nearby and has a microphone and maybe can confirm these things.

I feel all alone now. I think I am all alone. I think everyone has left the building and I am no longer.

Just OK, I will. Oh, there you are. Well, I'm sitting here reluctantly hoping that we'll see something from Mr.

O 'Fallon. Mr. O 'Fallon, first of all, is not the fastest typist on the planet. Well, the question is, is he even listening?

I mean, you know, that's true. That's true. So I would venture to say that unless, unless, unless Mr.

O 'Fallon... I don't think he's listening. I think his biggest real, his, can I announce the names on the list?

OK, I'm typing this in the chat. Boy, are we high tech or what? Oh, there is a little bit of that bailing wire.

And every one of them. OK, he says yes. OK, so it's all on him.

Just so you know, Mike says yes. I saw it. I'm watching the same channel you are.

I think his system's messed up and he hasn't gotten real audio to work again. That's, that's the problem why he's probably not listening.

OK, the second today, now that we are, yes, see, real player doesn't work. Second day, new challenges, justification.

Phil Johnson of the Spurgeon Archive. Grace to you. He was on the cruise with us this past December.

A tremendous speaker. Looks very much like Charles Haddon Spurgeon. He probably knows more about Spurgeon than anybody else.

He's going to be speaking with us. David King from Dayspring Presbyterian Church of America, the Dayspring PCA Church.

Those of you who know and love him and channel his Skyman. Great friend of mine, also on the cruise.

A co -author with William Webster on Holy Scripture. The three -volume set on Solo Scriptura will be speaking.

Steve Camp's going to be with us again with audience one. And yes, Steve actually speaks and does a wonderful job.

He's an excellent speaker, an excellent student of the Word of God. And so Steve's going to be speaking.

I'm going to be speaking as well. And possibly others that we cannot yet put on that list.

But possibly others. That sounds strange. James, say hi to Mike. Hi, Mike. Hey, Dr.

Rowe. How are you, sir? You know, I was actually very proud of you that you went from Windows Millennium Edition, which everyone knows was actually a joke put out by Microsoft just simply to make people mad at them, to Windows XP.

But evidently, somewhere in the process, Real Audio didn't come along with, huh? Oh, yeah.

We picked up 600 -some -odd viruses on the way, too. But Symantec has told me that they can't take care of most of them.

But just wanted to give you a call and tell you that, yes, the names that I think you see on your list there, we are positive about having in the conference.

That's what I told everybody. If he's not positive, he's pretty sure. No, I've got confirmation.

Did you already name them? I did. Steve Camp, Phil Johnson. Phil's presentation ought to be incredible.

It's one that he already gave in Great Britain, actually. Talking about NT rights, take on justification, new perspectivism, etc.

Cool. It's just going to be fantastic. But as well, I think that everybody should know that, did you go over and so forth, the admission and so forth?

I have no knowledge of anything. There's an admission thing here. It says $10 pre -purchase through aomin .org

and $15 at the door. But it's free for all registered Alpha and Omega folks on our cruise who are staying at the

Sheraton. Correct. So, and Mike, isn't that actually anyone who is with our group, even if they're not going on the cruise, but if they're staying at the

Sheraton. They're in for free. They're in for free. And I wanted to make that point. And while we're here on the subject really quick, because I know time is of the essence for the program to get going here.

But my wife and I were privileged to go over and visit some of the hotels that wanted to host us over there.

And we chose the Sheraton. And I must say that it is a very nice facility.

One of the things that we really appreciated about it was the fact that the ease of getting from LAX to the

Sheraton. The folks who've been on the cruise the last time around will be satisfied to know that the

Sheraton there runs a shuttle 24 hours a day every 15 minutes from LAX right to the front doorstep of the

Sheraton. And the rate on all that information is going to be posted on that page once we get it up as well,

Mike. Yeah, absolutely. Actually, we've already got the page ready. I guess after we're done with the dividing line here, you and I can get on the phone and get that thing up there.

Excellent. It's all finished and so forth. And the Sheraton is a fantastic facility to host this.

I guess we've got a thousand -seat ballroom ready for this. Yeah. And we could possibly have another name on that list, too.

Yeah, I mentioned that there was a possibility of another name, but we were going to, since that's not confirmed yet, we're just going to keep that under our hats for now.

There's going to be Robert Schuers in the area. No, I'm only doing one debate on that weekend.

All right, guys. All right. Thanks, man. God bless. We'll have to get your real audio fixed to get you back online there, big guy.

I'll just call back and you guys can put me on hold. Thanks, man. Bye -bye. All right.

Well, thank you, Mr. O 'Fallon, for finally... Poor guy. We'll have to get his real audio fixed up.

