April 13, 2006

from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. Well, as I was coming in, the phone rang,

I picked it up, you're really not preaching on what you said you were preaching, yes I am. I honestly believe that there is no question in Christendom that the church should walk away from, run away from, or hide from, and I think there are times where we need to address issues that are front line issues.

That of course was Dr. Ergon Kanner at Thomas Road Baptist Church this past Sunday evening, and that of course is a sentiment that I agree with.

There are issues that we must address in a straightforward fashion. There are issues that we cannot run away from, there are issues that we must go to the

Word of God about, and we must discuss, and that's why on October 16th at that very same location, actually at the new

Thomas Road Baptist Church, they will be in their new facilities by then, myself and Dr. Tom Askell will be debating

Dr. Emir and Dr. Ergon Kanner on the subject of Baptist and Calvinism, and today

I'm going to be reviewing Dr. Kanner's sermon where he indicates that he was predestined not to be a hyper -Calvinist.

What is a hyper -Calvinist? Was Dr. Kanner accurate in his statements? What about the biblical discussion that took place?

That's what we're going to be doing today, a special edition of The Dividing Line going at least 15 minutes long today, so an hour and 15 minutes on the program.

Not going to be taking any breaks. Probably not going to be taking any phone calls either today. Be glad to do that on Tuesday if there are those who would like to discuss it, be happy to do so.

The sermon began with an introduction by Dr. Falwell, and then

I must confess, it was unusual to hear someone enter into a pulpit to applause and screams.

That's, for someone like myself, that's very, very unusual, but that's what took place.

Let's listen in. Think of Dr. Ergon Kanner. This guy's still in his thirties, thirties.

Just a boy, a rambunctious one, but a boy. And I looked down and saw this guy on the hill, and I thought, there's a layman,

Ergon Kanner, right down there, sitting on the aisle. I won't tell you what his shirt says, but it's true.

Welcome, Dr. Ergon Kanner. Well, I'll tell you something, when you start off like that,

I would imagine it helps you to get sort of in the mood, shall we say. Here's the sermon title.

In this service, I would like to speak on why

I am predestined not to be a Calvinist, specifically a hyper -Calvinist.

Now, notice there's going to be some difficulties here figuring out exactly what a hyper -Calvinist is and what a

Calvinist is, and whether Dr. Kanner really understands what the difference between the two is.

That's going to be an issue. But first, I did want to especially play this section, because I think it's relevant to our upcoming debate.

I would quickly say that there is no way in the brief time that we have together that I can adequately do the task that I would like to do.

But certainly I can scratch as much of the surface as I pray to do. I agree.

It is very difficult in a brief period of time to address this subject, which is why I personally am really hoping that we can be given adequate time come

October 16th to fully address this issue, especially in light of the fact that we have four men speaking.

We don't just have two. We have four men speaking. So as Dr. Kanner understands, having only preached about 33 minutes on this, actually a little less than that because you take out the introduction, barely half an hour on this particular subject, and just barely scratch the surface, then obviously we need to have sufficient time in the debate coming up on October 16th to really address it in a proper manner, and that certainly is what

I've been requesting. I've been requesting at least three hours, especially with people coming from so far to hear this.

Anything less than that I think would be cheating them out of that. So now we have a description of how

Calvinism is such an important question today in the church. To the task at hand, this is the very first question you get when you walk on any seminary campus, any

Bible college campus. You can't be on a campus more than two minutes before somebody stops you and says, excuse me, are you a

Calvinist? And if you are, they want to know how many points of Calvinist you are.

It is the number one question Sunday school teachers get. It is, in fact, in this day and at this hour, probably one of the most heated discussions in all of Christianity.

I think that's a little overblown, to be perfectly honest with you. I certainly don't see that much discussion of it in that context.

I could hope that there was that much interest in it, but I certainly don't see it coming from my perspective. There certainly isn't that kind of discussion in my church, but of course that's because we're all a bunch of Calvinists.

But be that as it may, the fact remains that I'm having a whole lot more people ask me about the

Da Vinci Code or the Gospel of Judas or something like that than this particular issue.

But I might suggest that if you're in a situation where the leadership of your church, your denomination, or your school or something are trying to suppress the discussion of that, yeah, that's going to keep it going all the time.

That's actually going to prompt more discussion to take place than it is anything else.

Now, those of you who've read the conversation that went back and forth between Dr. Cantor and I in email will remember a category error that Dr.

Cantor makes where he says he's not a Calvinist and he's not an Arminian, he's a

Baptist. And as I pointed out, that makes as much sense as saying I'm not a

Republican, I'm not a Democrat, I'm blue. That's a category error.

It's a mixture. There are Arminian Baptists and there are Calvinistic Baptists. And to say that Baptist is a category in the same area is just to miss things, but Dr.

Cantor just absolutely insists upon making this category error. Immediately when I'm addressed with a question, it's usually somebody with a very serious look on their face.

Are you a Calvinist? My immediate answer is no. Oh, they say you're an

Arminian. Those two terms have a tendency to be seen as the absolute only two that you've got.

