Radio Free Geneva: The "Calvinism: Doctrine of Demons" Trailer, Greg Laurie & More Steven Anderson

I don't like Calvinists because they've chosen to follow John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. I have a problem with them.

They're following men instead of the word of God. I'm going to be the one standing on top of my hands, standing on top of my feet, standing on a stump and crying out, he died for all.

Those who elected were selected. First of all,

James, I'm very ignorant of the reformers. I think

I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves Calvinists.

Ladies and gentlemen, James White is a hyper -Calvinist. Now, whatever we do in Baptist life, we don't need to be teaming up with hyper -Calvinists.

The other day in class, I said, I don't understand the difference between hyper -Calvinism and Calvinism. It seems to me that Calvin was a hyper -Calvinist.

I don't think there is typically any difference between Calvinism and hyper -Calvinism. Read my book.

And now, from our underground bunker, deep beneath Bruton Parker College, we're safe from all those moderate

Calvinist Dave Hunt fans and those who have read and re -read George Bryson's book.

We are ready to broadcast the truth about God's freedom to say for his own eternal glory.

So, just like 15 minutes, less than 15 minutes before the program starts, I hear a phone call across the way here, and all

I can tell you is that the next time we have Radio Free Geneva, there will be a new version of the

Radio Free Geneva theme. However, when you send it 15 minutes before the program starts, it's not going to work out to be able to drop it into the software.

So, sorry about that. You all would have... I would be looking forward to hearing what changes have been made.

So, we'll... I'll get to hear it before you all get to hear it. Yeah, I'm wondering what bunker we'll be under, too.

I didn't get the... I hate packing up. It just takes...

You know, I like how things are, and we're just going to have to move everything someplace else, and I hate those boxes, and it's just...

You can never find some things ever again. And then, when you're moving furniture, you actually find stuff that you thought you had lost forever.

There are a couple rings that I'm really hoping someday, if I ever, you know, just move everything out of the house,

I might find someplace, or my kids will, once I'm dead and they're getting rid of all my stuff.

Anyway, welcome to Radio Free Geneva, where we deal with the worst and the best of criticisms and attacks upon the

Reformed faith. We've been doing this... I don't know when we started Radio Free Geneva. I honestly don't even remember.

We had to look through the archives and see when Radio Free Geneva first appears.

I wonder when we came up with that idea. I think the first bunker was under Liberty, wasn't it?

So it was when Kanner was at Liberty, and we had a version for a while that Milo Hotzenbuehler did for us, a

Clyde Bauman member. But he can't play a guitar the way that...

No. So, yeah. We appreciate everyone who has contributed to our Radio Free Geneva efforts in the past.

And we've been doing a few of them recently, because we did two in response to the unbelievable radio broadcast and the statements...

Well, it wasn't a broadcast, but the article that was put out on that subject.

Actually, it wouldn't be overly difficult to do

Radio Free Geneva every week, because I get sent stuff all the time.

Someone saying this, someone saying that. It wouldn't be difficult to fill the airwaves.

But to be honest with you, a lot of it is repetitive. But we have new listeners all the time.

And so I was just at various places. I was in St. Charles.

The primary places I just visited over about 11 days on the road was

St. Charles, Missouri, my 17th year coming to the church there.

And then I was in Pryor, Oklahoma. Or Pryor Creek is the technically legal name there.

And so I get to meet all sorts of folks that I wouldn't normally get to meet, because let's be honest, especially

Pryor, Oklahoma is the classic definition of flyover territory. And a lot of folks there are just thankful that anyone will come to do anything in a town as small as Pryor, Oklahoma, where you just have to slow down for a few stoplights on your way through when you're a trucker.

And I'm not sure how many people are there, but it's not a lot. Though they do have a huge Google computing facility there.

Honestly, this is Skynet. We just got the name wrong, but it's

Skynet, and it's out there. Anyway, we were out there.

Oh, bad connection? We having problems? Yeah, Rich says he's working on it. Great. Wonderful.

I said something about Google, and I shouldn't have identified the location of Google's server farm there, but they do have a server farm.

But just as long as it's recording, we'll get up there eventually and do our best. I apologize for that.

Sometimes we go for weeks without a problem at all, and then it starts. I don't know what it's all about.

You would think at this juncture in the advancement of technology that this would no longer be an issue, but it is.

Anyways, I'm going to have to minimize a few things here. And now

I've lost the screen. Did we just crash? Oh, okay. Now it's back. All right. So I had to minimize the channel and stuff like that.

I don't need to be seeing everybody going, I can't hear you. It's nothing I can do about it. Nothing I can do about it at all.

I just have to do the program, and we'll get it up eventually just without the live audience interaction, which on Radio Free Geneva isn't necessarily the primary thing you need to be focusing upon anyways.

So the first thing we want to look at certainly is an item that I have mentioned in the past couple weeks, and we just didn't get around to it.

And that is the Calvinism documentary teaser that appeared a few weeks ago.

I don't know when it first appeared, but there is a documentary.

Yeah, well, you know, documentaries normally require some level of research and things like that.

I'm not thinking that's what we're really looking at here, to be honest with you. Hey, do you see my...

I guess I will forget that. When people ask you, why would you go to prior

Oklahoma? This was one of the reasons. Pastor Derek Melton, the pastor there, this is the third time

I've been there. I didn't know about this until after the last time I was there. He is the former assistant chief of police.

He was head of SWAT down there. He was telling me some of his SWAT stories, which are just absolutely amazing.

But you know Jeffrey Rice, who does the beautiful rebinds? I was using my Greek text down there, and people are coming up, and they're sort of nervous.

They'd sort of like to just see it, or maybe just touch it, this type of thing. It keeps turning on and off.

I'm not sure what's going on with it. I'm sorry? It is?

Oh, okay. Anyway. So anyway,

Pastor Melton has one of Jeffrey Rice's... In fact, it was

Kofi and Derek. It was their posting pictures of their

Bibles that got me in touch with Jeffrey Rice, post -Denver Deluxe Bible rebinding, and that's how my

Greek text came along, and then Jeff Durbin's ESV, and everything else that has happened since then. Anyway, then one day

I see something from Jeffrey Rice, and he has a Derek Melton knife.

A Derek Melton handmade forged knife. I didn't know about this, and so I don't know how

I sort of suggested, but he makes...

It says Melton forged right on it, and check out that handle.

I mean, that is a beautiful knife there. So thank you.

Oh, there we go. Thanks very much to Pastor Melton for my own handmade.

Now, please do not be bothering Pastor Melton writing to the church. I don't want a knife.