So that's the big news, big announcement. The debate against Douglas Wilson. I think it's going to be very useful for people.

I think it's going to be handled in the way that it can be handled. I am committed to making this something that is useful to the people of God.

It is going to be biblically based. It's going to be focused upon that. This is not a situation where there's going to be...

You know, I certainly... It's not going to come from me if there are any type of situation where there's a problem.

It is my intention to really be focused upon the biblical text and upon the meaning of baptism and upon the fact that the

Roman Catholic Church does not have the gospel. And therefore, what she does is not related to what the

Bible is referring to when speaking of justification, speaking of baptism, so on and so forth.

Now, Mr. Wilson, I know, believes that Rome teaches and preaches heresy.

But his view of the Auburn Avenue perspective of the new federal vision material in regards to the covenant is really what's going to be examined here.

And so I hope you all will be praying for that time. If you're in, obviously, we'd love to have you go with us on the cruise.

It's going to be a very enjoyable time together. And so that's all going to be available on the website. As soon as we're done with the program here, throw those pages up there and you'll be ready to see all that material.

So that's our big announcement. I'd like to continue on now. I would like to provide a contrast today.

I'm going today, and some of you might find this to be rather exciting as well, I'm going today to begin responding to a recent sermon by Dr.

Adrian Rogers. Dr. Adrian Rogers is a well -known Southern Baptist minister. And I responded to some sermons that he delivered a few years ago on the subject

Romans chapters eight and nine. And many people found those responses very useful.

He has delivered another sermon that unfortunately indicates that in the intervening year and a half, two years, however long it's been, that he has not taken the time to actually find out what the people who, interestingly enough, he will not name in this sermon.

Anyways, he talks about those people, but he doesn't actually talk about them by name, that is reform theology or anything like.

But in this sermon, he demonstrates he has not taken the time to listen to the responses, to listen to the other side.

In fact, sadly, he just reiterates a number of the errors that Norman Geisler made in his book,

Chosen but Free, even using the same terminology, clearly the source of his errors. He talks about John Owens.

There is no John Owens. It's John Owen. And he's totally dependent upon secondary sources. And I just don't think that this is the kind of preaching that Dr.

Rogers should be known for and that people should just sit back and not say anything in regards to what he's saying.

But before then, I wanted to give you a contrast. We had a tremendous opportunity this past Lord's Day at the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, where I'm an elder. Thankfully, first of all, I did not preach. And that was a good thing.

Don Fry wasn't there, which is it's unusual for Don Fry to not be there and me not preach.

But we had a guest speaker. Now, that's very unusual. Reformed Baptists are not big into guest speakers, actually.

But the ARBCA conference was held here in the Phoenix area. And one of the speakers was

Dr. James Renahan. Dr. Renahan is an instructor at Westminster Seminary in Escondido. He is the head of the

Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies. He's a Reformed Baptist treasurer. Let's just put it that way. He's one of our leading scholars.

And he was kind enough to be with us in both services. And on Sunday morning, he opened Revelation chapters 4 and 5.

Now, those of you who have listened to the Greg Stafford debate know how important that was. I opened up the same text in the debate.

But he opened it up in the form of a sermon. He gave seven observations in the text and three points. And they were just wonderful.

And I have linked to the real audio of that sermon on my blog. And I would very much encourage all of you to listen to that particular sermon.

But I wanted to play a few minutes here. It's three and a half minutes of Dr. Renahan's sermon, just to give you an idea.

And one of the reasons is Dr. Rogers is very animated.

He's very passionate about what he's saying. And you see, the substance of Dr.

Rogers' sermon is his emotion. Dr. Renahan is a scholar.

He's an instructor. And yet, it is very obvious that he, too, is very passionate about his subject.

But his emotion is not the substance of his sermon.

The text is. So here you have a contrast between passionate preaching based upon the sound exegesis of the text, and passionate preaching based upon tradition that has no connection with the text at all, and simply takes eisegetical conclusions and throws them out and pads them in emotion and says, there, there's the

Word of God. That's not the Word of God. This is an important issue. Here's Dr. Renahan.

He is speaking about Revelation chapters 4 and 5. And specifically here, he's talking about John.

He is seeing he who sits upon the throne and he has the scroll in his hand and no one's found to open it.

And this is what his comments were. John looks around. He sees that there is no movement, that God is upon the throne with the scroll in his hand, and there is no one who is able to approach him.

And as he does this, he realizes that there is no one who will be able to open the seals that are on the scroll.

And he tells us in verse 4 that he wept much. Now, this is not because his curiosity is being denied, because he really wanted to know what was on the scrolls.