The Calvinist believing in the sovereignty of God, the Arminian believing in the total free will of man and that there's no other option.

My immediate response always is, no, I'm not an Arminian either. So what are you? Well, I'm a

Baptist. So there you have the idea. I'm a Baptist. Well, I don't think that really helps promote the conversation very much because I am a

Baptist who is a Calvinist. And I have met many Baptists who are Arminians in their emphasis upon the libertarian free will and the absence of a divine decree and things like that.

So it's a category error. And hopefully we will be able to get that cleared up rather quickly in the debate itself.

But this issue seems to be splitting churches across lines. There is now a famous preacher in my age group who has begun teaching that it is a sin to give an invitation because it's an insult to the sovereignty of God.

Now, I have no idea to whom reference is being made here.

As you heard earlier, Dr. Kanner turns 40 this year. I think he might be a little bit surprised to discover that I am only three years older than he is.

I don't know who's being made reference to here. There's a number of places during this sermon where it would be interesting to know who was being talked about.

But in regards to invitations, certainly there is room for discussion of the fact that there is a tremendous amount of abuse of the quote -unquote invitation system.

There is much room for discussion of why it is that you have to sing Just As I Am 17 times in a row to somehow allow the

Holy Spirit to work in someone's heart. There is much room for discussion of what the function of the church is in its worship and if that is supposed to be the place, the primary place of evangelism.

I found it very interesting in the United Kingdom they have specific gospel services over against the regular worship services of the church.

What about those times when the church needs to meet to be instructed from the word of God about things that are specifically relevant to the people of God that would not themselves be evangelistic?

I remember in a Southern Baptist college being taught in the homiletics class that you had to look at the amount of time that you had to preach and you always had to begin transitioning into the invitation at a certain point in time, even if your subject wasn't actually at all evangelistic.

And of course we see the results of this. There are many people today who go to churches where they have never heard a meaningful sermon on difficult passages of scripture because they cannot be made into something that is evangelistic.

And if you think that every single service, that is what it is supposed to be, then you are going to be constantly changing the text or just avoiding those texts and sticking with the four points of the four spiritual laws or something like that to make up the substance of your preaching, something along those lines.

So I don't know who he is referring to. And the idea that splitting churches, it's always placed in the idea that, oh, this is coming into our churches.

Remember, historically anybody can go back and look at the 1689 London Confession.

They can go back and look at the abstract of theology. They can go back and they can look at Broadus and they can look at Boyce and they can see this has always been there.

The idea that this is somehow, quote -unquote, coming in just now is simply false. There is no way to defend that on a historical basis.

Anyone who is honest with history recognizes that this issue has always been around.

It's not something new. The simple fact of the matter is I think one of the reasons you see more discussion of it today is because with the

Internet we are able to communicate. And when you bring people to the text of the Word of God, when you bring them to John 6 and you start walking them through John 6,

Jesus teaches the doctrines of grace there. And therefore, since he does that, people want to know, well, what does the other side say?

Well, the other side doesn't want to talk about it, in essence, which, as I said earlier, only gets more discussions going.

Now, one of the sad things about this particular sermon was the constant, well, constant, the twice -repeated but rather lengthy discussion of babies going to hell.

As if somehow Calvinism is the source. Every Calvinist is running around going, your baby is going to go to hell.

It's a sad thing. We've talked about it before on the program. But I guess the problem is that from their perspective, if you say that God has the same freedom in electing in regards to infants that he does in regards to adults, somehow that makes you a terrible, horrible, nasty person.

I guess the only way that you can handle this, and most people know, I take the middle road. I don't take the one side where as long as you die before a certain magical age that no one's able to really fully and completely figure out, bingo, bingo, bingo, you're straight into heaven.

I don't take that because that would turn abortion into the greatest heaven -filling device ever devised by man. And I cannot possibly see that that's the case.

In the same way, I don't take the other extreme, which says, well, every baby that dies since it didn't confess faith in Christ and is related to Adam must automatically go to hell.

I think God has the exact same level of freedom in exercising his grace in regards to those who die in infancy and to those who are mentally incapacitated as he does everybody else.

Let the judge of all the earth do right is the theme that I would present to that.

But evidently, somehow this is connected to Calvinism in Dr. Kanner's mind. And so we have this discussion of babies going to hell.

Now, personally, I think this is meant to raise emotions rather than to clear the mind and focus it upon the word of God.

It is meant to be an emotional argument. But here's the first set of comments. And I give you the background of this because I want to give you one quick illustration.

It was on a seminary campus during a chapel service that this came to full relief.

A speaker in the seminary chapel in the middle of his sermon, making his point that he himself was a reformed man, he said, and I want to show you how sovereignty works, how predestination works.

And he said, not all babies who die go to heaven.

The elect babies die and go to heaven, but the non -elect babies die, go to hell, and God gets the glory.

Now, that would have been controversial in any instance, but this happened to be family day at the seminary. And there sat wives, some of whom had lost children like my wife and I, who had miscarried.

