Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.
Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.
If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 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.
And welcome to the dividing line a radio free Geneva today. Yes indeed as we have announced we have Much to do today. No question about it need to finish up that Adrian Rogers study. We've been doing for a very very very very very very very long time.
And then we are going to be moving on to a DVD a two sermon two hour DVD that I received this week called five reasons why I am NOT a Five point Calvinist by dr. SM Davis. The main reason is not there's anything particularly new here.
Not anything. We haven't refuted a dozen times over before but This is the perfect example of what happens when someone who is a good preacher in other words is Able to speak with clarity speak with pacing is not constantly stopping and wandering off this direction of that direction when a person who is clearly able to speak with a passion and in an understandable fashion speaks on the basis of the Horrifically poor information and simple falsehoods of One Dave Hunt.
Yes, dr. Davis even held up What love is this during the course of the sermon as his primary source? And so if you'd like to hear what happens when Dave Hunt's material meets a person who can actually speak and Present it with some level of passion.
Then that is what we'll be looking at. The first we need to finish up with the Adrian Rogers. We're about 26 minutes in a presentation. I'm going to try to allow Him to speak and and try not to be doing too much interruption I do interrupt.
I will be doing so on a brief basis so that we can get Get on with other presentations. So we continue Adrian Rogers a college Bible study on hyper Calvinism Which as we have already seen is actually just Calvinism.
There's inaccuracy in his presentation at that point. I'm not at all now.
Look, if you will in in in John chapter 1 verse 29. Or just let me quote it to you if you turn to it if you want to. John the Baptist saw the Lord Jesus Christ coming and he said behold the Lamb of God that take of the way the sins of the elect.
No behold The Lamb of God that take of the way the sin of the world. And of course I would respond.
How about let's talk about what does it mean to take away? The one taking away. If you want to make this every single individual then all their sin has been taken away. What is the ground of the condemnation of those whose sins have been born by the Lamb of God?
You have to start either with the unbelief stuff and make unbelief a sin that's not born or all the rest of stuff. It's so easy to preach tradition. But it's impossible to do it with consistency in the light of the Word of God.
Do you do you know what motivated the Apostle Paul? Do you know what made Paul the greatest missionary soul winner that ever lived? It wasn't hyper Calvinism. I'll tell you what it was you turn to. 2nd Corinthians chapter 5.
Well, you know Paul himself said I endure all things for the sake of free will. No sake of the elect. That's right. That's that was Paul's own description of his own situation.
Boy, you know, I really appreciate hearing these pages turn. This is neat. Look with me in verse 13. Now they said they said that that Paul was crazy. I mean Paul they said Paul you're out of your mind.
You're beside yourself and he says whether we be beside ourselves. It is to God or whether we be sober. It's for your cause. For the love of Christ constraineth us because we thus judge that if one died for all Then we're all dead.
How many did Jesus die for? All.
All. If one died all the dead Jesus died for all the dead. I Mean when you think about this all thing does that mean. Jesus died for all the people who were who were under God's punishment before? his death.
So so God the Father Puts the the the sins of people that are already under his punishment. He's already punishing them for their sins, but he also puts their sins on Christ for no reason whatsoever. All died who has died with Christ the people in hell.
I Mean these are seem to me to be very basic questions. That that someone of Adrian Rogers clear intelligence and intellect and capacity Would have to have thought of at some point in time. But it doesn't come out here for all then.
We're all dead. That he that died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves But unto him that died for them and rose again. Now what Paul is saying is this is what motivates me.
I'm not crazy.
But for him who died and rose again on their behalf the resurrection of Christ according to Paul results in what our justification. Isn't that why Christ rise again the justification, you know Romans 4.
So who's justified in Romans 8? Those that are the predestined and then called justified glorified Paul's perfectly consistent. It's only when you import Armenian traditions Evangelical traditions in that the whole thing becomes a mishmash of contradiction.
They were all dead and.
Jesus died for all and. And and if you don't say that Jesus died for all you might as well just with the same logic say all we're not doing. That an Adam all did not die, but the Bible says and Adam all died even so in Christ are all made alive.
So if we follow that logic to its conclusion We must be universalist, right? Is he making the humanity and Adam equal to the humanity in Christ or does not Adrian Rogers believe that at the end time? You'll have the humanity that's in Christ Which will be saved and the humanity remains in Adam, which will be lost.
So are the ones who were in in Adam alive at one point then died again. I mean Just it's enough to it's I mean it's it's almost insulting to Paul. To so ignore his own theology in the consistence of his theology.
Simply for the sake of tradition like this. It's just it's very frustrating friend. It's the Jesus death. Was there not now the the. The hyper Calvinist the ultra Calvinist will say no. If you say that Jesus death Was for all in all don't get saved then that makes his death ineffectual.
It means he's not father. I want to ask you a question. When God said the children of Israel was man in the wilderness. Do you think all the manna was eaten. You think some of the lay on the ground didn't get picked up, of course.
Of course, did that mean that God didn't do it or God was not showing love and mercy just because some manna was not taken. If if God offers his love and his love is not received That doesn't mean God has failed.
It means man has failed.
Okay, let's see if we can. Let's see if we can cover this. The intention of Christ in Salvation and in offering himself as a sacrifice for sin is to be paralleled with the dropping of manna from heaven so the only way to make that work would be it was the intention of God in Dropping every piece of man forever every piece to be eaten by an Israelite.