It is rather because John understood the purpose of the scroll and the seven seals, and he believed that they were being frustrated.

You see, if we keep on reading through the rest of the book, we would see that the scroll is the eternal plan of God.

And as each of the seals are broken, the purpose of God is brought into reality in human history, in the history of the world.

As John sees that no one is able to come forward, he weeps much. He is overcome with emotion.

His eyes are full of tears, because there is nobody who can come and take that scroll from the hand of God himself, and begin to open the seals and bring to pass what has been written.

John, at this point, thinks that the plan of God, the purpose of God will be frustrated because there is no one worthy.

Now, it gets even more dramatic at this point. Have you ever watched a movie, where the character, the actor, suddenly goes out of his character and looks at the camera and speaks directly to the camera?

It is disconcerting, isn't it, when that happens? Well, that is what happens in verse 5. John says,

One of the elders said to me... Now, the elders are in the second circle outside the throne of God.

Remember, God is at the throne in the center, four living creatures, 24 elders. One of these elders looks at John, who is having the vision, and speaks directly to John.

And he says, Do not weep. Stop your crying. Hold on to your emotions.

Think through this, John. Think what is happening. And he points his finger. He says, Behold, behold the

Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.

So, this elder who is seated upon the throne, looks at John outside of the vision, and tells

John to hold on, keep himself in check. There is the Lion of the tribe of Judah. So, John now looks.

Remember what we said before. Things change in a dream. Suddenly, someone who has not been apparently present in the dream up to this point, now is presented to us.

And did you notice, John, the language of this elder? Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah. What does

John see appearing in the dream before him? And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne, and of the four living creatures, in the midst of the elders, right at the center, stood what?

Not the Lion of the tribe of Judah. What does John see? John sees a lamb.

Behold, a lamb as though it had been slain. Having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

And here, the drama increases. Up to this point, there is no one who is worthy to approach the throne of God, to remove the scroll from the hand of God, to begin to loosen the seven seals.

The elder says to John, Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah. He looks, and he sees the Lamb of God.

The Lamb of God comes, verse 7. He came. He approaches the throne, and he takes the scroll out of the right hand of him who sat on the throne.

Well, obviously, there's much more to it, but there you have an excellent example of exegetically based, sound theology, passionate proclamation of the

Word of God. It was a great blessing to hear it, and to be blessed thereby. That is what

I believe is what we are called to do. That is the true nature of preaching the

Word of God. In contrast to that, and again, I want to remind those who heard our previous discussion concerning Dr.

Rogers' sermons, I pointed out that Dr. Rogers is a tremendous communicator.

And I pointed out that when he discussed the doctrine of justification, that he did so correctly. He did so in an orthodox manner.

But I also pointed out that the only way to arrive at that doctrine of justification was to use a consistent hermeneutic that he simply refuses to even be concerned enough to utilize when addressing the issue of Reformed theology in addressing these passages.

He uses one form of hermeneutics to arrive at the truth regarding justification, but then he abandons that very form of hermeneutic when he addresses passages like John chapter 3 or Romans chapter 9 or whatever else it might be.

And that inconsistency is the demonstration of the error of the non -Reformed position because it is that inconsistency that is consistent with Dr.

Norman Geisler, David Hunt, George Bryson, and here

Adrian Rogers, and I have some clips of another well -known Southern Baptist I'll be playing sometime in the future, that likewise engages in the same type of proof texting without any hermeneutic basis, any foundation whatsoever.

So let's go ahead and start looking at these particular passages.

Clips from a recent sermon by Dr. Adrian Rogers. John 12, verses 46 through 48,

Jesus said, I am come a light to the world that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

And if any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him, nor I judge him not.

For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him.

You know, I have the foggiest idea why that started playing. I apologize.

I'm using a new thing here. Let's try this. We're going to get to that one, but we skipped his introduction.

That's not fair. Let me start at the beginning, and let's make sure this one's the right one. The title of the message today is...

You know, when you start with the title of the message, that's probably the beginning. Okay, let's try it again. The title of the message today is, let the earth hear his voice.

Did you know that there's some people who believe, honestly believe this, have a form of theology that teaches this.

They're very serious about this, that God does not love everybody. You say, oh, no,

I'm telling you. You'll hear it. You'll hear it taught on college campuses. You'll hear it taught by evangelicals.

You will hear it taught in churches here and there, that God only has a select few that he loves, but that he does not love the entire world, that some are loved and therefore predestined for heaven, and there are others who are not loved of God, not chosen, not elect, and therefore have no chance, none, nada, none of ever going to heaven.

There's some who believe that. There's some who teach that. I reject that with all the unction function and emotion of my soul.