It was an uproar nonetheless. I have to define my terms because even in that uproar there were some

Calvinists who got upset by the statements of this hyper -Calvinist man.

Now, again, I haven't a clue who he's referring to. I don't know what seminary this was. I have no idea what any of that has to do with anything because we just basically haven't gotten to the point of having any meaningful definition of what a quote -unquote hyper -Calvinist is.

Now, if a hyper -Calvinist is a person who, like me, says that God's under no obligation to just go to one extreme or the other, but that he has freedom in the matter of those who are related to Adam, and the extension was grace, that's not what hyper -Calvinism is.

That's not historically what the word means, that has nothing to do with the actual substance of it, anything like that at all.

And here, finally, we get a definition of hyper -Calvinism from Dr. Cantor, but it's a definition that's devoid of any historical context.

Here's what he says. A hyper -Calvinist believes that everything is predestined, and thus

God, they have no problem saying, is the author of sin. A hyper -Calvinist believes that predestination and foreknowledge are the same thing, that in what

God predestines, he divinely decrees, and thus they believe in what we call double predestination, that God has elect and chosen some to be saved, and others he has chosen to be damned, and God gets the glory.

A hyper -Calvinist believes that invitations are an insult to God, that predestination is the highest of all doctrine.

What? For Dr. Cantor's benefit, a hyper -Calvinist is a person who does not believe in obeying the prescriptive will of God, in particular in reference to the subject of evangelism.

A hyper -Calvinist does not believe that God ordains the ends as well as the means. A hyper -Calvinist does not see his responsibility to obey and to follow after the teachings of Jesus Christ in regards to the subject of evangelism, that God uses us as the means by which we are to proclaim the gospel.

He uses that proclamation, the word and the spirit together, to bring his elect into himself. A hyper -Calvinist does not believe in evangelism, does not believe that you can say to people,

Jesus Christ died for sinners, and if you believe in him, if you throw yourself upon him, cast yourself upon him, he will be a perfect savior for you.

He does not believe that you are to do that. You would never find a hyper -Calvinist in Salt Lake City passing out tracts to Mormons, like we had done for 18 years in a row at one point.

You would not find them witnessing to Mormons. In fact, my first experience, interestingly enough, personally, with the very term

Calvinist was with a man who was a hyper -Calvinist, an individual who

I was telling you about, the ministry work we had just done out amongst the

Mormons. And he said, what's silly? If God wants them to be saved, he's going to save them himself.

And I'm like, what? And he says, yeah, I'm a Calvinist. Well, he wasn't. He was a hyper -Calvinist.

And so there's what you have for a hyper -Calvinist.

That's the issue that you've got going on there. Unfortunately, that is not in any way, shape, or form what was just presented.

Now, let's go through this again, and let me respond to each one of these particular things. A hyper -Calvinist believes that everything is predestined, and thus

God, they have no problem saying, is the author of sin. Hold on there.

Now, I've talked to a couple of hyper -Calvinists, and no, they didn't say that.

And it would be very nice if Dr. Cantor would then tell his audience that, for example, both the London Baptist Confession and the

Westminster Confession specifically denies that God is the author of sin because of the use of secondary means.

That is, because they recognize that God utilizes means, and they promote the concept of compatibilism,

Genesis chapter 50, Isaiah chapter 10, Acts chapter 4, where you have one act taking place in time, and you see

God's perfect will being fulfilled in it, it's predestined to happen, and yet you also see man and his responsibility, and the fact that man's will is involved with that as well.

So, I've never met one of, I would like to meet one of these hyper -Calvinists who says, oh yeah, God created sin.

Is that what they're talking about, or is he confusing that with the idea that they recognize that since all actions in time are a part of God's creative decree, that that just automatically jumps to, that means that God is the author of sin itself.

That's a huge leap. It's a common leap, unfortunately, not just made by Dr. Cantor, but by many others, but one that cannot be substantiated.

Hyper -Calvinists believe that predestination and foreknowledge are the same thing. What God predestines, he divinely decrees, and thus they believe in what we call double predestination.

Well, back up the truck. Talk about confusion. What? No, I'm sorry, but yeah, let's see if we can figure different things out here.

You've got epistemology here, and decrees, and soteriology, all getting jumbled together in an almost unrecognizable mixture.

Let's see if we can figure out what's going on here. How does God have what would be called, philosophically, foreknowledge of future events?

How does God know what's going to happen in the future? We've discussed this many times before. Does God merely passively observe what takes place, he creates, and because he's eternal, it's like throwing the cosmic dice, he just happens to win at the end, so he knows what's going to happen, and that's how he knows the future?

Or is it that God created, he has a divine decree that he's fulfilling, and therefore he has perfect knowledge of the future events, because he decreed those things, including the actions of morally accountable beings within time.

If Dr. Kanner would take the time, for example, to read Dr. Raymond's discussion of this in his

New Systematic Theology, he would find it very challenging, but I can pretty much assure you that that has not taken place, and I would invite

Dr. Kanner to do so, and to listen to what Dr. Raymond has to say at that particular point in time, but it is not, no one confuses the decree with foreknowledge.