Is it. It's sorry, but that has got to be One of the worst analogies I have ever heard. The manna falling from the heaven Heavens is the same as the intention of the Father Son and Spirit in the death of the Son of God.
Wow, okay.
God is love. Now here's here's the next thing they believe limited atonement. That Jesus only died for some he didn't die for all. I reject that because of these scriptures that are so clear and so plain He is the propitiation for our sin and not far as only but also for the whole world.
And the word.
Propitiation is much more clear than the fact that John uses the term world at least 14 different ways. Does he use propitiation 14 different ways? Dr. Rogers? No, he does not. So why do you take the unclear term and Set it up as being obvious.
When the clear term you then turn into something. It's meaningless. Hmm then the last one.
Irresistible grace. That that I mean you're gonna get saved no matter what. If you're elect God's gonna catch you God's gonna zap you and You're gonna be saved.
God's gonna catch you. God's gonna zap you. I gotta admit, you know when I hear men who at other times extol the grace of God in Regeneration and in the grace that saves to hear them describing the sovereignty of God in the resurrection of the elect in the regeneration of the elect in in in that Effective grace bringing about the salvation like I gotta admit.
It's it's rather offensive very offensive to hear that. I mean that's blasphemous. Let's just put I'm sure that dr Rogers doesn't mean to be that That way but his tradition is is allowing him to in essence mock a a wonderful divine truth that otherwise he would not and that's really another reason why we must be very careful about our.
Traditions in that fashion. That that you cannot resist the Holy Spirit of God.
Well, you cannot resist the Holy Spirit of God when he moves to bring about the regeneration of dead sinners. So now we're going to be treated to More straw man argumentation where men have resisted the Spirit of God in other contexts rather than the context Allegedly being addressed.
And why haven't we heard that one a million times before you turn back. Chapter 7. We go act chapter 7 completely different context, but we're gonna go there anyways. Writing stone and.
He I'll tell you why he got stoned because of the message he preached and He says to them in verse 51 Ye stiff-necked And uncircumcised in heart and ears. Ye do always resist The Holy Ghost as your father's did so do you now tell me that the Holy Spirit can't be resisted.
Stephen said he could if anyone believe you do always resist The Holy Ghost sure the Holy Spirit can be resisted just not Jesus said and and the scripture we read to you from Matthew 23 verse 37. I would.
But you would not. Classic passage over in Proverbs. Turn to Proverbs chapter 1 with me for just a moment. I think that makes it about as clear as any passage beginning in verse 22. God is speaking and He says how long you simple ones will you love simplicity and the scorners delight in the scorning and fools hate knowledge?
Turn you at my reproof. Behold I will pour out my spirit unto you. I will make known my words unto you Because I have called and ye refused I've stretched out my hand and no man regarded, but ye have said it not all my counsel and would none of my reproof.
I Also will laugh at your calamity and I will mock when your fear. Comment hey, isn't this plain folks that he can be resisted. Going down to verse 27 when your fear cometh its desolation and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind.
When distress and anguish cometh upon you then shall they call upon me and I will not answer. They shall seek me early, but they shall not find me for that. They hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord.
They would none of my counsel. They despised my reproof. Therefore shall they eat the fruit of their own way and be filled with their own devices.
That's Romans chapter 1 description of all men outside of grace. Nothing here even slightly relevant to the issue of Calvinism only to the straw men that our minions love to throw up and and.
And beat upon for a while for the turning away of the simple shall slay them and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. But who so hearken it? Unto me shall dwell safely and he shall be quiet from fear of evil.
It's so clear that God speak But God gives man the right to say no.
This this is doesn't it say. Man always says no there.
This is not irresistible great and has nothing to do with their grace. Does it suppose one of you girls boy? Friend. And He begins to pour the sugar in your ear and tell you how much he loves you. But you don't like him but he says I love you and Then you get a little nervous.
And you kind of want to get rid of it, but he keeps following you and he says I love you. I Love you very much. You feel fine, but. No, no, no, he says I Really love you. Well So long no, no, no, listen, I love you so much I'm not gonna let you go.
I'm going to make you love me. Hmm love is a contradiction in terms. There's no such thing as forced love. No the idea that God has some irresistible Grace. Something that you said you say well, I don't want to be say well you're gonna be say I don't want you're gonna be saved.
I am going to make you Love me.
Again It is sad to see someone of dr. Rogers stature so dishonest so enslaved to tradition so Giving in to straw men. I can't assume that he knows any better, but but he certainly should. There's no question about that.
You all remember well those of you who've listened to the Rutland debate remember that He raised the same issue and and I started preaching for a little while. I've got I will admit I started preaching for a few moments Because of the fact that when I hear people using this term force to describe the loving action of God in Changing a slave of sin a person in love with their sin of a person in love with their own self-destruction Removing that heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh.
When I hear that described Spiritual resurrection raised to life the the chains remember that you know that beautiful song that we sing my chains fell off my heart was free. I Rose henceforth and followed the you know, that's what is being described as force.
That's what's being described as a stalker. Oh That's so sad. That is so sad. That's why these people won't debate because because if they were to do so it comes out very clearly in debate that this kind of Canard this kind of straw man this kind of dishonest argumentation.