I believe that God wants everybody saved. Well, there you had, in a nutshell, the hermeneutic of Dr.

Rogers. The hermeneutic is not, let us examine the scriptures. He will say that.

He will say, we need to go to the Bible. But then when we go to the Bible, any passage that would, for example, indicate a distinction in God's love, any discussion of a redemptive love over against common grace, the fact that there is clearly a redemptive love shown for the people of Israel that's not shown for any other people, redemptive love that's shown for the elect of God that is not shown for those who abide under his wrath, the inconsistency is the position that then results.

None of that can even begin to be considered because of this emotional commitment to this idea that there is only one kind of divine love.

There are no differentiations in God's love. And therefore, you have this constant misrepresentation.

These people say that God doesn't love everyone. Well, if you mean redemptively, then

I guess it means you believe that God redemptively loves not only all those

Canaanites who live in the land of Canaan that God allowed to be continuing on in their sin until their iniquity was filled up and then he used the people of Israel to wipe them out, man, woman, and child in the same way that he loved

John. No differentiation. That's irrational. But no differentiation.

Seemingly, you have to believe that God is going to be in love with everyone in hell for eternity in the same way that he's in love with everyone who is seated around the throne, standing around, bowing before the throne in worship of him throughout eternity.

And that means God is going to be forever unhappy. That is the result of Dr.

Rogers' position. But I see absolutely positively no evidence that Dr.

Rogers even listens to the first bit of response to what he says. None.

I cannot believe that he is because he shows no evidence at all of even recognizing the argumentation that is presented by those who oppose him.

He wants to try to make his listeners, it seems very clear to me, he is so concerned about Calvinism.

He is so convinced that Calvinism destroys evangelism, which he only defines as the mere proclamation of a simple gospel message to lost people, never the idea of growth and grace and all things like that.

He's so convinced that I will destroy evangelism that he wants to convince his people to not even give consideration to any of the arguments.

He wants to shut the mind down emotionally as soon as the issue is brought up.

That seems to be his intention. And maybe that's his intention because that's what he himself experiences.

I don't know. But the result of that is this misrepresentation. There are millions of people who never, ever, ever have a chance as if they somehow deserved one.

As if God's grace can be demanded. Now he will say,

I believe in the sovereignty of God. I believe in predestination. I believe in election. But he makes it all synergistic, man -centered.

He doesn't believe in any of it. He'll say, I believe in grace. And when he talks about justification, he'll define it correctly.

But here he's defining it incorrectly. Incorrectly. So the emotional element is part and parcel of what we have from Dr.

Rogers. Let's continue on. There are those who believe that some being born today, no matter what age they may attain, whether they die in infancy or whether they die of old age, will never have an opportunity, a chance to be saved.

No matter what else happens, if they're not one of the elect, they cannot be saved. I want to make it very clear. I believe in the sovereignty of God.

I believe in election. I believe in foreknowledge. I believe in predestination. But I do not believe in fatalism that says some can never, ever, ever be saved, no matter what.

Well, exactly what do you mean by any of those things? Fatalism? You mean God has a sovereign decree that he is working on this world to his glory and to praise the glory of his grace?

That's fatalism? We always hear, you know, how many folks do we hear repeating over and over again the fatalism argument?

And, you know, we've had some callers recently. We've had a Church of Christ minister call in. We've had a Mormon call in.

And some of them point out, well, look, you know, Adrian Rogers and Norman Geisler, and there's a lot of people who disagree with you.

But have you ever noticed that they don't do what we do? You will not find

Adrian Rogers or Norman Geisler playing a sermon that I've preached on John chapter 6.

If those guys like to come on this program, I'd be happy to have them on. But I'm not getting too many invitations to go elsewhere and to discuss these things.

We're the ones who take the time. You know, we're the ones who've challenged Dave Hunt to debate.

We're the ones who challenged Norman Geisler to debate. But they won't do that. And so we take their words in their context.

And I do my best. And, you know, I don't get a lot of folks. I get a few irrational folks.

Some of you saw on the blog this week, completely and totally beyond the realm of rationality and reason who was attacking me and calling me a cult leader in a low life and all sorts of things like that, a

Dave Hunt fan. But the vast majority of folks do not accuse me of misrepresenting them when

I'm doing this kind of thing, when I'm letting them speak in their own words. And so when you hear people saying, oh, well, you know, all these different viewpoints.

Yeah, but only one side can go to the text and say, OK, let's let's you just said this.

I said this. Let's look at the text. Let's walk through it word by word. Let's look at the grammar.

Let's look at the syntax. Let's look at the overall context. Let's do exegesis. Only one side does that.