The decree is what gives rise to the philosophical concept of foreknowledge, notice I'm saying philosophical, because the verbal form of foreknowing in the

Greek New Testament is not the same as simply having philosophical foreknowledge, it's not an epistemological thing, and so we've got a bunch of stuff here all thrown together,

I can just imagine the folks sitting there at Thomas Road Baptist Church going, eh, what did he just say, that boy is smart, that's why he's the president of the seminary, but I have no idea what he just said.

That God has elected and chosen some to be saved, and others he has chosen to be damned, and God gets the glory.

Now, the idea of double predestination, I certainly believe in what's technically called double predestination, but I recognize that the two things, that is predestination, which is always unto glory, it's always unto salvation, and reprobation, that is to a person's just deserts for their own sin, are not equal things.

Reprobation does not require the action of God in any type of extension of grace in any way, shape, or form.

It is a legal action, it is not an extension of grace, and so they can't just be made two sides of the same coin, there is a difference that must be maintained between the two.

And so, to put it in that way where you're using the very same word of both, again, shows a misrepresentation or a simple lack of understanding of the position that is being criticized.

A hyper -Calvinist believes that invitations are an insult to God. Again, like I said earlier, they certainly can be.

They do not have to be. An invitation can be handled properly in its proper context when the word of God has been preached in such a way that calls sinners to repentance.

But an invitation that uses music and mood lighting and what is sadly very common, having specific people in the audience who get up and come down forward to get things started, yes.

That kind of playing with people's emotions and playing with people's minds and getting people to come down and shake a hand and fill out a card and say, ah, you've got your ticket punched, you're going to heaven, yeah.

That's not just an insult to God, that's an insult to his word, it's an insult to the gospel as well. That's a different thing.

That predestination is the highest of all doctrine. Well, predestination is a high doctrine, but it's certainly not higher than the doctrine of the

Trinity, it's a lot higher than the Incarnation. So I don't know who these people are. I wish

Dr. Cantor had told his audience. Now, I've never actually run into any of these people. I don't know who any of these people are.

And there may be five or six in the United States, but there's just not very many of them out there.

Now, one of the things I appreciated about this sermon is we got into some

Greek. You know, I'm not the only one who mentions Greek words in sermons. And Dr. Cantor, in fact, did a lot of Greek, and that's good because I like to hear that.

But unfortunately, he says it's because of one particular Greek word that he's not a hyper -Calvinist, whatever that definition ends up being.

Let's listen to what he said. Not a hyper -Calvinist, based on one simple three -letter Greek word, one little adjective, one term that appears over and over in Scripture that you're just going to have to dance around or deal with.

In the Greek, the term is pas. It is the adjective for the word that we just read, all.

Now, he's reading from 1 Timothy 2. That is the text from which his

Scripture has been taken. And he goes through the fact there's a number of references there to the term all, that he gave a ransom for all.

Just to give you the text here, it's very important, I think, to hear the text. 1 Timothy 2.

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time.

Whereunto, and for this I was appointed a preacher and apostle, I am telling the truth, I am not lying, as a teacher of the

Gentiles in faith and truth. So here you have 1 Timothy 2. That is the text that he began with.

And the term all appears a number of times. I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men.

Now, of course, as I've pointed out many, many times before, Paul then defines his own terms. When he says all men, he then defines what he means by all.

For kings and all who are in authority. Now, what are kings? Why does he have to say this?

This is a kind of man. He has to tell the Christians, he has to tell Timothy, you need to preach for all kinds of men.

Why? Why would they be tempted not to? Because kings and those who are in authority were those who were persecuting them. Kings and those in authority were those that they would be the least likely actually to pray for.

And so they need to pray for those who are kings and those in authority. Kinds of men. Now, if we were to take this idea that all men here means everyone who's ever lived.

Well, let me go to a man who's later misrepresented by Dr. Cantor in this sermon and give you his comments on this.

In this phrase, be made for all men, not only for all the saints, for all the churches of Christ and ministers of the gospel, nor only for near relations and friends according to the flesh, but for all the inhabitants of the country and city in which men dwell, the peace and prosperity of which are to be prayed for.

Yea, for enemies and such as reproach, persecute, and despitefully use the saints. Even for all sorts of men,

Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, high and low, bond and free, good men and bad men. For it cannot be understood of every individual that has been, is, or shall be in the world.

Millions of men are dead and gone for whom prayer is not to be made. Many in hell to whom it would be of no service, and many in heaven who stand in no need of it.

Nor is prayer to be made for such as who have sinned the sin unto death. 1 John 5 .16 Besides giving of thanks as well as prayers are to be made for all men, but certainly the meaning is not that thanks should be given for wicked men, or for persecutors, and particularly for a persecuting

Nero, or for the heretics and false teachers such as Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom the apostle delivered to Satan.

But the words must be understood of men of all sorts, of every rank and quality, as the following verse shows.

Now, who was that? That was Dr. John Gill, that Dr. Kanner will misrepresent later on in his sermon.