It doesn't survive, but that's why they won't do it. Because they know they can't they they know deep down inside and I feel for anyone who who has so little Belief in what they believe that they can't accurately represent positions against their own.
That's a that's a it's a horrible position to be in. It truly is that's ridiculous.
That's not love at all. I Mean you become a robot. That's not love. God gives us the privilege of saying no so we can have the delight of saying yes To him, but they call this irresistible grace. Now if if if God's Holy Spirit is irresistible.
Would you explain to me what the unpardonable sin is? Explain what the unpardonable sin you see. The Lord speaks of the unpardonable sin you might turn to it in Matthew 12 for a moment and look at it for just a moment.
Beginning verse 22 then was brought unto him one possessed with the devil blind and dumb and he healed him in so much that the blind And dumb both fake and saw and all the people were amazed and said it's not this the son of David.
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said this fellow doth Doth not cast out devils but by deals above the prince of the devils and Jesus knew their thoughts and said every kingdom divide against Itself is brought to desolation and every city or house divide against itself shall not stand and if Satan cast out Satan He is divided against himself.
How then shall his kingdom stand? Why Jesus is saying I'm not in collusion with the devil I'm in collision with him and If I buy Beelzebub cast out devils and by the way The word Beelzebub means the Lord of the flies if I buy Beelzebub cast out devils by whom do your children cast them out?
Therefore they shall be your judges. Now the point is God was speaking and the Lord had done a miracle and the Holy Spirit was working. But then Jesus goes on to say in verse 31. I'll fast forward. Wherefore I say unto you all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men and Whoever whosoever speaketh the word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him.
But whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world neither in the world come. Now that's the most extraneous passage of Scripture I've ever seen if if people can't be forgiven anyway, I Mean if they're not part of the elect.
I mean what what what is the sense of that?
I'm sorry, but it just When when people raise absolutely Ridiculous arguments it's like saying well, you know if if if the elect are known to God then there's there's no reason the Bible for there to be anything about how we should live our lives and and there should be no Preaching and and and it the whole thing.
So, okay. Let me see. So God if he ordains the ends cannot Ordain the means by which we are conformed the image of Christ. He cannot give us direction in his word as to how we are to please God and he cannot have a discussion of The unforgivable sin which in fact was about religious people who were so religious and so exposed to light that they would have become so twisted in Their their love of the praise of men that they call that which is black white and white black That which is good evil and evil good and that's what made it Unpardonable, by the way, it's not the seriousness of the sin But the state of the soul of the person who committed it that it reveals that is actually an issue there.
But but God can't have a discussion of that if we have election. What I mean.
What what difference would it make of a person blaspheme the Holy Ghost or whether he didn't if he's not of the elect it. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
Except of course, dr I just we don't know who the elect are and if God wants to tell us about these things and warn us about these things.
He's sovereign. He can do so. Why are you complaining about it? I mean that there's there's no rhyme. No reason no nothing to that. But the the so-called unpardonable sin doesn't make any sense at all if that is.
That's what it's all about. Now the last is the P perseverance of the same. I Believe in the eternal security to believe just as I believe in election for nation and Predestination, but I really don't believe it's even the perseverance of the same.
I believe the perseverance of the spirit. Philippians 1 verse 6 says he who hath begun a good work, and you will perform unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The hyper Calvinist Says this he says If you claim to be a saint and at the end of your life have a spiritual blowout You're going to hell because you did not persevere.
They believe only the elect persevere. So those who do not elect Don't persevere. This sounds so much like Armenian ism. It's it's crazy. Wow, man. Oh it.
Again you may be listening and maybe you don't know what reformed theology is so you don't realize just how. How so many of these these men who stand before the people of God choose to address subjects about which they know nothing.
They they they learned some traditions back in the seminary and Bible school, and they just they just run with it. Same thing with the the upcoming thing we're gonna look at this dr. SM Davis. He he talks about you know he he doesn't believe in the perseverance of Saints either.
He believes in the preservation of Saints. There's no difference the only reason you have the perseverance the Saints is what it's saying is that since Christ is the one who saves and Since that divine work is his then it's going to have the results the Word of God says it's going to have in the lives of the believers and that they are going to Persevere in their faith not out of themselves because their faith is a divine faith and because they have a perfect Savior.
My goodness. How simple that is? What does it say? About the entire range of these sermons that we have been examining that these people can never once Accurately represent what they say they're denying.
What does it say it says to me that they're wrong. That they they cannot argue against the truth and that they love their traditions more than they love the truth. That's what it tells me. Now what that says about their hearts, that's something I can't judge.
But it certainly tells me that on the level of simple matters of truth. These folks are not functioning the way Christians should function.
But that's what they believe and and they will tell you this, you know, if at right at the end. If you if you have a spiritual blowout if you fail you do this or that then you just weren't one of the elect and.
So you didn't persevere. But old friend if it's the perseverance of the spirit, he who has begun a good work in you. Will perform which of course? Really? All right. I take all five points of. Of tulip.
It went in its extreme form and I just reject that. What's the non extreme form. Arminianism? Now, let me just say a few words in conclusion and then we'll ask some questions and. Look at some other scriptures that seem to teach contrary to what we have said.