I don't want you to get caught. You know, all that kind of stuff. I mean, unless he wants to go into, you know, making some extra money for the, you know, now that he's retired from the police force, you know, just bored or something.

I know he's not. Anyways, so that's what was sitting over there.

I brought it in. I was going to mention that. So it has nothing to do with Radio Free Geneva. Sorry about that. For those of you who are going, come on, just get to it.

Just want to see it. Relax. Relax. All right. So here comes what?

Google's working again, huh? Okay. Maybe the folks in Pryor got it working. Who knows?

Maybe I shouldn't mention that. I don't know. Anyways, let's... This is only two and a half minutes long, but it's the teaser for this documentary that is coming up.

Let's all enjoy this together, shall we? Oh, oh, oh. Helps if you actually plug the computer into the sound.

We didn't test that. Here we go. A doctrine of...

Do I think he had to actually die, actually bleed?

No, not to save us. No, not to save us. But we are not saved by his blood.

But we are not saved by his blood. One of the great and ghastly errors, not just error, but heresies that permeates the evangelical world today is the doctrine of the carnal

Christian. Paul said, I am carnal. When a child is raped, is

God responsible and did he decree that rape? If he didn't, then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.

God doesn't need me to round up the elect. If you understand that God actually is the one who grants repentance and faith and salvation.

And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Oh yeah. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the

Lord that bought them and bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

And through covetousness shall they with famed words make merchandise of you, whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and your damnation slumbereth not.

I'll hang with these guys. Alright, coming in 2019 is another example of the fact that the independent fundamentalist

King James Only Baptist have learned how to use iMovie. I'm sorry.

What version of iMovie? Is there only one inspired version of iMovie?

Oh, I don't know. I haven't kept up with that.

Wow. Okay. So there you go. I guess there, you know, it's funny.

You posted a link to, you put together a big, long

YouTube video list of me preaching all over the place.

You've been busy. Yeah. I mean, probably 10 different cities. Why can't they find video of me talking?

They just have to use a headshot and a bow tie. I mean, what is that all about?

Somebody was getting bored. They could even, they could have used something from the interview we did with Anderson or something, you know?

I mean, anyway, so there you go. I will.

I'm very pleased to be listed, even though they didn't use any video of me with all those folks.

Of course, I have to admit, when you play a portion of a sentence and then you slow it down and repeat it, that is pretty much the indication of someone who really might not want to be arguing with the big boys and probably isn't up to that task.

Yeah, that's what you got going on out there. Let's go back through that point by point a little bit.

It's not like there was much argumentation there, but anybody who knows anything about Dr.

MacArthur's ministry over the years knows that this blood issue is like, how old?

I mean, I remember defending Johnny Mac on that one back in the, at least early 90s.

It goes back into, I think, into the 70s, minimally into the 80s, and has been addressed 142 ,476 times on the

Grace To You website. There are articles there. There's just all sorts of, so let me just, before we replay it again, let's just lay it to rest immediately.

Dr. MacArthur does not deny the efficacy of the sacrificial death of Jesus.

He's not saying that Jesus could have been killed in some other way. What he's arguing against are those people, like these folks, who separate the physical substance of blood from the giving of the life.

So, when you think about the nature of substitutionary atonement, when the scriptures emphasize having been justified by his blood, this is a common term used throughout the

New Testament, but you have to ask yourself the question, what would the people who first read these words and heard them preached have understood them to be saying?

And they would not have understood it in some King James -only, fundamentalist, westernized understanding of blood as a physical substance that almost takes on magical properties or something.

The shedding of blood is the giving of life because the life is in the blood.

So, substitution is the giving of that one perfect life in behalf of others.

I remember in my ancient fundamentalist days, long, long ago, that there was sort of this idea of almost a magical element to the idea of blood, so that people actually get into arguments about how much blood would be required and all the rest of this kind of stuff, and it's an absurdity.

It's the person who gave his life voluntarily on the cross.

It's who he was. He was the God -man, and because he was the

God -man, the voluntary giving of his life is what provides for full atonement.

There is no limitation to the efficacy of that sacrifice.

The question is what the intention of that sacrifice is, and who is united to him in his death.

There is such a shallow, empty doctrine of atonement amongst so many fundamentalists.

It becomes a trope. It doesn't have...

You don't see the relationship of the atoning work of Christ to such things as election, because they don't believe in election, and to the incarnation.

You don't see the relationship, because you don't see it's the life that is being given. You don't understand the centrality of incarnation, why that's important.

By the way, that's really, really important in dealing not only with Eastern Orthodox understandings of these things, but with Muslim understandings of these things.

It has multiple applications. That's why the Christian truth is such a multifaceted, beautiful thing, that once you start putting it into the various holes...

Remember how you used to have at a school, or at work, or something like that, you'd have your little mailbox, your little cubby hole, and people would put notes for you and stuff in there.

What people do is they'll take Christian truth, and they've got their church cubby hole, and their Bible church cubby hole, and their

Jesus, and their atonement, and their God the Father, and eschatology, that's a big one, and all these other little cubby holes they stick stuff in.

That ends up with everything separated out, rather than connected together, rather than seeing the beauty of the

Christian faith as it is a consistent whole. It's funny.

The liberals don't see that, because they don't believe the Scripture is sufficient enough to give you that beauty, and then the independent fundamentalist

Baptists don't see that, because they're afraid of interacting with other people and learning about what's out there, so as to see that, oh,

I never thought of this particular perspective. Even the benefit you get, for example, there are all sorts of different theories of atonement.

And if you don't know what they have been, you can't take the good from even the ones that you would say are insufficient.

And so there is like the Christus Victor model. Well, there is an element of truth to that, but you'll never know that element of truth until you actually are willing to listen to somebody.

But there is whatever, you know, the title of it, Doctrine of Demons. What's the whole point here?

These people are afraid. They are afraid. All this bluster, this yelling, this screaming,

Steve Anderson is a fearful man. These other preachers are fearful men. They are fearful of losing control over their people when their people would listen to something that they actually can't handle.

And one of the primary aspects of fundamentalism is fear.

Fear of encountering anything out there. Well, you know, we send our kids off to school and they came back and they were just completely messed up.

Well, I understand that. Maybe you should have prepared them before you sent them and not prepared them by closing their minds, but by expanding their minds, saying this is what you're going to be told and this is where it's presuppositionally in error, blah, blah, blah, blah.

That's how you do it. Anyway, so getting back to the

MacArthur thing, the whole idea here is that he has a much more biblical and full doctrine of the atonement than the fundamentalists.

Because remember, back in the 60s and 70s, Johnny Mac would have viewed himself as a premillennial dispensationalist in the absolutely strongest fundamental mold.

