March 21, 2006

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Conference Planning and the Need for Early Registration

And welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning, you know one of the advantages of the upcoming conference we're going to be having which Evidently a lot of folks think is a long long long ways away but in reality, it's not a long long long ways away and Those of you who have been putting off for getting everything taken care of that.

Don't do that. You you need to make your reservations for your rooms like really really really soon like this month like for the end of this month. Or it's going to have like major impact on everything that we do and can do and can't do and so on so forth.

So, please please please stop putting that off if you're playing going one of the advantages of the topic Public crimes is that we can I mean, there's a lot of stuff there. I can't I can't think of a conference we've done that would have more for a wider variety of people than what we're doing here and One of the areas one of the things that we can do with the topic that we have is if there is a You know Major issue that develops between now and then or is currently developing there's plenty of room to deal with it because we're talking about what takes place in regards to the preaching and The ministry of the word from the pulpit and there is so much that needs to be discussed in that area but also if there is an issue that is illustrative of the degradation of The preaching of the word from the pulpit then we can we can work that in we can make that available as Far as something that will be addressed.

And so I do hope that you will take the advantage take opportunity and take advantage of the website take a look at at what we have coming up in the conference and the cruise and join with us because we have a wonderful group of of godly men who will be speaking and And some very important subjects speaking of important subjects what prompted me to Think along those lines.

Was the fact that? While I do have the dr. Davis Sermon queued up ready to go. In fact, I've finally learned how to use a cue list in Adobe Edition. Finally, you'd think after all these years. I'd always been doing that but I wasn't but I got it working now.

Imputed Righteousness and the Meaning of Justification

I'd like to take a few minutes just to comment on a current situation that exists out there. I noticed Steve Camp's blog this morning and was looking at his commentary and I noticed yesterday. I'm a little bit behind on these things.

I I only read the digest version of the Reformed Baptist discussion list. And so a little slow getting to the party shall we say in regards to the fact that just recently Another individual came out in a position of influence, I guess you should say we should say Taking aim at the historic doctrine certainly the doctrine that is plainly and specifically asserted in the Reformed Baptist confession of faith the confession of faith that my church uses and that I certainly have a close attachment to in regards to the issue of the nature of our justification if we look at what the Chapter 11 of the 1689 London Confession in modern language, it says God freely justifies the persons whom he effectually calls.

He does this not by infusing righteousness into them But by pardoning their sins and by counting them and accepting them as righteous. This he does for Christ's sake alone and not for anything Wrought in them or done by them the righteousness which is imputed them that is reckoned their account is neither their faith Nor the act of believing nor any other obedience to the gospel which they have rendered but Christ's obedience alone.

Christ one obedience is twofold his active obedience rendered to the entire divine law and his passive obedience rendered in his death. The those thus justified receive and rest by faith upon Christ's righteousness in this faith they have not of themselves, but as the gift of God and so Some of you are going.

Oh boy here. We go again back to summer of 2004 I believe it was and The issue of the Mark Seyfried situation and the comments that he made about imputation. Actually, no this this actually Brings us to a discussion of those who have begun to deny this element of Historic reform theology in regards to the nature of the righteousness which we possess based upon dispensational theology and an attempt in essence to Distance themselves as much as is humanly possible from covenant theology and the resultant redefinition of terminology the resultant redefinition of Key issues that are very very important, and it it's sad to me I I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on this right now.

It's a sort of We've been there done that got the t-shirt type of a situation. We've discussed this a number of times before but It is it is it does it does seem very sad to me that this insight into the nature of our Standing before God the fact that when we look at what Paul teaches in regards to the the great exchange 2nd Corinthians 521 he made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in him it seems that there is a Movement out there that seeks to Minimize as much as it's humanly possible strip down the righteousness of God in 2nd Corinthians 521 to the barest bones that can possibly have we've seen that in NC right we've seen in his reading of this text or his Horrendous misreading of this text a reading that never before known in the history of the church to be quite honest with you this This righteousness of God Becomes something that really has absolutely positively Nothing to do with us.

It has only to do with God's covenant faithfulness, which is a wonderful truth God is faithful to his promises and there's no question about that. But is that all? That This is about is that is that all that Paul is saying here is that the Apostles are the incarnation of God's covenant faithfulness?