The other side does what tradition? And seeks to, in essence, shut down conversation rather than promote conversation.

Let's continue listening. But I'm going to tell you, if you take this kind of belief and let it go to the extreme, it is deadening to evangelism.

It is stultifying to soul women. There's his real objection.

That is Adrian Rogers fear. And if Adrian Rogers absolutely refuses to read decent books, listen to what people are saying, listen to the actual responses to what he's saying, engaging in meaningful exegesis, it's because he really, really, really believes that.

Now, he happens to know and mention in the sermon that there are missionaries and others who are reformed, who are evangelistic in the sense he even defines evangelistic.

But he doesn't, it's very clear from his perspective, that is an inconsistency on their part.

So I go back to the same clip. But I'm going to tell you, if you take this kind of belief and let it go to the extreme, it is deadening to evangelism.

It is stultifying to soul women. Now, there's some who believe it who are soul women, and there's some who don't believe it who are not soul women.

But I want to tell you why I believe that we need to let the earth hear his voice.

And I want to tell you why I believe that God wants every precious soul on the face of this earth to be saved.

Well, you know, I want the world to hear his voice too. And I just recognize that very frequently that proclamation is to the world's judgment.

Not that God is by doing so going to be eternally unhappy because he's failed to do what he intended to do.

That's really what the issue is. That's where we need to engage the text. But that is not, unfortunately, where we end up seeing the text engaged by Dr.

Rogers. The unbounded love of Christ. The unbounded love of Christ.

Look, this is his first point in the sermon. The unbounded love of Christ. If you will, in 2 Corinthians 5, verse 14.

For the love of Christ constrains us because we thus judge that if one died for all, one died for all, then we're all dead.

Does God love everyone? Did Jesus only die for a certain few? For the chosen ones?

Friend, can I walk up to any man on the face of this earth and tell him without stutter, stammer, apology or equivocation,

God loves you? There's the big thing for him. And we're going to get into 2 Corinthians 5 because he's going to go back to that text a little bit later on.

But that's a big thing for Dr. Rogers. For Dr. Rogers, the gospel is God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.

That's the gospel. We don't need to worry about the bad news. And we have to constantly emphasize this love of God, this love of God, this love of God, so that God's love has to be undifferentiated, has to be absolutely equal for each person.

Now, of course, when people say, well, you know, that's what I was taught to do. I go, where did the apostles do that?

Where did the apostles preach this kind of a message?

Instead, you have them talking about God's love, but God commended his love toward us and that while we were yet sinners,

Christ died for us. Well, who is the us? He's talking about those who have already repented, those who are who are in Christ.

Yes, God's love is shown in the cross. God's love transcends any even conception that we begin to have of it.

And any person who embraces Jesus Christ can know God's love.

There's no question about that. But that doesn't mean that God's love is less than our love. And I've explained this before.

We discussed it in debating Calvinism. The discussion there of the fact that Mr.

Hunt, same argument, God's love must be equal and undifferentiated. That makes it less than human love, which is clearly differentiated.

We have a different kind of love for our wife and our children than we have for anyone else. So somehow we want to make

God less than man so that God's the one who ends up being frustrated throughout all eternity and not in charge of actual salvation itself.

But this is his big thing. I want to be able to walk up to a person and say these words.

That way, my God isn't to be blamed for anything, basically. Well, we continue on.

On 316, you remember that one? For God so loved what? The world.

Let the earth hear his voice. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever,

I'm glad that's there. Where have we heard that one recently? Do you ever find these folks even showing the first bit of familiarity with the problems that their traditional use of text raise?

I don't find it. I don't find it. I didn't find it in Norm Geisser. I didn't find it in George Bryson.

I didn't find it in Dave Hunt. I don't find it in Adrian Rogers. Just throw them out there and assume meanings.

Don't bother to substantiate it. Just assume it. Just just sit there and go.

The world. The world. The world. See that that just that that's that may work for a lot of folks.

You know, that may communicate. The world means everybody. But you see, if you have to stop and then say,

OK, but if that means everybody, like you say, Dr. Rogers, then why does the rest of us say that the only ones who receive eternal life are the ones believing, the believing ones, not not your seemingly reading into whosoever.

This idea of no election, it's simply all the believing ones. Any anybody who looks the text can see that.

But I guess if you just yell it loud enough, you get people emotional enough about it, their traditions kick in.

And so obviously, Dr. Rogers is not seeking to convert me. Dr. Rogers is not seeking to to convince me that his position is right.

He's only there to talk to his people and to try to keep his people from hearing what

I guess we people have to say. So he's not trying to talk to me because he's not trying to provide any exegetical basis for interpreting world the way he does for reading into all the ones believing this non -differentiated.