I Want to say that God is sovereign. Agree to that the sovereign. A sovereign is a king. He's king. You didn't vote him in you won't vote him out. God is sovereign. Election and predestination are biblical.
Election is based on foreknowledge. Election is based on foreknowledge. Turn to 1st Peter chapter 1 with me just a moment. Now look in verses 1 and 2. Peter an apostle Jesus Christ to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia.
Elect and watch this. According to the foreknowledge of God. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Now God lives in eternity. We live in time. Don't get the idea that eternity is just a whole lot more time.
We get that sometimes like when we sing songs like amazing grace. We've been there 10 ,000 years bright shining as the Sun was no less days to sing God's praise than when we first begun. That's just poetry.
That's not Bible when we get up in eternity. Time is irrelevant. It does not pertain. Now, you know, we say God's sovereign, but if some things God can't do for example, God can't lie in that room. He cannot lie to something else.
God can't do. God can't learn anything. God can't learn anything. How could God learn anything? He knows it all.
God knows the beginning and he knows the end and I appreciate that that affirmation the open theists in the audience are Becoming ill at this particular point in time. I would suggest however that if dr. Rogers were consistent with the affirmation He just made he wouldn't have been able to say half the things he just said and he would not be able to make the statement he's about to make and That is obviously that he's going to base God's choice of man, he's gonna deny unconditional election.
He's gonna make a conditional upon the choice of man. He's going to make all of salvation the very thing whereby God Glorifies himself. He's going to have to put it in the hands of sinners Unregenerate God haters who never seek God.
There's no fear of God before their eyes, but it's all up to them. And so when God created time The only way to make this work is to say he just shot the dice. But even then he still would have had to have come to know What free agents were going to do in time?
This this whole. And if you listen to the Bible answer and broadcast we kept coming back this we never got an answer because you can't get an Answer there isn't an answer that that at least can even begin to make biblical sense.
As to how God can know what men are going to do. You guys start getting into Mullin ism and middle knowledge and and and all the rest of stuff to try to find some philosophical means without any biblical basis Whatsoever some philosophy To protect the sovereignty of man in this case.
He knows the middle. He knows it all he sees it all.
I mean if God were to learn something He would not be on mission. God Knew I was gonna scratch my ear. He knew that for the world came in. He knew I was gonna stretch scratch the road. Has it ever occurred to you that nothing ever occurs to God.
Everybody heard that God is God. He knows the beginning from the end why God gave you a will and God has already known what you're going to do with that way and.
Because God knows what you do with that will you. And since God created knowing that could you do differently? Um. And no, we don't have the audience question. So no, I don't know if anybody asked who are elect.
According to the foreknowledge of God now because God knows it doesn't mean God called me the man named Haley Who studied about a comet and he knew exactly when the comet was going to appear. Now knowing when the comet's gonna appear didn't mean.
That he made it appear now. Listen to that. There you go again at least. Haley's comet is much better much much better than certain other illustrations that we could think of of singers divorcing for example.
But it's no different because Haley came to passively learn about the orbit of Haley's comet and to predict it and to say that God's knowledge of The future is analogous to how men Discover the order of nature is to put them in the God of position of learning which he just said God does not.
Armenians Cannot come up with a consistent epistemology. They cannot come up with a consistent theology of God. Can't do it not possible.
Haley's comet just appeared right on time because he had foreknowledge that the of the comet would appear and. And God's foreknowledge of my salvation does not mean that God Gives me irresistible grace and I'm a part of a special elect group that he did not die for the whole world.
The order is foreknowledge election and predestination. Election looks backward to foreknowledge. Predestination looks forward to destiny.
Now, of course. Nowhere does dr. Rogers in this nor in his sermons on Romans 9 that we addressed About three years ago now. Deal with the actual meaning of the term foreknowledge and for no notice once again.
And I know I'm a broken record here, but repetition is important. We once again have to repeat the fact that to simply equate The noun form with the verb form as he just did he went to Romans 8. He went from first Peter the lectern foreknowledge now he goes to Romans where it's a verb God foreknew and He equates them.
Now can they be equated? There are certain certainly there are nouns and verbs that have same reference and things like that. But does he even bother to deal with the scholarly information that is right there?
Right in front of him. It's in his personal library. If he went to Kittles Theological Dictionary of the New Testament if he were to look up Progonosco. And if you were to read it, it's right there in front of him.
Why not deal with it. Why not? Why not let that impact your your theology? Well because it it doesn't fit well with your tradition. You see.
God saw a street fighting teenage boy in West Palm Beach. That's me 15 year old kid. I've been getting in a lot of trouble skipping school getting in fights telling lies cheating. Using bad language. God saw that boy repenting of his sin.
He said that's one of my life think about that think about what was just said I God saw a dead rebel sinner. Who was better? than other dead rebel sinners because He was gonna repent. God didn't cause it.
No. No. No, even though acts tells us, you know, you open Lydia's heart, but no, no, no, no, no, no that that that wouldn't infallibly result in faith and even though acts 1348 that those who were in danger not well, but but Wow Wow, and so someday Adrian Rogers will stand before God and he'll be able to look at all of those people There on the parapet of hell screaming their hatred of God and said hi The grace of God it did 99 of it.
