March 9, 2004

The Debate with Douglas Wilson on Baptism and the New Covenant

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 and 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 605 Mountain Standard Time, just to 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 1112 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?

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. 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. 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 until 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, Okay, 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.

Okay, I will. Oh, there you are. Well, I'm sitting here reluctantly hoping that we'll see something from Mr. O 'Fallon on the screen there.

Yeah, but Mr. O 'Fallon, first of all, is not the fastest typist on the planet.

Well, the question is, is he even listening?

You know, that's true. That's true.

So I would venture to say that unless Mr. O 'Fallon...

I don't think he's listening. I think his... Can I announce the names on the list? Okay, I'm typing this into the chat.

Boy, are we high-tech or what? There he is. Ladies and gentlemen, a little bit of that bailing wire and...

Every one of them? Okay, he says yes. Okay, 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 the problem, why he's probably not listening. Okay, the second day, 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. Tremendous speaker, looks very much like Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

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. 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 1.

Yes, Steve actually speaks and does a wonderful job. He's an excellent speaker, an excellent student of the Word of God. 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.

Okay. That's what I told everybody. If he's not positive, he's pretty sure. No, I've got confirmation. Good. 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. Ah. Talking about NT rights, take on justification, new perspectivism, et cetera. Cool. It's just going to be fantastic. But as well, I think that everybody should know that you go over and so forth, the admission and so forth.

I have no knowledge of anything. There's an admission thing here that says $10 pre-purchase through aomin .org and $15 at the door, but it's free for all registered Alpha Omega folks on our cruise who are staying at the Sheraton.

Correct.

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. I wanted to make that point.

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 and all that information is going to be posted on that page once we get it up as well, Mike?

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 1 ,000-seat ballroom ready for this, 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.

Robert Shuler's in the area there, so, you know, just call right in.

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.

Well, I'll just call back and you guys can put me on hold. Okay. All right.

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. 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.

Adrian Rogers on Divine Love, Election, and John 3

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 of Romans chapters 8 and 9, 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, Reformed 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, and 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 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, 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? 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, 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 is 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 and 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 some down 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 and the Unbounded Love of Christ

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 are some who believe that. There are some who teach that. I reject that with all of 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 redemptive love over against common grace, the fact that there is clearly a redemptive love shown for the people of Israel that is not shown for any other people, a redemptive love that is 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 the throne, 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? 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 6.

If those guys would 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've 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.

I know you saw on the blog this week one guy, completely and totally beyond the realm of rationality and reason, who was attacking me and calling me a cult leader and a lowlife 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, there's all these different viewpoints.

Yeah, but only one side can go to the text and say, okay, 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? And seeks to, in essence, shut down conversation rather than promote conversation. Let's continue listening.

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, really believes that.

Now, he happens to know and mention in this sermon that there are missionaries and others who are reformed, who are evangelistic in the sense he even defines evangelistic. But it's very clear that from his perspective, that is an inconsistency on their part.

So I go back to the same clip.

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.

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 the 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 commends his love toward us, and that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Well, who is the us? Well, he's talking about those who have already repented, those 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 Aaron 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 sit there and go. The world. The world. The world. See, that may work for a lot of folks. That may communicate. The world. The world means everybody. But you see, if you have to stop and then say, okay, but if that means everybody, like you say, Dr. Rogers, then why does the rest of the verse say that the only ones who receive eternal life are the ones believing?

The believing ones. Not your seemingly reading into whosoever. This idea of no election. It's simply all the believing ones. Anybody who looks at 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 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 the world the way he does, for reading into posthopistuon, 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 can put your name right there. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Now how do these people believe contrarywise? How do they interpret this? They say, God so loved the elect.