So it was those guys that came after him when, as he is growing in his theology and growing in his understanding, as he recognizes some of the problems and the narrowness that exists in the mindsets of those groups.

And man, did they go after him just right, left, and center, and you're denying the blood of Christ, and you're denying this, and you're denying that.

And he wasn't. He was just simply saying the blood is not the issue. It is the giving of life.

And that's exactly what the people who originally read the New Testament would have understood. They wouldn't have been going magical stuff and that kind of thing.

So preemptive refutation of the beginning of this here, as well as some necessary mocking of the slowing it down to make emphasis thing.

Come on, guys. I really hope, you know, I mean, maybe it's really fun in iMovie to do something with the speed thing like that, but 12 -year -olds do that on YouTube all the time.

So you might want to skip that. So I don't know where Faith Baptist, I don't know which

Faith Baptist church this is, to be honest with you. And it does bother me that the

Faith Baptist Church presents as off -center. It is. It's off -center. Remember that guy that criticized

R .C. Sproul because their pulpit wasn't in the center of the stage? Just trying to be consistent.

Just trying to be consistent. That sounds like something out of M.

Night Shyamalan thing right there. In fact, we might want to check. They may have stolen it from M.

Night Shyamalan. Calvinism, a doctrine of devils. Got a little color phasing going on there.

That's pretty cool. I'm sure it's preset somewhere in iMovie. Okay, Romans 5 -9.

Being not justified by his blood, which is to say from the wrath of him, because of his giving of his life, the issue was not the copious amount of blood.

And by the way, it would be so easy, if we wanted to use the same kind of argumentation that they do, what we could do here is we could connect them to the papists' argument.

Because they did that to everybody. Just throw that out there. You could have debated 30 of the leading

Roman Catholic apologists in the world. They'll still identify you as a papist. I happen to know this personally. But what we could say, what we could point out, is that Rome does the same thing with the idea of the blood of Christ.

What's the basis of indulgences? Is that the Pope said that all

Jesus had to do was to bleed a single drop of blood. That would have been enough to redeem the entire human race.

Okay, that's where the problem is. Because it doesn't matter how much, it's the giving of the life. It's the giving of the life, that's the only thing that matters.

But since he shed his blood copiously, this creates the thesaurus meritorium, the treasury of merit, to which is added the excess merit of Mary and of the saints, and becomes the basis from which withdrawals are made in the form of indulgences.

So I guess these people must be papists, right? I mean, okay, that's absurd, but that's the same reasoning they use, so why not?

We are not saved by his blood.

But we are not saved by his blood. You know, it would be great, maybe somebody will ask

Phil, Phil might have the resources to do this, but I would love to see the rest of the sentence, you know?

When you play a sentence, and when you know, I mean, the guy's

New Testament commentaries are like all over the place, I mean, they're on street corners, I mean, they're so readily available.

Do you really, who are you aiming this at? Anybody who reads MacArthur knows what he believes about this centrality of the cross and the resurrection and everything else.

Who are you trying to fool? You really wonder.

One of the great and ghastly errors, not just error, but heresies that permeate the evangelical world today is the doctrine of the carnal

Christian. Paul said, I am carnal. Yeah, but that ain't what

R .C. Sproul was talking about now, is it? Now, I have no earthly idea what

Anderson was talking about here, but hey, they threw him in with his really super cheesy wave -breaking -on -the -shore background stuff, so they're evidently thinking that what he's saying, when

Paul says, I am carnal, that means that there is a proper concept of the carnal

Christian doctrine, which, again, very popular amongst independent fundamentalist

Baptists, and it's the, you know, it goes with the non -lordship type of idea, the never -examine -yourself -to -see -whether -you're -in -the -faith type of idea.

It's the difference between once -saved -always -saved and the perseverance of the saints.

Those are two different things. They are not the same thing. Sometimes they can be used interchangeably, if the person intends it to be that way, but in most situations, when folks like this use once -saved -always -saved, what they mean is you get your ticket punched, you can go live like you want.

You can just be a carnal Christian, live like you want, you're in the flesh, the Spirit of God absolutely, completely fails.

Just faceplant fails in bringing about any sanctification in your life. But hey, you're still going to heaven because you got your ticket punched.

That's the independent fundamentalist Baptist concept. That's not sola fide.

That is not sola fide. Can I say that again? That is not sola fide. That is not what faith alone means.

This, again, is what you get when you disconnect the elements. Does God have a purpose in election?

How is he going to accomplish that? You can't talk about election. You can't talk about these types of things. You just take these individual snippets and there you go.

Ah, here we go. How many times have we dealt with this one, especially when this got added?

What did George Bryson call this? Remember, he put out a new edition of his book about three or four years ago, maybe four or five years ago now.

And I didn't know he had done it. And I got hold of it somewhere. Man, I'm wondering, you know what?

Let me check this out here. George Bryson.

D -T -T -T. Is this the original one here?

Those of you who are listening are wondering what in the world I'm doing. Uh... Nah, this looks like the original

VeloBound one. And I thought a new one came out.

And maybe it did. Maybe I got it electronically or something like that. I don't know. But here is the original one. Don't you love the dark side of Calvinism?

Could we slow... Do you have a filter like they've got? So I could even go lower.

The dark side of Calvinism. Something like that. If I get that normal cough

I get sometime during this, that always does it. I can compete with Barry White on that one.

But anyway, this was from the Bible Answer Man radio program, stating that God decrees the rape of children.

And this was, you know, we have this available, of course. It's on Sermon Audio, I assume.

You can listen to it on Sermon Audio. The three -hour Bible Answer Man debate. I can't tell you how many people

I've met who became reformed as a result of that. I've had people come up to me all across the world, literally, saying, when

I first heard that I was yelling at my radio and I was angry at you. Just, you know...

We're not talking one person. We're talking dozens of people that I've met around the world.

Not just in the United States, but in Europe, in South Africa, all over the place. And they first listened to that and they were on the other side.

But anybody who listens to that program knows what happened in that program. And they know that it was a setup.

They know it was an ambush. They know that Hank Hanegraaff was working with George Bryson. I learned who had been doing the preparations and they were supposed to be working together.

The problem is that Hank learned that day that you cannot work with George Bryson to try to trip people up.

Because George just doesn't work on that level. And so it ended up being actually a tremendous advertisement for Reformed Theology.

This is the only thing they can drag out. As I try to say, see, they isolate it from the entire discussion of what you have in Isaiah, what you have in Psalms, what you have in the teaching of Scripture.

God has a divine decree and that, yes, even the existence of evil is a part of God's divine decree.