Perspective which of course is not the case, but it does seem that that others outside of NT right are seeking to Draw back in essence from a rich full and I would say incarnational Understanding that is part and parcel of our historic reformed understanding.

I don't know why it is that So many of those who are promoting these things come up with very odd Understandings of what historic theology has been, you know, I NT writes I was saying that basically we've always viewed the the Jews as as Pelagians who are pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and I go that's not how I've ever understood that I now I don't see that and and These these straw man representations of what reformed theology has been and and things like that over the over the years just makes it I don't understand what the Motivation of all that type of stuff is but but I've heard people basically saying that the historic reformed theology is nothing more.

All they're worried about was Rome. Well, they were worried about Rome. There's a question about that. You can hear you can hear the The concern about Rome for example, even in chapter 11 when it says Not by infusing righteousness into them.

Well, okay. No question about that people said Ah, we'll see if you're just responding to Rome that that's where the imbalance is blah blah blah blah well, that's not all they're responding to and The Apostles responded to specific issues regarding their day.

They they engaged in apologetics even when preaching the truth. And so I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that particular aspect of things. But but yeah they were responding that and so as a result as they see all they're concerned about was the Forensic stuff and they're just trying to deny Rome and they they missed the rest of it.

Well, I I don't think so There's a fair amount in there about union with Christ unite with Christ so people say well We want to have an incarnational theology where it's based on our union with Christ.

Well Where did I get my emphasis upon? Union with Christ and the fact that we are in him and that and that it's that union of the elect with Christ in his death burial and resurrection and That union with with Christ that that is eternal.

That was one of the reasons, you know, one of the disappointments that I've had over the past over a year now is That I've been running around so much and I've been so busy That I never got a chance to finish the dialogue with Eric Svensson on atonement because I thought you know That's something I really enjoy doing and it's it's it's relevant because Part and parcel of that particular dialogue was whether the elect are united.

When are the elect considered to be united with Christ? Because in essence there is a as I see especially in this this dispensational viewpoint this viewpoint coming from a professor at the Master's Seminary Andy Snyder Who in his his thesis?

Attempts to Get dispensationalism, whatever that is anymore. I'm sure how anybody defines it anymore. That's a whole nother issue, but get dispensational Dispensationalism separated out from Covenant theology I See a division in the righteousness of Christ.

I see I see a problem in regards to the union of The elect with Christ what what is the nature of Our union with Christ is it are we only unite with Christ in a in a partial way? Are we only united to him in a in a certain way in the sense that?

We're just united enough to be able to be saved and to receive forgiveness of sins a Lot of these folks are trying to say well look you don't need to have a Positive righteousness before God that's work salvation and that's that's that's Rome again.

You don't need to have a positive righteous before God well leaving all that aside isn't there Isn't there something about? Be perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect isn't there something about about loving the Lord your God our hearts so my strength.

Isn't there something positive in those it's not just don't do these things. It's do these things where if you just get the don't do these things removed the positive sins. Where's where's the positive righteousness?

I've never Figured that out, and I don't think I need Rome to come up with that. In fact I I was writing yesterday, and I was listening to Shabir Ali Dismissing Matthew 548. Jesus could never have said that because it's ridiculous.

God would never say that God would never say be perfect because he knows we're sinners. I mean complete misunderstanding and Toto of The entire concept of the gospel and grace and things like that which is understandable coming from a Muslim perspective, but anyway That's the way the natural man views these things and and there's just such a richness in Reformed theology, and it well let's just be on I'm gonna offend a bunch of people in biblical theology and in in looking at all that the scriptures teach and the Richness of what it means to be united with Christ.

You know we in in first Corinthians chapter 1 Verse 30 you have that that union with Christ that is described there and People will say we'll see that yeah there you go. By his doing you were in Christ.

Jesus has become to us wisdom from God and righteous as a sanctification redemption. And that's the only way you can actually get Any type of idea of of imputed righteousness or anything like that, but then you'd also have to have imputed sanctification imputed redemption.

Know that the point is that It's in Christ. What do we have in Christ? What is the nature of the righteousness that we have in Christ. Can't we ask that question is the New Testament not able to answer?

It what's the nature of sanctification? We know we you know we distinguish between progressive sanctification and positional sanctification. We need to and in fact more of the references in the New Testament are to positional sanctification than to progressive sanctification.