There can't be any election understanding of whosoever. He doesn't even bother to try. He's not talking to me.

You put your name right there. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Now, how do these people believe? They believe contrary wise. How do they interpret this? They say God so loved the elect.

God so loved the elect. You say, oh, they wouldn't do that. John Owens. Okay, I want you to hear that.

In fact, you might want to just turn up just a little bit because this is important. If any of you have access to the internet.

Well, of course you have access to the internet if you're listening to this program. But I mean, right now you can go to the

Alpha and Omega Ministries webpage. Go to my response to Norman Geisler. It's cbfrep2 .html.

CBFR is capitalized in ep2 .html. It's linked off of the Reform Theology page.

My response to the appendix to Dr. Geisler's book. And I had mentioned in my response in the

Potter's Freedom, I said the following words. I said, most frustrating to the Reform believer who has provided a reason and scripturally based defense of their beliefs is the utter lack of serious interaction on the part of CBF with such works.

There is simply no attempt to interact on a meaningful level with the many Reform works to provide in -depth, serious biblical exegesis and argumentation in defense of the

Reform position. While some works such as Owen's The Death of Death and The Death of God and Piper's The Justification of God are mentioned and even cited, the responses are so surface level, they amount to nothing more than a dismissal, not a rebuttal.

And even here, the Reform material is handled in such a cavalier manner as to make even the effort of citing it worthless.

This is clearly seen in the way in which CBF will quote as little as a single sentence. And on the basis of this, accuse

Reform writers of changing scripture. For example, Dr. Geisser quotes from John Owen, his name is

John Owen, and writes, and I have a quote from CBF which says, arguably the best defense of extreme

Calvinism on limited atonement comes from John Owen. At least Dr. Geisser got the last name correct. His response to this passage is a shocking, and notice this term, a shocking re -translation to God so loved his elect throughout the world that he gave his son with this intention that by him believers might be saved.

This needs no response, simply a sober reminder that God repeatedly exhorts us not to add to or subtract from his words.

Now, that's the quote from Chosen but Free. Remember the words, re -translation, and remember then all

Geisser does in response to this citation of Owen. Does he deal with anything Owen said before that? No. All he says is, this needs no response, simply a sober reminder that God repeatedly exhorts us not to add to or subtract from his words.

Then I commented, this citation is from page 214 of Owen's work. Was this great

Christian scholar suggesting that we should re -translate John 3 .16? Is this a fair representation of Owen's position?

Not in the slightest. This citation comes toward the end of a lengthy discussion of the passage, a discussion I note that is significantly longer and in more depth than any discussion of any passage in all of CBF.

There is no attempt whatsoever on the part of CBF to address the actual argumentation and the reasoning set forth.

Here in context is what Owen said. Then I quoted him. First, if this word whosoever be distributive, then it is restrictive of the love of God to some and not to others, to one part of the distribution and not the other.

And if it do not restrain the love of God intending the salvation of some, then it is not distributive of the aforementioned object of it.

And if it do not restrain it, then all are not intended in the love which moved God to give his son.

Secondly, I denied the word here is distributive of the object of God's love, but only declarative of his end and aim in giving

Christ in the pursuit of that love to wit that all believers might be saved. So that the sense is,

God so loved his elect throughout the world that he gave his son with this intention that by him believers might be saved.

And this is all that is by any, besides a few worthless cowels, objected from this place to disprove their interpretation.

That's the end of the citation from Owen. And then I commented, As anyone reading the passage in context can see, to charge

Owen with alteration of the word of God is quite simply ridiculous. He not only specifically says the sense is, a phrase that would have to be cited on the basis of mere honesty if CBS is serious in accusing

Owen of adding to the word of God, but it is painfully obvious that Owen is interpreting the passage in the light of the preceding 10 pages of argumentation he has provided.

One cannot avoid noting that aside from this alleged sober reminder offered by Geisler, there is not a single word of meaningful argumentation or refutation provided.

That's found in the Potter's Freedom, pages 21 through 23. Again, all of that citation from the article on the website.

Now, keeping all of that in mind, we go back to Dr. Rogers and his citation of John Owens, whoever in the world that is.

You put your name right there, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Now, how do these people believe they believe contrary wise? How do they interpret this? They say, God so loved the elect.

God so loved the elect. You say, oh, they wouldn't do that. John Owens, who is the patriarch of this kind of thought said, one of the patriarchs said in his retranslation quote, and I'm quoting him,

God so loved his elect throughout the world that he gave his son to the intention that by him believers might be saved.

Well, friend, I didn't want to say it says God so loved the world. We're not bad. It's the fact from the word of God.