If it is not, then it's purposeless. It has no reason. And at that point,

Hank was trying to protect Georgianist because George's theology is not deep enough. He hasn't thought it through well enough to answer questions that are at the top level of the discussion, that are on primary issues.

Primary issues like God's entire purpose in creation, the basis of God's knowledge, that type of stuff is not the

George Bryson type stuff. And so he was trying to steer it away from that. In fact, Hank got angry with me, if you listen carefully.

He got angry with me because I pointed out that the only direction that George could go with what he was saying about the knowledge of God was toward open theism.

I said, are you an open theist? And Hank's like, he's not an open theist. I said, well, that would be the consistent result of this type of argumentation.

But yeah, once again, you're dealing with people here who want the worst horrible things in life to be completely random acts that God goes, oh no, well,

I'll do my best to try to make something good come out of this. That's the

God they want. That's their perspective. In fact, yesterday on Twitter, Hasim, son of Ramallah, was having an interaction with somebody that I gather is a

Lutheran, but one of the really, really, really anti -reformed Lutherans. There are some Lutherans that aren't overly anti -reformed, but a lot of them are very anti -Reformation theology,

Calvinism. And something was posted, one of the memes of my saying that, you know,

Christ never fails to save any one of those for whom he died and so on and so forth.

And his response was, what a puny God. You know, wanting to say,

I have nothing. You are not a Christian. I have nothing. That attitude is extremely common.

It's extremely common. If you want to be accepted in the broad spectrum of things, you would never hold the positions that I have held and continue to hold and defend along these lines.

You just wouldn't do it. He was raped. Is God responsible, and did he decree that rape? If he didn't, then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.

Yeah, so I'm going to be really interested. Knowing these types of folks, seeing the movies they've put out before, there's not going to be an answer to that.

It's just going to be laid out there, and the assumption is going to be these people are such sheeplings that they will just simply go, oh, and they'll never think about it.

And they'll never go, oh, well, if something horrible happens, is it better that God knew it was going to happen but didn't have any purpose for it, or is it better that he actually has a fundamental purpose for everything, being his eventual glorification?

Huh, I wonder which one is better. Well, there you go. God doesn't need me to round up the elect.

God doesn't need me to round up the elect. R .C. Sproul was not saying, and that means we can just go out and do absolutely positively in anything we want.

That's not what he was saying. And it is absolute misrepresentation to say that he was.

Why else was this put in there? Other than to try to insinuate to people that what

Reformed people are saying is that we have no role in evangelism.

Once again, God ordains the ends as well as the means.

And so if we want to love God, we are going to obey him and do what he commands, and he commands us to proclaim his truth.

I have a feeling, I haven't looked it up, maybe the folks at Ligonier would like to track down the exact context of that so they can be ready to demonstrate the misuse and abuse of it,

I would suggest it, but my guess would be that he's dealing with man -centered forms of evangelism where you utilize emotionalism, programs, basically try to trick people into a commitment to Christ rather than reliance upon the gospel.

That's just a wild guess. Who knows, maybe. Hey, here's this guy

I've seen before, and he's upright here. This is good. Sorry, Jeff, but you've got to admit we're going to have to use that a few times in the future.

And that God actually is the one who grants repentance and faith in salvation. Then they blow up Jeff.

God grants repentance and faith in salvation. Yeah, that's what the

Bible teaches. Now, will this film engage

Philippians 129, which says it has been granted to us not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for his sake?

It's been granted to us, given to us as a gift to believe. Oh, that sounds like faith is a gift.

Will they deal with the best understanding of Ephesians 2, which is not a statement that the only gift that is given, that the gift from God is faith, but that everything in the preceding clause, because it's a neuter, feminine, two masculines, it's all wrapped up in one, that all of salvation, including faith, is a gift of God.

Will they deal with that? Will they deal with Peter's utilization of identification of faith as a gift?

How about repentance? God grants repentance, that that repentance leads you into salvation.

Will they deal with any of these things, or do you just simply throw it out there that these people are saying this and hope that the prejudice in the audience is sufficient to carry the point?

When your argumentation, when your materials are dependent upon the prejudice of the people in the audience,

I have no respect for that. That is not a person who has a commitment to truthfulness, or even has any confidence that the truth will be used by God to accomplish

God's purposes. Well, if you don't think God has any actual purposes as in a decree, well, I guess that's how it works.

Featuring... Pastor Joe Major in Faith Baptist Church.

So, Google Pastor Joe Major Faith Baptist Church. I want to know where this place is, because first of all, he needs to get in touch with Stephen Anderson's artist, because that's just a single big old print behind him.

He needs waves crashing on the shore, or maybe a desert scene, something really cheesy along those lines.

People might want to contact him to offer their services to draw on the wall back there.

We can't have these guys feeling intimidated by Stephen Anderson. Did you find him?

Louisiana! Tyler? Violet? Violet, Louisiana.

And Baton Rouge. Wait a minute, it's a multi -campus?

No way. Okay, alright. So, Faith Baptist Church, Pastor Joe Major, down in Louisiana.

He's going to be the main guy there. "...to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding."

And then, of course, we've got Kick the Pulpit, Stephen Anderson. Kick the

Pulpit, get yourself tazed. Stephen Anderson right there. Evangelist Adam Fannin.

Steadfast Baptist Church. It says Jax, that must be Jacksonville. So we've got

Adam Fannin. A new one to me. I'm not sure why

Steadfast is not spelled correctly, but that's okay. Might just be a cool thing,

I don't know. "...but there were false prophets also." And here come the false prophets! We've got

Paul Washer, yes. Yes, Paul Washer has done nothing but explode missions around the world and do stuff like that.

Yeah, okay, there's Paul Washer. "...on the people, even as there shall be..." Well, the freakishly tall one is going to get shot at in here.

There you go, Todd. "...false teachers among you, who privily shall bring..."

Yeah, go after the dead, why don't you. Actually, even if he was alive, R .C. would not pay the slightest attention.

He just left all this to the rest of us. I would tell him stories about some of these folks, and he'd just go, really, there are people like that?

"...damnable heresies, even denying the Lord..." Yeah, good old Johnny Mac. Terrible, horrible dude.

Oh, John Piper! You know, the funny... Most people are not aware of this.

They find it strange. I've never met John Piper, but I will next month. So, for the first time.

I mean, as long as everything works out. But at G3, I'm finally going to get to meet

John Piper. And I've been told that he is so energetically, like, sucks the life force out of you.

So you might want to be well -slept. You know, have a good night's sleep beforehand. Sort of like Princess Bride, you know, that sucks life out of you.

"...pernicious ways. By reason alone, the way of truth should be evil spoken of.