But you know without that 1 I did that I'd be down there because God couldn't save me. No I Couldn't save me without my assistance. God couldn't save me without my act of free. Well, if they had just done that they could be here, too.
That's what he just said. I know that's not what he intends to say. It's his tradition. It's ignorance. But that's what he said. And man, we're talking about important stuff here. You know if this was just simply but some discussion about you know, different eschatological viewpoints I I would never even I wouldn't even be taking this time.
We're talking about how God Glorifies himself in the gospel and when you stand before the people of God and you don't do your homework. Well.
What's more important God saw him trusting Jesus. He said he's one of my elect and He's gonna be like Jesus. It's predestined. Whom he foreknew then he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son first Peter 1 verse 2 we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God.
Now you say well pastor. Why'd you take all the time to come up here? And I'm by the way, let me just say this about this thing if you take this kind of doctrine and Tell some people I mean this this hyper Calvinism.
It'll make infidels out of them.
Excuse me, dr. Rogers. Aren't they already infidels? I Just I am so tired of hearing Arminian say Calvinism will make people atheists. They already hate God. They already are rebellion against God they're spiritually dead there's no fear of God before their eyes and You know what the truth of God will in fact make reprobate people even more angry at God.
You know what? That's true. But that's what the gospel does. Dr. Rogers. It's the stench of death in the nostrils of those who are perishing but to us the elect who are being saved It is the very aroma of life.
Isn't that what Peter Paul said? Didn't Paul say that the gospel is Foolishness, it's moronic. It's silliness. It's a stumbling block to those who are perishing but to those who are the called. It's completely different, isn't it?
You see dr. Rogers you just turn that upside down with your little foreknowledge idea that isn't accurate to the biblical text you let you presented the exact opposite of the biblical presentation and you must hear that.
That must be said you cannot compromise on these things. This isn't just a matter of opinion.
We're talking about issues of truth here, it'll cause them to turn against God all together. Tell you why? Think about little babies that die. How many babies die in the world today. Little babies that die.
Think about the little babies there.
Let's not go to the Bible. Let's talk about little babies.
Well, let me ask you a question. Are the little babies that died that are not part of the elect? Did they go to hell.
Where do we hear this one recently? Yeah, I heard the Bill Rutland debate. Didn't we had a little discussion about it. Tried to talk about this on a biblical level tried to talk about think of all the passages in the Bible that talk about election and the sovereignty of God the deadness of man and sin and How does Adrian Rogers finish this.
Because we've only got like 30 seconds of this left before it ends. With a discussion of little babies. Little babies. Well, where on earth does the Bible address that? Talk about completely abandoning The biblical text.
Just completely abandoning the biblical text and I don't know what answer he's. You know, I'm I'm sure he probably takes the. All babies who die in infancy go straight to heaven abortions the greatest heaven-filling device ever devised by man.
I'm sure he takes that position. I can I can just guarantee it, but is it odd? That our minion who demands a freewill act of man in That instance would violate his own principles at least when I say it's up to the sovereignty of God.
He can save whom he wants to save. I'm consistent my principles. He's not.
In consistency is not honoring to God. Do they go to hell those little babies. They didn't know the name. They never did any good or evil.
Some of them never even got born. They they they never did a good and evil personally, but I sure do hope that wasn't a denial of original sin there.
Because if it was then why'd they die? I have a little baby boy and in heaven I'm sure he's been. But I couldn't be sure if I thought what he might not be one of the elect. Well, you say well Adrian maybe a little boys not in heaven.
Maybe he wasn't one of the elect. I don't want to serve a God let my little baby. You never knew his name. Die and fry. You might you think I believe that. Well, you say mother all the little babies that die are elect and I think that's where the mp3 ended.
And it did and Unfortunately, it just ended ended right there. Well, anyway, we spent quite some time on that over a long period of time and we finally got got through it and It's I suppose I should just do it all at once because then it's easier for people to listen back to the archives.
But I thought was important the the individual who we've just we've been reviewing we've reviewed sermons of his against Calvinism before and Unfortunately because of his great influence on others. Many people just simply pick up his presentation and they run with it.
They just it's just Just the way it is if he if Adrian Rogers says it it must be true and You will hear those same Strawmen their falsehoods. They're they're dishonest. They're beneath. Dr. Rogers status as a theologian.
He should know better than what he he is doing and yet despite that That kind of misrepresentation will be repeated over and over again. And that's also what attracted me to want to do this special edition.
By the way, we'll be going a little bit late today. I plan on going till 10 after. I hope that's okay with the powers of B. So we can fit in a little bit more of this. This is a special edition of the dividing line radio free Geneva the worst the worst Vandy Calvinism.
Which is out there and that's why I wanted to look at dr. SM Davis's five reasons. Why I'm not a five-point Calvinist. This is a DVD and It is a DVD with lots of PowerPoint material inserted. Dr. Davis is a good independent fundamentalist Baptist and some of the the pictures Really represent that in the sense of almost the old chalk drawings from back when I was a kid but a lot of.
He's very big in the homeschooling movement, I guess he was just speaking out here recently in the homeschooling movement and He truly detests Calvinism and he does so. Primarily through the use of material of Dave Hunt in what love is this.
Now Dave Hunt's not a good speaker. We all know that he's interesting to listen to because he sort of just wanders about a little bit and But he's not a he's not a fast speaker. He's not a not a clear speaker.