But we need to make those distinctions because of the way that the the term is used and all that's fine and dandy. But can't we can't we look at what this righteousness is? Can't we ask the question is it is it just a A proper staying before God our past sins are forgiven now.

We got to keep our nose clean. I Mean I do think that this ends up Impacting a lot more than than some of these folks. Whether it be right or cypher it or or Snyder or whoever I think it impacts a whole lot more issues than they seem to recognize and once again, I think one of the reasons that but I sort of see it that way is because They're not really dealing with apologetics.

They're not dealing with a defense of these things and those early reformed theologians had to be they had to be Dealing with the fact that especially the earliest Reformed earliest reformers were living in a world where if they wandered across the wrong line and a map they'd be strung up and burned and.

So that you know, I mean that that definitely clarifies your thinking and I think it also helps you to prioritize things. I'm sorry for my dispensationalist friends. I was raised a dispensationalist, but when you make dispensationalism The be-all and end-all of all things especially when you make a particular form of it, whatever it is now these days I mean progressive or this or that or the other thing and who knows?

What when when you're willing to make that the be-all and end-all of all things? It's so clearly becomes the lens that you use to to see everything else and I Just wonder what's being given up. What's what is what is being sacrificed in in that process it's a sad thing it really isn't.

I was talking to a brother this morning and And You know, I once again made reference to the fact. That we can sometimes look at this and I I even you know honestly says that you know, I sort of sighed and it's like well, you know, here we go again and I I Understand When people will look at this and they can go, you know.

Is there really any reason to continue the struggle? Why not just give up and say, you know what nobody knows Nobody knows That the scriptures just aren't sufficient to answer these questions. That's what people want to tell you and that's what that's what the enemy will want to whisper in your ear.

Hey, those Roman Catholics, right? See all this disagreement.

But what's the source of this disagreement? Is it really a lack of clarity a lack of consistency? What's the real source of it and I said I said to my friend I said, you know Here we see once again what we are going to be facing as believers in a culture under the judgment of God a Sound Discerning and here's keyword content with truth Church is a blessing on a nation.

It's a blessing on a culture a Church where You don't have this wild swinging from chandelier to chandelier which is the only way to describe the quote-unquote external evangelical church today is is find the newest trend and ride it into the graves swing over here and swing over there and imbalance here and imbalance there and and People that you thought were real solid going way off into the ozone layer for just one particular thing one particular reason one particular Emphasis they develop and poof off we go into the wild blue yonder that is symptomatic of God's sovereignty in this situation and what do I mean by that?

Well, like I said a church that is that is consistent That is content with its message That has one generation after another coming up in love with the truth is a blessing on a nation and so a church That would even even give room to such things as this as this Emergent church movement where where a man is so arrogant that he thinks every element of God's truth is up for discussion and God can't actually Can't actually communicate to us and all the rest of stuff a church should even give that the time of day is a church That's demonstrating That God is not blessing it in the sense of giving it that stability and that's a part of The judgment of God upon a very wicked society a very wicked culture.

So what do we do in the middle of that? Well, you first of all give up the idea very very quickly Abandon the idea very very quickly that you're going to judge the soundness of God's Word and you're going to judge the soundness of God's purposes.

Based upon human ideas of what success is supposed to be that's first thing you do just just dump it get rid of that idea instantaneously right now. You have to all of us have to be focused upon being faithful to God's truth loving God's truth even in the midst of apostasy all around us, this is where the lessons of the Old Testament become so much More precious to us because that is something that That's Do the the faithful had to deal with over and over and over again in the midst of apostasy and that is That is what?

I'm taking from this and does that mean we stop speaking about no, we don't give up we don't don't climb into a shell we continue to speak the truth and You continue to to say hey folks look Christ's perfect life was not just so that he could say he was sinless.

That's very very important. His sinlessness is central and vital, but is that all there was to it all those years of perfect obedience to the Father. The only reason was so well see I'm sinless so now I can die.

That's it. Amazing to me that the people would want to give that up and all for what? Distinctives of particular systems anyway just commentary on that like I said That's the kind of Issue that could very much end up being discussed.

I mean it is already going to be discussed in the sense of of Dealing with sound theology from the pulpit in the pulpit crimes conference coming up in November, please. If you've been putting off you've wanted to be there, and you you want to be able to hear discussions of this you want to hear Tom Askew and and and myself and others that you look at look at the lineup.