And through covetousness..." I just don't... I'm just really bummed out. I mean, and I've got a nice big beard now, too.

What if... Look, guys, you blew it. Because I would look so much more evil, and fit into your schemes a whole lot better, if you had the beard thing going.

Because, you know, just a little goatee there is just like, you know... "...eyes of you..." Ah, Spurgeon, thank you! Oh, Calvin?

Now he had the beard thing going. Yeah, alright. Coming in 2019. Well, I'm getting my tickets.

I don't know about the rest of you. Folks, sometimes there are just certain things that deserve reviews like that.

It's a -coming. It is a -coming. Wow. Wow.

A bunch of people asked me to take a look at this, and I'll be perfectly honest with you. Greg Laurie...

Okay, we're going to have a lot of things to disagree about, but this isn't all that bad for someone...

Hey, it's not like what you would just listen to. But I would like to offer just a thought or two on it.

It's very, very brief, and it's extremely common. So instead of having the in -your -face, nasty attacks upon Reformed theology and doctrines of demons and all the rest of the stuff, a lot of folks just try to sort of redefine the issues and say, nobody really knows.

You know, there's no reason to be preaching all this stuff because, you know, it's like Spurgeon said.

He's going to quote Spurgeon. He's going to say, you know, how do you reconcile God's sovereignty and man's free will? I don't reconcile friends.

Well, that's nice. That's sort of like the, well, you know, the sovereignty of God and the free will of man are like the two rails of the railroad.

And when you stand in the middle of the rails and the railroad, and if it's straight going toward the horizon, you'll notice that they come closer and closer, and eventually in the infinite mind of God, in eternity itself, they meet together.

There's two problems with that. First of all, if the rails, the railroad ever meet, the train crashes.

Okay? Even if it's at, even in eternity, that happens. And if you stay in the middle of the railroad to look down, that thing, you're going to get run over by the train.

Okay. So there are two problems. It's a very, very common illustration.

I get it. I understand. And I know when people are trying to, you know, cause you know,

I've heard this sort of number of times, I guess Moody used it, that election is like a gate, you know?

And on the one side it says, whosoever will. But when you walk through and you turn around and look back, it says you have not chosen me, but I've chosen you.

The problem is that text from John is about the disciples and it's about apostleship and it's not really about election at all.

And the other thing is that the problem with that is whosoever will, and all you got to do is walk through.

That's synergism. That is the idea that you're out there and it's, you know,

God wants you to walk through. He's doing his best. He's put all sorts of neat things on the other side for you to want to walk through the gate, but it's up to you whether you're going to walk through the gate or not.

And the biblical teaching is not that you're staying on the other side of the gate going, oh, it looks like some nice stuff over there, but do

I really want that kind of stuff? No, you're dead. You are dead, intertrespass. In fact, the last thing on this world you want to do is to walk to that gate because that means bowing the knee to the lordship of Christ and repentance and faith and dying to self.

No, no, no, no, no, no. I don't want to do any of that. You're running as hard as you can the other direction because being dead in sin means

I don't want any of that. So that's why I have a problem with the minimization type of argumentation.

It says, you know, it doesn't really matter that much. No, it really does matter all that much. That's why it's central to Paul's presentation of the gospel.

That's why Romans 8 and 9 are there for a reason and they tie things together and they're vitally important and there's a reason

Ephesians starts off with Ephesians chapter 1. No, you can't just simply say, well, you know, nobody really knows and you know, la, la, la, la, la.

So that's why I want to play this brief little comment here and we'll comment.

You know, some people get so tied up in theological pretzels over the teaching of free will and predestination.

What do those terms mean? Well, predestination means that God knows everything. God decides everything and God chooses us before we choose him.

Predestined. In fact, Jesus even said, you've not chosen me but I've chosen you and you would go forth and bring forth much fruit.

But then there's free will. All those verses in the Bible that appeal to our will.

John 3, 16. Whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Revelation 22. Whosoever will, let him come and drink of the water of life freely.

Christ himself saying, come unto me all you that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. So we get confused.

We go, wait, wait. Do we choose or does God predestine us? Now, let me just stop for a second.

I was just going to let it play through. But it's a little over two minutes. So I might forget by the time we get farther in.

I'm sure that this reflects Brother Laurie's understanding of what the issues are.

But those texts weren't about free will. Unless you're just simply assuming that if there are any commands, if there are any invitations, then that must mean that man has libertarian free will.

That's the assumption. And when you present it like that, what you're doing is you're sort of precluding your audience from thinking through the real issues that would connect them back with people in church history that have wrestled with these things for a long, long time.

Which is really not what most people want to be doing anyways. We don't really care about what people in church history actually once said.

Anyway. But when we ask the question, does the

Bible address man's capacities and choices? It does.

It does. How many times do we have phrases like, ooh, dunatite, not able.

Those who are according to flesh are not able to do what is pleasing to God. They are not able to submit themselves to the law of God.

Unless you're drawn by the Father, you are not able to come to Christ. You are not able to hear my words because you don't belong to God.

Aren't these the key texts we should be going to where you have a direct teaching being put forward that says this is the incapacity that is mankind's outside of the grace of God and regeneration?

Shouldn't that be where we go? Instead of just going, well, you know, if it says, you know, choose ye this day, then you must have a libertarian free will.

Well, that's really not listening to all of what scripture has to say. If scripture says that you are bound in sin and dead in sin and that, like, you know, the leopard can't get rid of his spots any more than you can do good in another shelf, you've got to put all that together.

And these systems just don't seem to be overly concerned about putting these things together into a consistent whole.

That's one of the problems. And the teaching of Calvinism, which is usually called total depravity,

The teaching of Calvinism is called total depravity? Well, there is an element of Reformed theology that includes total depravity, but that's subservient to and less central than the overarching teaching of the absolute sovereignty of God over all things and creator of all things and accomplishing his purposes and everything else.

It means that you're so depraved and dead in your sin, you don't even have the ability to choose at all.

You have to be awakened by the Spirit. You don't have the ability to choose Christ.

That's Jesus' own words in John 6. Those are his own words. No one can come to me unless the

Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

That's Jesus' words. I know there are—we've gone over, over the years, it's only about Jews living in that day.

They'll never apply that to John 5 or John 7 or John 3 or anything else, but that's what they do.

The inconsistencies are grand, but Jesus stated that. Notice the misrepresentation here, and I think it's not purposeful.

It's just simply—I don't think Greg Laurie spends a whole lot of time reflecting on Reformed theology in his circles.

It wouldn't get him very far. Cannot choose. No, what it means is that your choices are constrained to a narrow spectrum that is reflective of your spiritual death.

So you choose. There are some people who choose to express their rebellion in very open ways, like atheism.