He tends to just say this say that and then he'll wander over here and wander over there. But dr. Davis is a much better speaker. He is a much more clear speaker and in fact, let me just let me just give you an example.
I pulled up just one example here, let's. This is like I said, this is a fairly lengthy Sermon. I'm not good when I can listen to all of it, but he starts his sermon With Talking about someone he knew and Then he ends the sermon coming back to it.
I've taken those two parts and put them together just so you get an idea Concerning What it is that? Dr. Davis is really trying to communicate to his people. Let's let's listen in. I was blessed as a teenager to hear and be influenced by many great preachers.
My pastor, dr. Edward McAbee was one of those. Then there was also an evangelist whom I admired loved and respected above most others. He was my hero. Bob not only preached in the church where I was raised but also preached all over South and North Carolina and other states.
I Remember traveling distances to hear him preach in camp meetings churches revival meetings and so on. His preaching challenged me and stirred me like few people I've ever heard in my life. It was clear and biblical and powerful.
Bob was not only a fiery preacher. He was also a Friendly man very likable personality. If you got around him, you would just like him. He preached to great crowds, but he didn't act like a big shot. He didn't mind taking time for guys like me an ordinary Teenage boy and he'd sit down and talk and that was a blessing to me though.
He traveled a great deal. He still seemed to have a good family. Bob's son and I became close friends. So I visited in their home in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina on several different occasions.
Bob's wife was a gracious lovely Christian lady with a house full of children. I think they had aid of them when I knew them. I remember hearing that Bob was having some serious problems. To say I was shocked when I heard what I heard would have really been an understatement.
Now he just stopped right there. He just sort of left it hanging. I thought that was rather odd. But finally almost an hour later He returned to what he was talking about. I began the message about telling about a preacher had a great impact on my life.
His name was Bob a fiery preacher. But a friendly man a man who ministered to me who challenged me who encouraged me. But then a man that I heard was having some severe difficulties in his life. I Was shocked when I found out a few months later.
I was talking to my friend Bob's son. He was also shocked and also very disillusioned with his father. You see Bob was still traveling and still preaching. But he had left his wife and children and was living with another woman.
He finally divorced his wife and married the other woman. What made his sin even worse to me was the way he justified it. When his son asked him why and how he could do such a thing Bob said to his son well son.
What I discovered Was that it was never predestined and foreordained by God that I marry your mother. Therefore our marriage wasn't really recognized by God. But it was predestined by God that I marry this other woman.
Therefore God recognizes this marriage and not the other one. Bob's son looked at his father my good friend. He told me this many years ago, and he said dad. Do you realize what that makes me and my brothers and sisters?
That means we're all illegitimate and Dad looked back and said yes, son. I recognize that but you know there's nothing I can really do about that. And there is The bookend illustration That dr. Davis gives in his first sermon.
I have to admit there are times There are simply times when you just wonder why? Do we spend the time to accurately represent what others believe? When those Who constantly and consistently attack us?
Refuse to do the same thing. And I have to remind myself Audience of one. There's only one we need to worry about. There's only one person that we need to be concerned about. There's only one that is watching and weighs the hearts and the motivations and That's why even though People like dr. Davis Who undoubtedly thinks that Calvinism is terrible horrible thing so he doesn't he probably doesn't feel like he needs To be overly concerned to accurately represent what we believe.
Because anybody in our audience who is a part of a sound reformed church knows That the illustration we just saw what would happen to that man he would he would be disfellowshipped from my church if he If he continued in such a position No one would have said to him.
Oh, oh, you know God's secret predestination. You know his secret will and and therefore you know what was predestined that you were not predestined to marry as well. Oh, that's a perfect ground for divorce.
Yeah, like anyone Whatever say such an inane idiotic thing That's foolish, you know if someone represented his independent fundamentalist Baptist Church The way he just misrepresented all of us he would be livid and properly so.
But you see when you don't have Any respect for the position you disagree with and no respect for the truth period. Then the tendency is for you to do this kind of thing. The tendency is to do this very kind of thing.
I've watched even good Christians. I've had I've had people as We've been having conversations Both by voice or even in our chat channel and I'll be talking about Mormonism for example. And there are a lot of a lot of folks and everybody in chat channels listening right now.
And and I think they're gonna know that I'm not talking about anyone Specifically, but that this is a general attitude. There are certain parts of the nation especially out east where they don't have a lot of Mormons and all they think about is you know Mormons are those weird polygamous out in Utah and they hear the amount of time I'm spending to research a subject or to accurately represent somebody a Mormon on something and They will you know, I always get very offended for example when someone Purposefully misspells Mormon is moron.
Or you know, they'll just dismiss what a Mormon says because yeah, I wonder which of his wives told him that I Type of thing I find that offensive now. Does that mean that I'm not constantly misrepresented by Mormons?
No, I am all the time. But Still if I'm gonna write on more another example, I just finished writing it'll finish posting tomorrow morning a seven part series in response to Art Sippo. Now Art Sippo is one of the meanest crabby est nastiest and most insulting degrading Roman Catholic apologists on the face of the planet.