Those are his words in regards to the meaning of what all means. Now, he is right that the

Greek term, actually it's pas -pas -upon, the three forms, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter.

And you have heard many people say, all means all, and that's all, all means.

And that basically is the argument that is being put forward by Dr. Kanner in regards to 1st Timothy chapter 2.

I, of course, argue that it means all kinds of men, and as I have mentioned in previous programs, when you get into 1st

Timothy chapter 2, the idea of mesetace, the idea of mediator that is found in that particular passage, very, very important in regards to the understanding of what

Jesus Christ accomplished. But does the term, pas, always mean every single human being who has ever lived or ever will live?

No. Everyone knows, anyone who is serious about exegesis knows that pas -pas -upon, or any word functioning as this word does, is defined by the context in which it is used.

Let's look at two books from just the Apostle Paul, and let me demonstrate how this term can be limited by the context in which it is used.

Let's look at Romans, and then 1st Timothy, since 1st Timothy chapter 2 is where we are. Romans chapter 5, for example.

Romans chapter 5, verse 18. Take a look at it in your own scriptures if you would. Romans 5, 18.

It says, Therefore, so then, as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, that's pantos, anthropos, all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to pantos, anthropos, all men.

Now, what does that mean? Well, there are some, such as universalists, who would say, see, that means that there is an absolute equation between those who fell in Adam and those who will be made alive in Christ.

There is an absolute equation between the two. Now, the problem is, in Romans chapter 5,

Paul is introducing to us two humanities. Two humanities. One in Adam, and everyone is in him, but then there is another humanity in Christ, and not everyone is in Christ.

And so, the all men, in Romans 5, 18, is definitional of the humanity or the group to which it is being applied.

So, the all men, all men in Adam, only receive from Adam what they can receive from him.

Or, then you have, in those who are in Christ, you have the specific reality of the fact that if they are in him, then they receive the justification of life.

But there is a limitation based upon context. A limitation based upon context,

Romans 5, 18. Romans 7, 8, But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness.

Apart from the law, sin lies dead. All kinds of covetousness. Does that mean that the

Apostle Paul experienced every single possible kind of covetousness? He wanted my laptop?

He wanted my tablet PC? He wanted my Palm Pilot? Well, no. He didn't. He couldn't have. There is a limitation provided within the context itself of what all means.

That, again, the very same term, pass, pass upon, Romans 8, 32. He did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all.

How will he not also with him graciously or freely give us all things?

Now, I would point out that at this point we have a tremendous proof text for particular redemption, limited atonement.

Because you have an equation here, spare his own son, but gave him up for us all.

How will he not with him graciously give us all things? Is this a promise in reality for those who will be in hell for eternity?

Of course not. This is in reference only to the elect. Romans 8 is a tremendous text. I wish we had time to open it up, demonstrate not only the electing grace of God, but likewise the fact that this is particular redemption seen in its beauty and in its consistency with election.

But the question is, when it says give us all things, does that mean he's going to give us divine powers?

That we're going to become gods or something? Well, of course not. Again, pass, pass upon, here, panta, ta panta, being defined within the context that makes sense.

At this point it doesn't even mean all men in any way, shape, or form. It is being limited by the context.

Romans 11, 32. For God has consigned all to disobedience that he may have mercy on all. Again, unless you're going to be a universalist, you have to recognize that the context can tell us what all is referring to.

Romans 14, chapter 14, verse 20. Again, a use of the term pass, pass upon.

One person believes that he can, actually this is 14 .2, that he can eat anything.

It's all things. Well, no, in the context, obviously it doesn't mean he can eat a rock or he can eat a tree or something like that.

It's defined by the context. Romans chapter 14, verse 20. Another. I'm not going to go through.

Romans 15, 14. Let's just skip down to 1 Timothy. Just as an example.

Here's a real good one that might help a number of people on other issues. 1 Timothy 4, 10. 1

Timothy 4, 10. For to this end we toil and strive because we have our hopes on the living God who is the

Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Now, a very Arminian commentary, that of I.

Howard Marshall and P. H. Towner, T. and T. Clark, 1999, says, to be precise, namely,

I mean. All is thus limited here to believers. What the commentary is saying is, looking at that last phrase, who is the

Savior of all men, not especially, but namely, to be precise, of those who believe.

So here, even the Arminians recognize that you have a limitation here of that very same phrase, it's not every single human being who's ever lived or ever will live.

It is, obviously, limited in that way. 1 Timothy 4, 15. Practice these things. Devote yourself to them so that all may see your progress.

Will every person who's ever lived see the progress that Timothy's making? Will even all believers see the progress that Timothy is making?

No, of course not. And so in each one of these instances, 1 Timothy 5, 10, 5, 20, each one of these, you have uses of pass, pass, upon that does not mean a universal, every person who's ever lived and ever will live.

Context determines these things. And so when we go back to 1 Timothy 2, and we look at the issue of what

Paul is saying, and we look at his use of that term, mezzetes, the one who is a mediator.