Other people choose to express their rebellion in religious ways. There's lots of different ways.

It's not that you've stopped choosing, it's just that the range of choices that you have are limited due to the fact you're spiritually dead.

That's why Jesus said, Why can't you hear my words? Because you don't belong to God. Oh, you can just choose to hear his words.

That's not what Jesus said. That's the opposite of what Jesus said. You've been chosen by God, and you better just hope you have not been predestined to hell, because they believe, some believe that you're predestined to hell, and others are predestined to heaven.

I reject that completely. Yeah, well, you know, there is no phrase that I can find anywhere that says predestined to hell.

You are taking that, and the result is that you end up creating in people's minds the idea of equal ultimacy.

And what is equal ultimacy? Equal ultimacy is the idea that the positive decree of salvation, predestination unto life, is equal to, it's just an equal sign to predestination unto death.

This is very common amongst the Calvary Chapel type folks in how they want to present this.

The problem is, you have to differentiate between the two. There is a small element of truth in that both are a part of God's overarching decree, and that's all they're concerned about.

Again, if you're going to be honest with the Scriptures, however, the predestination unto life requires the incarnation, the saving grace of God, just the tremendous extension of God's power in raising someone to spiritual life and providing for the spirit of God to make real in their experience what has been provided to them by Christ even before they've come into conscious existence in this life and all the rest of this stuff.

None of that is required for what we call the reprobate. Those that God has chosen will experience

His justice. There's a vast difference between the two.

What joins the two together is that the ultimate decision that results in these two different things comes from God, because God works all things after the

Council as well. But the nature of what God does for the one and for the other are two very different things, and it's very common amongst the

Calvary Chapel type folks to just skip over that. That's primarily George Bryson's fault, to be honest with you.

God has not predestined anyone for hell, because the

Bible says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Now again, no evidence.

When you hear folks just throwing out 2 Peter 3 and 9 or Matthew 23, 37, 1

Timothy 2, 3, 4, just throwing it out there without any context and without even trying to recognize that there is serious, meaningful, original language -based, context -based, consistent exegesis of these texts that does not support their use, it really makes me wonder if they've ever even taken a moment to go,

I wonder if my use of this text is accurate. I wonder what these people, haven't they ever read these texts?

Well, of course we have. So, I know, I can tell you how synergists, such as Greg Laurie, try to give responses to ours and respond to that, but very often

I don't see that coming from the other perspective. We tend to invest significantly more effort in accuracy of representation on their side than they do in ours.

So far as to say, well, I don't even want to preach the gospel because I might give false assurance to the non -elect.

Are you serious? I guess that would only be relevant to certain hyper -Calvinists who will refrain from offering the hope of the gospel to someone until they have seen what they interpret to be evidence of regeneration.

I don't know of almost any of those people. I don't know if the Hernandez -Zacariades group falls into that.

There have been English hyper -Calvinists like that.

Obviously, they're not big groups, but they are out there, as rare as they might be.

But again, and he did say some of them, but something tells me he's not run into them.

I'll take that back. Look, if I can have... I've got a stalker guy in Europe.

Oh, by the way, I didn't tell you this, but that same stalker guy in Europe, does he send you stuff?

No, that's really weird. Because every church I'm going to, this guy is sending tons of email to.

He's just following me around wherever I go. I had this stalker guy show up in Frankfurt. He drove six hours to get there.

At least I'm glad he's over there. But that's the kind of completely imbalanced...

I'm not saying he's a hyper -Calvinist. I have no idea what he is. He's loopy. But if I can have folks like that show up when

I'm speaking at a church in Frankfurt, and we only announced it like two weeks earlier, because we threw that trip together really quick for other reasons, then

I suppose some hyper -Calvinist might show up at a Greg Laurie event or something like that.

So maybe he's random. I doubt he has any idea how prevalent they might be. And again, we make clear distinctions between various perspectives in the synergistic side, but it's not so very often that they make clear distinctions amongst us.

You've been commanded by Jesus to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

It's all sorted out by God. I don't worry about it. I like the words of the evangelist

D .L. Moody, who said, Lord, save the elect, and then elect some more. If he said that, then we have to disagree with it.

Because that's not showing a proper understanding of what election is, what its purpose is, what its foundation is, the mechanism by which you draw the elect to Christ, the idea of union with Christ.

It's troubling when you think of it in its full application, but anyway.

Spurgeon was once asked if he could reconcile election and free will. He said,

I don't even try. I never reconcile friends. Look, the truth of the matter is, is predestination and free will are in the

Bible. Sometimes they're right next to each other. My job is to proclaim the gospel. My job is to call people to Christ.

Now, again, you will see God's predestination and man's responsibility in the exact same text.

There's no question about that. But one determines the reality of the function of the place of the other.

And, you know, honestly, we say this on Radio Free Geneva every single time probably we do it, but the difference is between having a man -centered theology and a

God -centered theology. God's freedom must condition and determine the characteristics of man's freedom.

If you don't have a sovereign God that can create man and determine for man what his role is, what his law will say for man, if your

God is so disconnected that we are basically equal free agents, that's going to result in a very different system.

It's going to result in a very different method of evangelism, very different gospel presentation, very different apologetics.

It's, yeah, it's going to be a very, very, very different kind of thing. Our job is to get the message out to as many people as possible.

Well, how do you know if you're chosen by God? Believe in Jesus Christ and you just confirm you've been chosen by God.

Now that's not an overly bad statement to make. You know, what is the best way to know, to make your own calling and election sure?

Continued faith in Jesus Christ. There is no question that that is an appropriate thing.

I'm not sure that, you know, that's a pretty cool jacket. You know, did you see how it,

I mean, that's, to say that's slick, it looks like it is slick. That's a pretty cool jacket there.

And I'm not sure I could pull that off, but I did speak numerous times in a coogee.

I wore this coogee. You saw that? That's good, that's good.

And I'm sure you were rejoicing to see the beauty of the coogee there.

I do enjoy driving Rich crazy. I really do. I've never given him a coogee because I...

Did I? You handed it back to me. That probably really hurt a lot, you know.

That may explain a lot of things in my life, that I'm still dealing with the rejection and the hurt and the pain, things like that.

You know. But I haven't thought about it recently because I just don't want to see it burned.

So, but, you know, if you ever repent of your anti -coogee -ism just let me know and I'll do my best.

Should I come up with something for you? Anyways, I plan to go to 1230 if that's okay. Or time periods around there.

But when I was in Pryor, shortly after I got there, we did a program, dividing line there.

Actually worked out fairly well. And I responded to a particular element, a particular portion of a

Stephen Anderson video on limited atonement and against limited atonement obviously.