He can't say Two sentences without insulting somebody he's not a nice man. He can't even call me by my real name. He's constantly blasting me for for all sorts of ridiculous and inane stuff. But I spent seven sections seven blog articles Responding to him in Romans chapter 9 and I hope and pray that the way I responded to him is an illustration of How a Christian should do that without?
Necessarily just acting like the person you're responding to. Not too many people would have judged me for misrepresenting him because the man would never represent me correctly for love no money. He's not he's not capable of doing it's not possible.
And so what's good for the goose good for the gander, right? No, no. That that's that's not how we how we do it. So we listen to something like this and we just roll our eyes and it'd be so easy to come up with a counter example.
And Say oh how many people talk about independent fundamentalist Baptists and they say this this and this and that must be true of Dr. Davis's Church, too, right? That's unfair. It's not right. Here's another wonderful example and Here's where we really again see what happens when you simply take Dave Hunt who is not a scholar of anything and In fact, you may recall his first initial responses To the response to his book.
What love is this was to call everybody elitists. We're all elitists. Since I challenged him about the false statements. He made about the Greek New Testament and his mistaken Understanding of things.
I James you're an elitist. You're saying that everyone would have to know Greek to be able to. You know to be able to understand the Bible and you're an elitist. Well, you know, he's dropped that have you noticed he's dropped that because he's trying to act like he's something.
He's not and he's not a historian either. But what the greatest problems Dave Hunt all along has been his inability to do meaningful historical research. Doesn't mean he cannot find facts in history. It's the context the facts that he loses and So the material that he presents especially as he goes after Augustine and Calvin is grossly biased grossly prejudiced.
Just like his material on Mormonism is grossly biased and grossly prevalent prejudiced or Roman Catholicism is grossly biased and grossly Prejudiced and hence inaccurate. It shouldn't be used by Christians when it shows no concern for accuracy see and so.
This is what happens when someone simply trusts Dave Hunt about historical issues. Let's all learn once again about Michael Cervetus the most famous incident in Calvin's life in this area involved a man by the name of Miguel or Michael Cervetus.
Cervetus was a brilliant Spaniard and a physician who has been Credited by some with discovering the pulmonary circulation of blood in the body. Calvin considered Cervetus a heretic. Cervetus was not a citizen of Geneva, but was merely passing through the city on his way to Italy.
It was a law that you had to be in church and Sunday in Geneva and This man went to church. Otherwise, he would have been recognized as not being in church. But he was recognized in church and was seized on the spot.
His state was sealed in prison. He was subjected to cruel treatment. He was denied the benefit of legal counsel. His religious views had neither been printed nor uttered in Geneva Territory. The Geneva government therefore had not the slightest legal jurisdiction for his arrest imprisonment torture and death.
Calvin used his influence. To secure his arrest condemnation and execution at one point Calvin wanted Cervetus beheaded that was employed for civil offenses and Calvin wanted it to appear to be a civil matter rather than a religious one.
But if there were no grounds for it, the idea had to be given up on a little know. Just outside Geneva the lonely heretic who to the last persisted in his beliefs was burned to death. After being in the flame for half an hour.
He cried aloud Jesus thou son of the eternal God have compassion on me. The agony was to be prolonged though in the case of Cervetus Greenwood had been used to burn him to death and it took three hours before he was pronounced dead.
Some people have said that Calvin was a victim of the thinking of his times. Yet eight years after the execution of Cervetus haven't had plenty of time to have considered the Word of God in relation to his actions.
Calvin was advising other rulers to exterminate heretics. Quote like I exterminated it Michael Cervetus. Well There we go again. There's the illustration folks. There's what happens When you have no concern for accuracy and no concern for balance and no concern Quite honestly for the truth at that point and you use Dave hunt as your sources.
Let's uh, let's you know, the last time I heard such an imbalanced presentation of the Cervetus affair Was in a debate with the one this Pentecostal. Hello. I don't think it's done. No, no, no, turn that off.
We're going to ten minutes after thank you very much. The timer decided we were going to stop the program and I said no we are not. Mm-hmm. Anyway, I Was debating one this Pentecostal dr. Robert Sabin back in 1999 Long Island and He spent all this time on the Cervetus incident at his at that point.
He was in essence trying to make it sound like Trinitarians lob off the heads of non-trinitarians on a regular basis and so on and so forth. Nothing was said about what's Michael Cervetus actually believed.
It almost sounds to me as if dr. Davis attempted to make Michael Cervetus a Fellow believer. Cervetus was an anti-trinitarian heretic. He had written His anti-trinitarian beliefs and had distributed those books all across Europe.
He was infamous all across Europe. Not only in the areas of Geneva contrary to Davis's false statements. But all over the Roman Catholic realm as well he had been convicted of heresy by the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church a death warrant was put out for him.
He was in hiding, of course and while in hiding He began writing to John Calvin. And why might that be. Well, these are the things these are the little things that the dr Davis forgot to tell you and the promise and in the process of not telling you these things probably doesn't know them.
He misled you and he misled his own people and he should apologize for that and correct the record. I personally believe You see because very shortly after John Calvin's conversion Michael Cervetus Contacted him and even though it was at the risk of his own life John Calvin snuck back into Paris to meet with Michael Cervetus to seek to be of assistance to him on a spiritual level.