It's a great group of people to be speaking, please please please Make sure before the end of this month to make your plans known shall we say? Because that's going to impact very much. So what we're able to do in that conference and the accommodations that we have and so on so forth so It is important for other reasons than you might know.

So please make sure to do that now. I mentioned on the dividing line. That's on the dividing line. This is the divide hello. I mentioned on the blog which is not the dividing line. That's today. I wanted to start working on sort of a radio free Geneva in a sense I Want to start working on a certain two sermons that were delivered by dr. SM Davis.

I believe I have been looking for the DVD that I took this from. I have not been able to find it but that's not overly surprising because about a quarter of my office has already been moved and it's a disaster area in here as it's going to be for a while and so I'm going to actually to be able to honestly Utilize the gerrymantics defense for quite some time and that is well I'd like to be able to answer that question, but all my good books are in boxes and however, I will not be able to use the entire gerrymantics defense because I'm not going to be able to then say and I just drove here Writing my notes on a yellow pad of paper and all I've had today is a diet coke.

Yes, that's. That's not me no wouldn't be able to do that. Besides that I'm and and someone across the wall is only hearing this is the first time I'm really seriously looking into changing the way I do debates because there's a thing called age and I'm Noticing sadly especially over the past year that the screen of my palm tungsten t5 is shrinking.

Now don't worry the t5 is okay. But I had to think how LASIK a few years ago and they they told me at the time they said now once you get past 40 having LASIK will actually speed up in all probability the onset of what's called presbyopia.

That is not a conversion to Presbyterian ism but it is the problem where your arms get too short and. So I'm really really really looking at these things called a tablet PC. Which has a you know 1024 by 768 screen or so and it's it's actually a it's actually a full computer basically.

But just imagine this for just a moment in a debate. Half your screen is your notes and the other half of your screen is Bible works 7. Yes, yes, no, I'm not gonna tell the LASIK story Norris calm down, it's okay.

I'm not gonna tell about what happened during my LASIK. Okay. I'm not trying to scare anybody. I had some problems during LASIK wasn't my doctor's fault, but I they got me through it and I would do it again.

So I'm not saying that but anyways. So I wouldn't be using the yellow pad that's gerrymatics uses and the scary thing is. The person outside the wall remembers what gerrymatics desk looked like after a certain debate in Denver, Colorado.

And I don't think he could actually function without yellow pads of paper. But I think it's one of the reasons he's never written his book is he probably has written his book. But he wrote it all in yellow pads of paper and and lost most of it.

And that's why the book never came out which was supposed to come out. When was that like? 1989 91 something like that. Yeah. No, he needed a strong breeze on his side of the stage because.

You missed my point. Oh, well, he had a strong breeze over there on that side of the stage for some reason.

Oh, he's a warm warm lots of hot air. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, it didn't blow. Is any of that yellow paper. Anyway, I'd never seen so many single pieces of yellow paper on the floor and on a desk in my life.

I'm talking about the 1993 Denver debate on the papacy up at the the second one Presbyterian Church on the historical stuff. It was when we got done. Okay now I've now introduced it now. I gotta tell a story then we'll go on with it with Dr. Davidson.

Rich and I were up there that we were passing out tracks to Roman Catholics during World Youth Day and we're doing a two-night debate With with gerrymatics, which you can hear on mp3 on papacy second night yeah, the second night we I got done and I had you know, I had had a number of the the end Nicene Fathers and Nicene post-Nicene fathers with me and I had put all them into a into a silver bookcase, which in fact is under the desk here and I had just these two cases sitting at the end of my desk and that was it everything else.

There was a six-foot table and the chair was pushed in and rich and I were staying toward the back. I didn't have PDAs back then and rich and I are staying a little bit farther back on the podium stage area and we look over and here's Jerry's table and Honestly, it's a six-foot table.

There is not a square inch of the surface visible books open placed upside down and mainly yellow. You know pads of paper Torn off everywhere, you cannot see the surface of the table, but what's even weirder is Underneath the table in the six-foot area underneath the table.

The carpet is covered with books and with pieces of paper Strewn all over the place with one little exception where his feet were. It is a mess and the contrast between the two Was sort of funny and rich and I were sort of commenting on it to ourselves and Jerry saw us and pretty much everybody had left by then and he Looks at his table and then he looks over.