So I thought I'd pick up a couple other texts because folks enjoyed the

Hebrews 2 .9 exegesis and what this does is it allows people, those who are honest -hearted and want to do this, it allows people to compare and contrast the kind of treatment of the biblical text they will see in that upcoming video that they hear from folks like Stephen Anderson with what's offered by the other side.

And given how many people I encounter at various churches who come up to me and how many times over the years have

I said on this program, until Calvary Chapel starts dealing meaningfully with Reformed Theology and starts representing it accurately,

Calvary Chapel will continue to be an organization that will produce

Calvinists. It's going to keep chunking them out because they tell you, read your

Bible, study your Bible, memorize Scripture, but if you're not dealing with Reformed Theology in a meaningful fashion, people are going to find it because it's there.

It's right there on the page. And so that's why we can do

Radio Free Geneva and we can let the other side speak. Don't even have to worry about it. We're not fundamentalists.

We're not afraid. We're not fearful. We can let the other side speak and respond and have confidence in the truth of God.

It's a wonderful thing to have confidence in. I don't have any confidence in me. I'm a jerk. I could get run over by a truck tomorrow.

The kingdom of God is going to continue going on. But God's truth is

God's truth and it's a powerful thing. So let's catch a little bit of Steven Anderson action here before we wrap things up on Radio Free Geneva today.

Well, all doesn't mean all. Okay, go to Romans 5. And while you're turning there, I'll read for you another verse that uses the word all.

Titus 2 -11 says, For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.

Earlier he said, If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me. Okay, so in just a brief portion there, you have two texts just thrown out.

No exegesis offered. No context read. Just throw them out there and what you've done is you've told your people that all means all and that's all all means.

Well, of course, there are just too many places where all doesn't mean all that it has a particular context.

There are too many places where all means all types of something or all kinds of something. They're trying to keep you from thinking in proper categories to just get on to the the group think and just go with the flow.

So let's just throw out some Bible verses. Let's not worry about whether our application is correct or not.

And look, we all do this at some point or another but it does always when you do quick proof texting type stuff, it always raises the concern that you may not be handling the text appropriately.

A very good example of this is in Titus chapter 2. It was just thrown out there.

It's one of my favorite texts. And this is actually in an interesting section.

Titus 2 .9 Urge Duluth which here says bond slaves could simply be slaves.

Urge slaves to be obedient to or subject to idios despotis their own masters.

Remember we talked about despot despot and lord in Jude a couple programs ago in Jude 4 description of Jesus.

Urge bond servants to be subject to their own masters in everything to be well -pleasing not speaking back, speaking against, argumentative, not pilfering or stealing but showing all good faith so they will what?

In order that the teaching of our

Savior of God our Savior would be adorned would be made beautiful in every respect.

So this is the context that how could you do that?

How could a slave adorn the doctrine of God our

Savior by his behavior? It would require grace. And that's what Titus 2 .11

is about but of course he only quoted a part of the sentence which is how you have to do things.

Because if you read this in its context you couldn't make the application that he's making unless you want to be a universalist unless you want to believe that salvation has truly been brought to all men all men have been saved

Oh no, all men are potentially saved Ah, where did you get that word potential from again?

What does that mean? For the grace of God has appeared now here is the question for the grace

He caris trutheo, the grace of God soterios salvation posson anthropois

Now that can be understood the word bringing is it's an interpolation there's no verb other than appeared for the grace of God has appeared salvation to all men and so what is the assumed the assumed verb well that's a good question that's a very good question and it can be translated to for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men or bring salvation to all men in either case how do you avoid universalism?

I really wonder because remember Anderson has had modalists pop up in his congregation and I've seen videos of him yelling at him and screaming and getting him dragged out of the thing by name and stuff like that it must be a zoo in there on a regular basis but I wonder if he had universalists starting to pop up in his congregation what he would do then because Arminians synergists especially those who attack the specific nature of the atoning work of Christ that is who reject the idea that God has a sovereign decree that defines the elect the son dies the elect are united with him his death is their death, his resurrection is their resurrection the spirit comes and applies that work at the appointed time, at the decreed time in the life of those individuals and so you have perfect harmony this is the view of trinitarian harmony in atonement trinitarian harmony in atonement that would be

T -H -I -A can we come up with a new a beautiful logo,

T -H -I -A trinitarian harmony in atonement then that sounds better than limited atonement doesn't it?

he just sat there staring at me without changing the expression of his face at all and just went, no

I think it's beautiful but I think coogies are beautiful and he can sit there and go no to that too so this is just you want an example of a miracle folks?

30 years 30 years Rich Pearce and I have managed to survive without one of the two of us pulling one of these laughing that's why like I said yeah, yeah, that's why like I said my office is over here and his office is over there and there's a long distance between laughing we have fun around here anyway trinitarian harmony in atonement

I like this, T -H -I -A sounds a little bit like, too much like a T -I -A or T -G -A which we won't even get into but T -H -I -A, trinitarian harmony in atonement it's a super valid point that I've never seen any of these people even try to address, even acknowledge its existence that part of the power of the reformed understanding of atonement is the consistency that it bears, the harmony that it testifies to between the work of the

Father the Son and the Spirit you can see for example, you know have you ever noticed one of the major problems in synergistic

Armenian soteriology in many Baptist churches I remember at the big big

Baptist church I was a member of years ago when I first started grabbing hold of reformed theology I remember being really put off by the fact that there would be people in my

Sunday school classes that would say things along the lines of, well I'm just really glad that Jesus came along because he's just so much nicer than God the

Father you know, God the Father in the Old Testament is really angry and he wipes out nations and stuff like that, but then

Jesus came and made God nice where does that come from? it comes from the fact that they don't see the harmony of God's intentions and purposes from creation to redemption and to the final summing up of all things there's no covenant, there's no concept of the covenant of grace there's no purpose from beginning to end they don't see the harmony of what the

Father does and the Son does and the Spirit does the Trinitarian harmony in atonement is simply a part of Trinitarian harmony in the gospel and it shows the love of God the love of God is consistent from Father, Son and Spirit and if you don't see these things that's why

I think you have a lot of the problems that you have so in Titus 2 .11

the grace of God has appeared bring salvation to all men now if you say bring salvation to all men you either have to believe in universalism or you have to recognize that it's talking about kinds of men now,

I believe it's talking about kinds of men why? because of the next part of the same sentence you know, like I said