What does mediation involve? What does mediation result in? What does intercession result in?

Look at the last dividing line we did where we talked about that very issue in regards to Dr. Davis and his sermon.

And we see that we are very consistent in regards to our understanding of that. It is not a misuse of the text.

It is a very accurate use of the text. And so Dr. Kanner does not need to avoid being a

Calvinist over pass, pass, upon. He just needs to look a little bit more closely at pass, pass, upon and its various uses in Paul's writings.

Let's continue on now with the sermon. And just as there was a small group within a larger group that taught this, in the

Calvinist world, there is a small group that affects the larger group by teaching what we call reprobation.

Reprobation is the doctrine that God predestines some for hell, and there is no hope in their life.

Some of you have come to this church, and in the front of your Bible, on a post -it note or in a bulletin, is the name of a lost loved one.

It's somebody who hasn't been saved. For years you've been praying for them, and you wonder if perhaps you've heard some preacher say maybe they are reprobate.

Maybe there is no hope for their salvation. Maybe they were predestined, elected, and selected for hell's fire, and there's nothing you can do about it.

I'm going to tell you by the end of this service, I hope to show you that that's a lie from the pit of hell. Well, it's not a lie from the pit of hell.

Let's face it. Let's look back at the past. Is it not true that there are

Christians who have prayed for individuals who have not been saved, who have gone to their death hating the gospel and rejecting

Christ? The answer, of course, is yes. So, if even from the Arminian perspective that uses the excuse of a philosophical form of foreknowledge,

God knew that person was never going to be saved, knew that person was going to go to hell, and yet Christians were praying for that person.

Now, God may have done everything he could, but evidently the Arminian God can't save people and results in the prayers of his people, which we're going to find rather contradictory at the end.

But the point is, if we look at history, that's going to be a reality. That's going to be true. There's one problem here, though.

And here's the problem. That's why this isn't a lie from the pit of hell. And this is where Dr. Kanner needs to understand what it is we're saying.

We don't know who the elect are. We don't know.

That's why we can proclaim the gospel to everyone. That's why we don't have to try to entertain the lost.

We don't have to try to downplay certain elements of the gospel message so as to not offend the lost.

Christ's sheep will hear his voice. We don't know who the elect are. We know the elect exist.

As Paul himself said, he endures all things, all the imprisonments and beatings for what? For the sake of the elect.

We have to know the elect exist, but we don't know who their identity is. And that's why we are to proclaim the gospel to every creature.

We do not sit around and go, well, I don't think that person's elect, so I don't think I'm going to proclaim the gospel to that person.

That is not what historic Calvinism teaches. And so you don't have to call that a lie from hell.

If someone is saying, if someone says to me, well, you shouldn't preach that person because I know that they're reprobate, but I know they're not elect.

Okay, that's a lie from hell, because they're not given that kind of information. They're not given that kind of insight. But for a person to say, you know what?

Romans chapter 9 teaches it. Ephesians chapter 1 teaches it. We need to recognize the reality that if you embrace

Jesus Christ, it's because he chose you first. We don't love him, and that results in him loving us.

We love him because he loved us first. God is always the one who takes the initiative. God is the one who gets all the glory.

We get none of it. It's because of him that you're in Christ Jesus. First Corinthians chapter 1, verse 30. And so because of that, he gets all the glory.

That's wonderful. That's great. We need to know that. But it does not mean that we can function on the basis of God's secret decree.

We don't know the identity of the elect. So God's prescriptive will is preach the gospel to everyone.

And that's why we do. But that's why we can then have to trust the gospel to be powerful enough to save, and we don't do anything like editing it down and trying to use

Mickey Mouse mechanisms to get people to sort of trick them into following Jesus.

It doesn't work that way. That's why I detest that bumper sticker, Try Jesus. You don't try a king.

You don't try a lord. That's not biblical Christianity.

That's pop Christianity. It has nothing to do with the Bible. I want to show you four things why

I will never be, and you should never be, a hyper -Calvinist.

Number one, I could never be a hyper -Calvinist because spiritually, he cannot trust in the love of God.

In verses 1 and 2, Paul says, I'm asking you, I beg you, to offer four types of prayer for all men.

For all men. Now let me ask you a question. To the hyper -Calvinist, those who are predestined for damnation, why would you pray for them?

God obviously does not love them. Again, see the error. A fundamental basic error that can only flow from the fact that Dr.

Kanner evidently just doesn't listen to what the other side says. We don't know who they are.

We are not given that information. We are not told. We are not given the special spectacles that you put on that makes the elect glow green and the reverberates glow red so you don't pray for the ones in red.

It doesn't work that way. Besides that, why didn't Dr. Kanner, if he's done the study, to know what the other side says.

He's just read 1 Timothy 2. He's just read kings and those who are in authority.

Why not provide an answer right now? This is what I do when I preach and I know there is another side to the side

I'm taking in the exegesis of a text. I will address the other side. If he knows what we say about this, if he knows we're talking about kinds of men, don't just sit there and say, well, you redefined all.