You don't have to do fancy footwork. Just take it as it says. Now, did you hear that?

First of all, we have what does he, what does he refer to it as a retranslation of this kind of thought said one of the patriarchs said in his retranslation.

There it is. There is the term said in his retranslation. That's straight out of Geisler.

And then what do we hear just a little bit later on subtract from the word of God. You don't have to add or subtract from the word of God.

Is that what he said? That's God so loved the world. We're not bad. It's the fact from the word of God. You don't have to do fancy footwork.

I wonder where that came from. And there doesn't even seem to be a a direct reference to the source.

It's almost being directly quoted. That is Norman Geisler, who has already been exposed as having not even begun to deal with John Owen's actual assertions in the text.

Now, folks, that's just simply shoddy research. That's shoddy scholarship. I can guarantee you in light of the reuse of the very same terms that Dr.

Rogers simply took that directly from Chosen but Free. He wasn't reading

John Owen. I doubt he even has John Owen in his library. He's going on a secondary source.

A secondary discredited source. But as long as you preach it with lots of emotion.

Well, everybody will love you for it. Oh, my. But he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten

Son of God. He's not condemned because he could not be saved, but because he's not believed. He continues on in John 3.

Doesn't provide any meaningful discussion of syntax, grammar, lexicography, anything.

Just let's just throw our traditions in here wholesale. And then in the process, let's demonstrate that we don't have the foggiest idea what

Calvinism actually says. Because listen to this. I hope you caught it.

He's not condemned because he could not be saved, but because he's not believed. He is not condemned because he could not be saved.

Who on earth says that? That is a complete misrepresentation on the part of Dr.

Rogers of the position he's attempting to, in essence, attack, blackball.

This is straw man argumentation. No one ever believed what's being said here.

But you see, it goes back this whole thing of, well, actually, you've got all these innocent people out there. And this

Calvinistic God is so mean that he tells them they can't be saved. Even if they want to be saved, they can't be saved.

And of course, there is no one who has ever wanted to be outside of the work of the

Spirit of God in their heart, bringing true repentance and faith in Christ. But that's that's what he's saying.

He's not condemned because he could not be saved, but because he's not believed. Actually, see, the point is,

Dr. Rogers, that we Calvinists believe God can save anybody. You're the one who believes that God cannot save people unless they help him.

Unless they assist him. Unless they allow him. And this is the condemnation that light is coming to the world and men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.

It's obvious he's not talking about the world of the elect. He's just talking about the world. God loves the world and we're to love what

God loves. See, all you got to do when you when you want to try to push and push a push a tradition is just simply say it real loud.

World. That's all you got to do is just say it real, real loud. And that's that's that's going to do it. The problem is that's quotation of John 317.

And John 317. Well, it has in it this assertion. And in fact, that was exactly what

Owen was referring to. That's John Owen, great Puritan scholar. John Owen.

Was referring to the fact that in these texts of scripture. You have the assertion on the part.

Of the inspired author. That the purpose of the giving of the sun, the purpose, not the might.

See, these people misread the subjunctive and say, well, you know, so so that maybe some people would be saved.

No, the purpose of the giving of the sun was to save. The world.

Just like Matthew 121, he'll be called Jesus. Why? Because he will save his people from their sins.

Now, you either have to insist upon a Western mindset, an individualistic, extensive understanding of cosmos.

World. Or you have to understand that world means Jews and Gentiles.

All those who will believe out of the Jews and Gentiles all across God's creation.

There's your choices. Does he even think about that? Would he think about that on other issues? Yes, he would.

If he didn't have this massively emotional tradition to get in the way. That's that's the problem with what you're dealing with here.

Oh, let's see. Is this the one? Yes, it is. Alright, I'm making some progress here. Here's a longer section.

So we're going to run into start running out of time here because we only got about 11 minutes left in the program.

Grand total. Here's a little longer section. But it follows as night follows day because of his unlimited atonement.

His unlimited atonement. Now, there's some who say that Jesus doesn't love all.

Therefore, when he died, he only died for the elect. They call that a limited atonement.

But what does Paul say in our passage of Scripture? After he talks about the unbounded love, look at verses 14 and 15.

For the love of Christ constrained us because that if one died, and notice if one died for all, et al.,

then we're all dead. And that he died for all, et al.,

that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them and rose again.

How many? For whom did Jesus die? For all. Look in 2 Corinthians 5, verse 19.

Go down a few verses. To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.

Now, Jesus died for the elect, beyond a shadow of any doubt. He died for me.

He died for you. He died for all who are saved. But he died for all. Saved or lost, he died for all.

Now, there's some who say he only died for the elect. I have a pastor friend who believes that Jesus only died for the elect.