Yeah, I wish I had had a camera too and he looks over at mine. And of course, like I said, I've got two book bags side-by-side Perfectly straight sitting on the end chairs pushed in. That's it. It's all all cleaned up and He looks at his looks at mine looks over he says well, okay you win the organization debate.

Because I remember that debate really didn't go well for him. He had never been challenged with any of this information that I threw out him. You could tell and so during the break. Well, I'm out talking with folks in the audience going back to the book tables in the back blah blah blah he retreats up into the choir loft of this Presbyterian Church and is Feverishly writing notes for the second half of the debate and then even in the second half debate he's standing there with the Jurgens.

The three volume Jurgens that he's staying there with with the I think the first volume open to the index reading out of the Jurgens index as if this was proof of of Who believed in the papacy and so it was it was amazing.

I very much Very much recommend that particular debate to folks who want to hear a debate on the subject of the papacy. Anyhow, let's let's finally launch into after all this time and my wandering about The the dr. Davis sermon I had played a few sections of this I don't know about a year year and a half ago when I was first given it didn't do the whole thing.

Dr. Davis is big in the homeschool Movement. So the reason I'm doing this right now is that we had he was one of the last people that I was able to Last people that the folks in Sedalia, Missouri had contacted to try to find somewhere someone Who would debate me on the subject of Calvinism Arminianism?

This was for the the high school that had for two years done debates on creation evolution now, they want to do a debate on the subject of Calvinism Arminianism and The folks just had a really hard time.

They were turned down by the list is long. They were turned down, of course by Geisler. They were turned down by hunt. They were turned down by Ergun Kanner. They were turned down by everybody at Liberty.

They were turned down by Jerry Jenkins, they were they were turned down by everybody and no Arminians were willing to stand up and be counted in a debate on the subject of Calvinism Arminianism and so finally I said well, you know, there's this this guy is SM Davis I've got this DVD from him.

Why I'm not a five-point Calvinist it's two sermons and and basically, he he takes Dave Hunt's materials and he's a much better speaker much more engaging speaker than Dave Hunt is and So you can actually get through the material and in a decent amount of time and so try him here's I think this is the address I'm not completely certain but I think this is his email address and and it was and so I got hold of him and Sadly, he wouldn't do the debate, but there's an attorney in His church who would and so that's what the debate is going to be one month from today in Sedalia, Missouri I think it's a Friday night April 21st.

And so what I'm doing is that one of the requests that I made of my future opponent. Mm-hmm, and I don't have my email with me. So I'm not even gonna try to Come up with his name just off top my head because I I don't have my email up on this particular system at the moment Because it bogs down the network, but anyway the one request I made was that he if This sermon was representative of the position was going to be presented.

I don't want to spend the entire night knocking down straw men. I Would like to debate the issues. I would like to have an accurate fair representation of my viewpoint just as I always seek to Make an accurate fair representation of The other side as well.

That's why I play what the other side says Here on the program rather than just simply, you know coming up with my own summaries of it. And so what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna play a bunch of segments as two hours were the sermons.

I'm not gonna play all that because it would take too many weeks to do it. But I have started going through the sermon and I am pulling these parts together. And if anyone feels that I've missed something it was very very important be happy to go back and play it.

No problem at all, but I want to play these things and I want to Correct the many misapprehensions. I mean he even says very very clearly. In fact, let me Scroll down here to this particular clip. We'll get back to it later on but Here's a here's a clip where he talks about what his real source is The Calvinist in his zeal to exalt the sovereignty of God brings into question The love of God the justice of God and some ways even the holiness of God.

Perhaps the key book on this subject and a major resource for me as I studied on this subject is Dave Hunt's book What love is this and the book is subtitled? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God. So there you go.

He very clearly admits that his source is Dave Hunt. Well, I have demonstrated Documented Repeatedly the many many many many many errors of Dave Hunt's work. He does not understand reformed theology. He thinks he can define it.

He refuses to take a take a correction. He has been caught in error after error after error and he refuses to admit the errors when he is caught in them. And unfortunately, dr. Davis follows him a number of his errors Including his errors on on Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

And so I am actually doing These dividing lines for the benefit of my opponent in April I'm going to refer him to them so he can hear and I'm in essence doing debate prep right here for my opponent because I honestly Want the students at the high school to get to hear a debate on the subject?