No. I just gave you numerous examples just from two books where all is defined by the immediate context.

There's no question exegetically about that. No one who's a serious scholar would even begin to argue that point.

No one. Nobody. Anyone argues that point, they don't know what exegesis is.

They've never actually done it themselves. It's just not possible. Words are defined by their context and that includes pass, pass, upon.

The word all. And so why not respond to it here? No response is given. It's just thrown out there and that's all it said about it.

Nothing more is said concerning it. The fact of the matter is, folks, we don't know the identity.

We have the command of God that says preach the gospel to all men. We do so and trust

God with the results. That's why we can have the powerful preaching that you find that does not compromise the message.

A good hyper -Calvinist will immediately go to Romans chapter 9. And if you have that text, you can look it up yourself later.

But you know that Romans 9 teaches just as I have said, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

What shall we say then? Is there no justice with God? Verse 14. Is there? May there never be. So, there the proof is, they say.

God loves some. God hates others. And that's the proof. Ladies and gentlemen, please hear me.

Ask yourself this simple question. Did God hate Esau from the foundation of the world?

Did God hate Esau just because he was Esau? Or did God hate Esau because of what Esau did?

Did you hear that? I am still absolutely positively amazed that a man who is a president of a theological seminary stood in front of a church and said what he just said.

It's like he didn't bother to read the context. Romans chapter 9, verse 10.

And not only this, but there was Rebecca also when she conceived twins by one man, our father

Isaac. Now listen. For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad in order that God's purpose according to his choice might stand, not because of works, but because of him who calls, it was said to her, the older will serve the younger, just as it is written,

Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. How can you miss that?

What is Paul's entire point? His entire point is this is

God's choice. This is his free election and it wasn't based on anything that they did.

Not because of works. They had not done anything good or bad.

God's purpose according to his choice might stand, but because of him who calls.

How much more absolutely positively clear can

Paul get? And yet Dr. Kanner just, wasn't there anybody sitting in the audience that goes, whoa, wait a minute.

Wait a minute. It's right up there, son. You skipped the verse that contradicts what you just said.

It's just, I, oh wow. That one, as soon as I heard it,

I went, you've got to be kidding me. There is a place where context just absolutely tripped up the

Arminian, and I know, I'm not an Arminian. Well, okay. The synergist in a big, big, big, big way.

Well, of course, time is going by. We only have half an hour left. We are going 15 minutes longer today, so we need to press on here.

2 Peter 3 .9, one of the big three, Matthew 22 .37, 2 Peter 3 .9, 1 Timothy 2 .4. 2 Peter 3 .9

does get cited. It is the call of God that all, Scripture says, 2 Peter 3 .9, he is willing that no one should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

But if you truly believe that God double elects, then you obviously believe that God may not love some people.

Now again, full discussions of the meaning of love, the nature of love, redemptive love over against common grace, everything just thrown out the window as if you're just completely unaware of what the issue actually is.

But 2 Peter 3 .9, the Lord is not slow about his promise, to some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

Now, it doesn't say nobody. It says for any to perish.

And once again, I would just want to ask Dr. Cantor. This is why I hope our debate is long enough.

And here I am. I'm telling Dr. Cantor exactly what I would say in the debate. These are the questions that I would want to ask, and maybe if I don't get to ask them, other people will ask in class.

Why, Dr. Cantor, do you assume that the word any in 2 Peter 3 .9

means any person who has ever lived upon the face of God's green earth? Why do you assume that?

What in the context gives you that? First of all, 2 Peter 3 .9 isn't even about salvation.

It's about the parousia, the coming of Christ. And Peter is addressing the fact that there is a problem.

And that is that there are mockers. Let's go back to verse 1.

Let's just read the context here. This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you, in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the

Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. Know this, first of all, that in the last day mockers will come with their mocking following after their own lusts and saying,

Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was in the beginning of creation for when they maintained this.

Now, let's stop a second. Follow the pronouns. Follow the pronouns. 2 Peter is written to the elect, those who have received as a gift the same kind of faith, that saving faith is a gift from God there, 2

Peter 1. They have received the same kind of faith as the rest of us. This is written to Christians, written to the elect, in point of fact.

And they are the brethren, they are the you in 2 Peter. But then you have they, for example, verse 5.

When they maintain this. They are the mockers. They are asking these things.

So you've got two groups that are discussed here. They, those outside. You, those who are in the church. For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God, the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

But the present heavens and earth, by his word, are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved. Your notice.

So we've gone back to the second person now. And who is the second person? Who is being addressed? The beloved.

Do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord, one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day.

The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some count slowness.

But is patient toward who? Patient toward them? No, patient toward you.

Who is the you? The you is the elect. But is patient toward you not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

Now, how do you define the words any, tenus, and all, pantas, in a context?

Do you not look for the antecedent? Do you not look for something in the context that defines the range of meaning?

The context is, why has the parousia been delayed? Why hasn't

Christ come? Why isn't Christ here? And Peter says, the reason is, his patience toward you, his elect people, he is not wishing for any of you to perish, but for all of you to come to repentance.