I said to him, Sir, would you do me a favor? He said, yes. I said, would you give me a verse in the Bible? Just one verse, not two, not three, not four, just one that says that Jesus died only for the elect.

Just give me one verse. This dear friend pulled a quarter out of his pocket.

And said, if I would ask you to get water out of this quarter, could you do it? I said, no. He said, the only way you could get water out of it, therefore, would be for someone to put water in it first.

Is that right? I said, absolutely. He said, so if a man is totally depraved, the only way that faith could come out of that man is for God to put the faith in him first of all.

Isn't that true? I said, absolutely. And I said, and God hath dealt to every man a measure of faith.

And Christ is that light, that light of every man that cometh into the world. And I said, put your quarter back in your pocket and give me my verse.

Good rhetoric, bad argumentation. That's why these folks don't debate. Because I would love to have been in that position of getting to answer what was just said.

Let's notice a few things. First of all, it amazes me, amazes me that you could go to Romans chapter 12, address to Christians in regards to their behavior as believers in the body of Christ, and say, oh, see,

God has given to every man, that means to every human being a measure of faith. And that means he's given to everyone this ability to have saving faith in and of themselves.

Talk about eisegesis. Pure mishandling of the text.

Completely. There's tradition dealing with the text of scripture. Not even close.

You want your one verse, Hebrews chapter 10, verses 10 through 14. There's four of them. Fit that one into your

Arminianism. Fit a perfect atonement into your Arminianism. He's later going to say, Jesus's death made us savable.

That's what that's what Norm Geisler said. Doesn't save, doesn't perfect, makes us savable. You can have that atonement.

I don't want it, as Charles Haddon Spurgeon said. But let's go back to First Corinthians chapter 15.

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died.

And he died for all. And look at that, in my translation, it's A double L. I guess that's how you, is that how you spell all?

I'm not sure why he kept repeating that. He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for him who died and rose again on their behalf.

Do you notice something there? I noticed a bunch of folks on the channel saw this. As soon as they listened to it, they're like, what?

How can he stand up there in front of thousands of people and say this without seeing what the text is saying?

Because what he's saying is that one died for all. That means, in his view,

Christ died on behalf of every single individual. Therefore, every single individual died.

Well, what's that going to mean? Well, how does he conclude this section? He who knew no, he made him who knew no sin on our behalf, that we might be made the righteous of God in him.

How? Through our union with him in his death. We just became universalists, didn't we?

Let's try to follow this thinking through for a second. So, therefore, all died, all human beings were united with Christ in his death.

Substitutionary atonement for everybody. And he died for every single person, so that they who live, well, who is they who live?

Since they died with him, then who is this? Well, he'd have to say, well, that's a different group now.

That's a different group. Because you don't see a double L there. But you see, in reality, if you follow

Paul's theology, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves. Here is the purpose.

Verse 15 gives us the purpose. And, you know, this is why really, honestly, people need to take

Greek. This is a Hinnok clause. Same thing as John 3, verses 16 and 17.

People need to learn what a purpose clause is. He died for the purpose that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for him who died and rose again on their behalf.

Is that a different group? No, it's the same all. Do all no longer live for themselves, but for Christ?

Of course not. Of course not. It's right there. He read it out to everybody.

And how many people sitting there heard it? And why wouldn't they have heard it? And the only reason they would have heard it is because emotion coupled with tradition overrides theological thought.

You know, I'm just about to finish this chapter. I've got maybe a page left to write this chapter.

In the book that's on the website, you know, when you can see the cover and you're not done with the book yet, you know, you're way, way behind.

But I read on this very, I wrote on this very issue. And I talked about honoring

God by honoring his word. And I said, and I put this in italics and centered it.

Sound exegesis is the only way of making sure we are allowing

God to speak rather than we speaking for God. Hear me well here.

We must always insist that God's word be handled or rights that we honor him, his authority and his word by hearing him.

For when we violate the rules of exegesis, we, in essence, force our words into God's mouth.

Poor or errant exegesis means we will not be hearing what God has said, but will to some extent be garbling the message with man's thoughts, man's traditions, or other earthly substitutes for the divine essence of God's truth.

That's what we have here. Here we have the clear example of tradition coupled with emotion.

Obviously a man who believes that he has, he has figured this out a long time ago, and it seems to be the case with all these gentlemen.

They figured this out a long time ago. It's a settled issue. We need to protect the church.

But in the process, they end up, they end up mishandling the word of God and engaging in exegesis.

Well, we'll continue with our study of this particular sermon next time on The Dividing Line, 11 a .m.

Thursday morning. See you then. God bless. Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -0318 or write us at PO 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.