Not a debate on how fast can one Calvinist knock down the straw man raised by a non-Calvinist as to what Calvinism actually is. What it's saying and what it teaches a dr. Davis is wrong in what he says about Calvinism he does not understand it and he has good reason not to understand it because he has been misled by the sources that he is used and I would I would invite dr. Davis to call if you would like to take issue with that but That's the issue that were that I'm that I'm facing here.

That's why I'm want to do this. Also, it of course helps me to prepare for the debate to deal with this particular Presentation because of my assumption anyways, and I think it's a fair assumption that my opponent is going to agree with dr Davis's theological Affirmations and therefore by reviewing this as I was reviewing yesterday and then here on the dividing line I am in essence doing debate preparation as well.

Total Inability and the Meaning of Responding to the Gospel

So let's start with the Opening presentation made by dr. Davis as to why he's doing what he's doing. I'm so loved the world meaning Everybody they gave his son Jesus that whosoever and that means Anybody can be saved.

What do you have to do to be saved? Realize that you're a sinner. Realize that if you died in your sin that you would spend eternity in hell. Realize that Jesus loves you so much. He paid the penalty for you by shedding his blood on the cross of Calvary.

Repent of Anything keeping you from turning to Christ alone for your soul salvation by faith. Call on the Lord for forgiveness of sin and to receive the free gift of salvation and eternal life. How many of you have heard those wonderful truths over and over again?

Then why am I speaking on this subject. Why I'm not a five-point Calvinist. Because five point Calvinism changes much of what I just shared with you. Allow me here to share with you the five points of the Calvinistic doctrine using the anacronym tulip t-u-l-i-p which the Calvinist themselves use.

T stands for total depravity. Meaning that man is a totally depraved sinner. Now many of us would believe that as well. But the Calvinist meaning is even different than that. It goes further and Carries the meaning of not only total depravity but total inability.

They believe that man is so spiritually dead according to their interpretation of Ephesians chapter 2 verse 1. That man cannot even respond to the gospel at all without first being Regenerated or born again.

Which the man himself has nothing at all to do with. Now a number of things. I'm not gonna spend too much time right now on on John 316. We've addressed that in my open letter to Dave Hunt. Obviously, I have a feeling I no matter what I will have to address.

The misapprehension the term whosoever. And the underlying Greek text there and the fact that it is referring to all the ones believing probably have to deal with that one way or the other and probably would want to whether it's brought up or not because there are So many people who have a misunderstanding.

They've just heard it preached so many times it's just simply a tradition rather than exegesis, but In in listening to that you can at least get a sense of where dr. Davis is coming from and The primary reason that I I selected that particular section.

When someone says that they cannot respond to the gospel. There is a context in which that is true. And there's a context in which that is false. The context which is true is to respond to it favorably.

That is they cannot in and of themselves free themselves from spiritual death and slavery to sin. As Romans chapter 8 very very clearly says those who are according to the flesh can not please God. They cannot do what is pleasing to God.

And if responding positively to the command of repentance is pleasing to God then please explain What Paul's talking about in Romans 8 5 following where he is specifically saying that those who are according to the flesh? lack that capacity.

This is the context of which is true. That is man Outside of the work of grace in his heart cannot respond positively in and of himself outside of grace to the Gospel the Context in which it is not true.

Is that he does not respond at all and Man does respond to the gospel if you preach a gospel that gets no response at all in the sense of any response. Then you you've probably missed something because the gospel does bring about a response.

But the response of the natural man is mockery. It's to identify it as foolishness. The foolishness that Paul talks about in first Corinthians chapter 1. It's a stumbling block to the Jews foolishness to the Greeks.

The natural man does not receive the things the Spirit of God. They are foolishness to him. There is a rejection. God haters hate the call to repentance and. So to say that man does not respond at all would not be true in that context.

The problem is man outside of grace. Man outside of the work of the Holy Spirit will always respond. Negatively now it may not be negatively in the sense of a direct mockery like an atheist would. But it can be negatively for example in the sense of embracing a false gospel rather than the true gospel.

That is still a negative response. I mean any response that does not involve a direct bowing of the knee to the truth of Christ. Accepting a false Christ or a false gospel or something like that's still rebellion.