Cervetus didn't show. So Calvin as a new Christian as a new convert risked his life to try to be of assistance to Cervetus. But Cervetus didn't show. Cervetus had a lifelong fixation with John Calvin.
He saw in Calvin an intellect equal to or greater than his own and When he was in hiding years later, he wrote to Calvin. Calvin recognized who it was even though he was using a different name Michael Villanueva and Once again Calvin could have exposed him immediately.
He could have Exposed him to the Roman Catholic because he was living in a Roman Catholic area. Roman Catholic officials immediately. He did not. He sent him the Institute's the Christian religion. Which Cervetus sent back with nasty insults and comments written in the margins.
At one point Calvin let his friends know that he knew where Cervetus was and he knew who he was and where he was hiding and They began to put pressure on him. The pressure was look if we know where Cervetus is and it is well known that Cervetus is an anti-trinitarian heretic and If we protect him then the Roman Catholics will be able to say see.
See what this Reformation is all about these people don't even believe in the true God. They don't even believe the Trinity is something that's worthy of being protected and remember. This is the context that is missing in Davis's statements and in Hunt's statements.
And that is in this day and time Europe was Magisterial in its governmental form and in its church form as well. What that means is? That the church in the state were united together. The freedom of religion that would eventually come from the Reformation had not yet arrived and the first generation of Reformers and the second generation of reformers.
Calvin was technically a second generation reformer. Were magisterial reformers and as such they believed that Church and state had to remain as one and So heresy was a crime. It was not only a crime against the church.
It was a crime Against the state as well. Now you can argue all you want that Christians should never believe that the fact the matter is it's the way had been for a thousand years and I would like to look any man the eye who would say to me that he would be better than all of them together and Be able to see with that eagle eye exactly how church and state should relate.
Coming out of the medieval Roman Catholic system that the vast majority of these individuals were coming out of. I'd like to have you look Me in the eye and tell me yes, I would be wiser than them all.
It's easy to judge. Not many of us would have even gone as far as the Reformers did to be perfect honest with you. So Calvin tried to convert him and what dr. Davis forgot to tell us is that Finally what happened?
Was a Calvin gave in to his friends his friends said look this man is a well-known heretic. He is not under our jurisdiction. But he is a well-known heretic if it comes out that you've been corresponding with him, but you did not expose him.
The Reformation will be greatly damaged and so Calvin does he? Forwards the information to the authorities the Inquisition arrests him. He is condemned to death. He is condemned to die by burning at the stake.
The night before his execution in his bedclothes. He climbs up upon the roof of the privy. Leaps over the wall and escapes from the Inquisition. The Inquisition the next day burns him an effigy along with his books.
Now he is yes, this was Spain. He is he is a very Good, he's a very intelligent man very good at hiding. He had hidden himself for quite some time, and if he wanted to live he could have but he didn't want to.
He made a beeline for Geneva. Davis tried to make it sound like he was just passing through. Now he had just escaped from the Inquisition. He made a beeline for Geneva. He knew his life was near its end.
And he didn't want to die at Roman Catholic hands if he was going to die. He was going to make Calvin do it the man who risked his life. To try to minister to him in the past. The man he saw as an intellect greater than his own and So he did show up in church, and he was arrested as he knew he would be.
But once again Davis only gave us half the story being in any prison in those days could not have been a pleasant experience but surveyed us immediately allied himself with Calvin's enemies because you see Davis and hunt want to make it sound as if Calvin ruled Geneva with an iron fist and no one would dare to question him.
But that time did not in fact arrive at that particular point in history and In point of fact Calvin had many enemies. He had been driven out of Geneva once before. They had had to beg him to come back.
He didn't want to but the church was in disarray, and so he did and He had many Enemies. He tried to get Calvin imprisoned Himself he joined his enemies and tried to get Calvin accused of Trinitarian heresy himself and Calvin's role as the prosecutor was his duty.
He was the chief pastor of the church, and this was a theological issue and therefore it was his job to be the chief prosecutor in regards to the heresies of Michael surveyed us in the doctrine of the Trinity when he was convicted as he certainly had to be his writings were voluminous and When he was convicted the little council the the secular rulers.
Were the ones who rendered the verdict the council of ministers? Did seek to have him executed differently. They did seek to have him executed quickly rather than a slow-burning. They were overruled.
Please realize Calvin was overruled in the means of the execution. That would at least be something that had to be mentioned. The pleas the ministers were ignored. Now did Calvin believe he did was right.
Yes, he believed it was his duty. He believed in a magisterial Reformation. He believed in a church state. Obviously I disagree with him on those issues. But the fact the matter is that is how things were at the time and to rip Calvin out of the context.
Ignore the vast majority of the facts. I just shared with you which cast the situation a completely different light is simply dishonest. It's reprehensible absolutely positively. Reprehensible, but then again.
It's no more reprehensible than the misrepresentation of the Word of God. That we saw in all these other sermons if You're willing to Abuse history you're gonna be willing to abuse the Bible to Radio Free Geneva signing off until Thursday evening.
We will continue on the dividing line. God bless see you then.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries. If you'd like to contact us call us at six oh two nine seven three four six zero two or write us at p .o. Box three seven one zero six, Phoenix, Arizona Eight five zero six nine.
You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org. That's a o m I n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks. Join us again this Thursday afternoon at 4 p .m..
For the dividing line.