I'm really thankful for Stephanos putting the verses in, but the problem is in the modern mind the unit of meaning ends when the next verse begins and we don't see that we have to have to, have to, have to we get so upset when someone interprets only a part of a sentence that we said but we do it to God's word constantly all the time what's interesting is this grace of God which is the subject of the beginning of the sentence is said to instruct us it's literally it's the realm of words used of children, a paideia and it's the training up of children so instructing as children instructing us so this is a grace that instructs it communicates knowledge and what is the knowledge that it communicates?

it instructs us to and it uses the clause here, but to deny ungodliness and worldly passions so that would not mean to tell us to be dispassionate but not to have worldly passion epithemia and to live

I love this Sophranos sensibly soberly in a disciplined fashion wisely and righteously and godly in this present age so there is a bunch that we could get into at that point but a couple things to notice first of all just on a beneficial to every believer this day basis the grace of god that saved you did not leave you in your sin and the grace of god that saves you is constantly what's behind that conviction of sin that conviction when you become apathetic and oh, is that easy to do in this world today?

to become apathetic, to become so consumed with the things around us and our possessions and how busy we are and all the stuff we've got to get done just to become apathetic at least

I'm not out there in the world but I've become friends with the world the warfare has ceased no, the grace of god that saves is a grace that does two things, it teaches you to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and if you run into someone who loves worldly desires and loves ungodliness but tries to pretend they shook somebody's hand one time down front at a revival meeting so that means they've got it right with Jesus they don't know the grace of god they are as lost as a goose they are as lost as a goose the grace of god this is totally anti the quote unquote free grace, easy grace, cheap grace anti lordship movement this text

I think is one of the greatest refutations of that horrific departure from New Testament Christianity because the grace that saves salvation the grace that brings salvation is a grace that teaches you to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and if it doesn't that's not the grace of god that has brought salvation but it also positively it positively teaches it's teaching you, don't do this but it doesn't just leave you there it's not just the negative stuff positively you are to live sensibly wisely humbly, soberly in a disciplined fashion and in a righteous way and in a godly way and god's grace will teach us to do that through exposure to the preaching the word, through exposure to the scriptures and prayer and interaction with other believers so on and so forth in this present age, looking for verse 13, continued same sentence looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great god and savior,

Jesus Christ the Granville Sharp construction identifying Jesus as our great god and savior there in verse 13 it's all one sentence and so the question then becomes for Mr.

Anderson and for those who utilize his kind of argumentation if the grace of god has appeared bringing salvation to all men and all men are not being taught to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly and righteously and godly in this present age, then you've got a problem because the grace of god you're talking about comes to all sorts of people that never have a thought about living a godly life not even a thought so the only way to consistently interpret the sentence which takes up three verses is that the same people who are brought salvation by this grace in verse 11, are those who live soberly and righteously denying worldly lusts in verse 12, and who are looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of our great god and savior,

Jesus Christ, doesn't that define who is being referred to in verse 11?

Yeah, it does. So here again, you have somebody who just throws out a verse doesn't exegete it, doesn't put it in its context, and when the rest of us stop and go, could we have some time to read that and to consider that and to do so soberly we discover that he is abusing the scriptures that he is not presenting them to us in a meaningful fashion.

Well, still have about five minutes very, very quickly, I will just cover, we've talked about this before, but John 12, 32 and if I am lifted up from the earth,

I will draw pantos pros hematon I will draw all men unto myself we normally deal with John 12, 32 because it is quoted as an antidote, as a contradiction to our interpretation of John 6 and the drawing of the father there in John 6, which is plainly of an elect people who are drawn to Christ by God the

Father, and God the Father reveals his son to them. And people will say, ah, but Jesus said he's going to draw all men, every single person, without exception to himself.

And as we've pointed out, and I pointed out on the dividing line a few weeks ago when we did Radio Free Geneva, I think

I covered this particular text in responding to Justin Brierley, but maybe

I didn't, but I have many, many times before. This is in the context of Greeks coming to see

Jesus. Jesus hides himself from them. He does not reveal himself to them.

And so when it says, if I be lifted up from the earth, and this is indicating in crucifixion, this is not as in being exalted in preaching or something like that, because the very next verse says, but he was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which he was to die.

So he was indicating the kind of death he was going to die, which is upon the cross. Now, simple, simple answer to this question.

Not only can it not be read back into the context of John 6, because then nobody back in John 6 would have understood what was being said.

You can't take something from later on and read it back in here as if it was missing, because then everybody would be going, ah, don't get it.

Jesus is a better teacher than that. But in this context, a simple question to ask someone, if they're saying, see, every single human being, well, first of all, it couldn't have been people before Christ, right?

So it's not Pontos in the sense of everyone who has ever existed. It's going to have to be a limited all, even at that point, to those after the cross, and even then, there's all sorts of people who have never heard of the cross.

So the Pontos has got to be very, very limited basically on the basis of the proclamation of the gospel.

But let's say in the days of Paul as he's proclaiming

Mars Hill, Acts 17, proclaiming the gospel there and talks about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Does Paul teach that the cross draws men to itself?

All men to itself? Or is it the plain apostolic teaching that that same message of the cross is to certain people, foolishness, repulsive, the stench of death, while to other people, those being saved, those perishing, but those being saved, power of God, righteousness of God, life unto life.

Isn't that the biblical teaching? I mean, are you really wanting to say that what Jesus is saying in John 12, 32 is that the cross draws everybody?

Well, okay, not everybody. Everybody after the cross. Okay, not everybody after the cross. Only people that hear about it. Okay, it's not everybody you hear about.

It's those who are being saved. It's the elect who are drawn by the message of the cross. And so the

Pontos is all kinds of men. That's what's fulfilled back in John chapter 11, the prayer of the high priest, how

Jesus' death was going to save not only Jews but Gentiles, book of Revelation, Revelation chapter 5, by your blood you have redeemed men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

This is consistent with, and in this case, everything I just quoted just now were all from the same author,

John. That's his language. If you will allow him to define his own parameters in his own meaning, that's where the meaning is going to be.

So every time we stop and we analyze, so far we've done three of the verses that Steven Anderson has thrown out there, all three of them, he's abused, misused.

We've provided a full and meaningful response to every single one. Don't you think we'll be able to keep doing that?

Yeah, yeah, we will. We will. Why? Because Steven Anderson does not properly handle the

Word of God. So there is Radio Free Geneva for today. I'm going to have to,

I have a feeling that a certain somebody is probably going to be sending in video clips of bad stuff against Calvinism just simply to prompt a faster return to Radio Free Geneva so that we can hear the new edition of the theme song for Radio Free Geneva next time around.

So some of you are just going to be like, come on, just do it! We want to hear it! We'll see.

We'll see. We'll see when we get around to it. Thanks for watching the program today, Lord Willen. We'll see you later in the week.