And my friend, if you are listening to my voice today, Dr. Cantor, if you are listening to my voice today, if that's not what this text is teaching, think about it.

If Christ had returned back in those days, you and I would have never come into existence.

We would never have been joined to Christ. We would never have experienced his love, his redemption. The parousia has been delayed so that the full number of the elect could be brought in.

And it's been delayed for 2 ,000 years. Let me tell you something, the final instance, when the last one of those elect people of God embrace

Christ, will bring the end. But that's what Peter's talking about.

Why, Dr. Cantor? Do you just simply assume? Is it just because of your tradition? It's not because of the context.

Follow the pronouns. The you is not the whole world. These words are not spoken to those who died under Joshua's sword and Canaan.

This isn't everyone who's ever lived. So the any and all, both of those terms, by the way, in the accusative, they're following in a line here.

So is you. It's a whole line. This is the consistent way of looking at this text, looking at this passage.

Now, I know there are some Reformed folks that, well, this is the prescriptive will of God, and if I just follow the pronouns,

I can't come up with that. And so, Dr. Cantor, if you've read my book, as you said you've read my book, then you've already heard this explanation.

Why not provide a nice, fast rebuttal of it in case the people in your church run into it?

Then they'd be prepared. I mean, if it's easy to rebut, and Dr. Cantor has said that both Dr. Dave Hunt and Dr.

Norman Geisler have taken me to task and refuted me, then certainly he can quote their refutations of my interpretation of 2

Peter 3 .9. But if you want to look through the books, you're not going to find any refutation of my exegesis of 2

Peter 3 .9. And so I will be asking the question right now. Dr.

Cantor, why do you give us an unnatural context for any and all in 2

Peter 3 .9 rather than the you, which is the direct audience of Peter's words in 2

Peter 3? That's what I would like to know. And I started preaching, so we need to start hurrying up.

It is the call of God that all, Scripture says, 2 Peter 3 .9, he is willing that no one should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Yeah, yeah, we already heard that one. And if God so loved the cosmos that he gave his only begotten

Son that whosoever believed in him wouldn't perish, then why would he die for a world if he was only dying for a small group?

That doesn't seem to make sense. Yeah, it doesn't make any sense in light of... I just find it very, very odd that somehow all these synergists know that there's only a small number of elect.

A small little group. Dr. Davis somehow knew it was exactly 10%. I'm not sure how he figured that out. Maybe there's something in the

King James Bible that comes up with that. I don't know. But somehow they know it's just a small group. I haven't quite figured out exactly how that works to be perfectly honest with you.

But if cosmos always means all people, John 3, then why does a person who loves the cosmos in 1

John 2, the love of God does not abide in him? Or is cosmos used in many ways in John? Well, yeah, actually it is.

It's used in many, many ways. World has many, many meanings. Even sometimes within the same book,

John 17, you've been chosen out of the world. The world hates you. The term world is used in a lot of different ways by the apostle

John. I would really like to ask Dr. Cantor, you emphasize the word whosoever, and you're going to end your sermon with I'm a whosoever man, but could you show us where in the phrase kina pas hapistuon?

In John 3, 16, the word whosoever comes from? I mean, explain to the folks there at Thomas Road Baptist Church, where does the word whosoever arise in the

Greek language from pas hapistuon? You see, the fact of the matter is the text means all the believing ones.

Everyone who believes. Every believer can have eternal life because Jesus Christ has been given.

There's nothing in the text about whosoever as if that denies the reality of election.

Nothing there. Can you show us where it comes from? If you have to go to the

Greek, there's pas, it's his favorite word. The whole sermon is about pas. Right?

So there it is. Pas hapistuon. Everyone believing. John 3, 16.

It's not whosoever in the sense of anybody, no election, everybody has the ability to do saving faith in and of themselves.

That is not what the text is teaching. And that's not founded on the basis of the text.

And if I hear John 3, 16 cited in that way with whosoever, then I hope I have time to ask either

Dr. Kanner to show us where does that come from? Where is this universal ability in pas hapistuon?

Especially when we recognize that the very act of saving faith is described as a gift in Scripture in numerous different passages.

We saw it in 2 Peter 1, 1, for example. Hmm. Well, that's something hopefully we will get an opportunity to get to.

Here's that John Gill citation, by the way. Some of these people will follow John Gill.

John Gill redefined the word all. Here's what he said. He said all simply means all sorts of men.

Referring to the Gentiles or other nations. That it means that he'll save from each group but it doesn't mean he loves everyone.

That's a lie. I wish I could find what Dr. Kanner is referring to because a number of the things that he just presented in regards to Gill I searched on in my

Gill CD which has all of his writings in it and nothing comes up. I already read for you what he did say where he talks about all sorts of men but there's nothing about that's why he doesn't love some of them or a certain group.

I couldn't find any of those and unfortunately no reference was given so I'd very much like to hear because I've looked through his discussion of all sorts of men in 1

Timothy 2. I would like to see where he actually said those specific words in his commentary on 1

Timothy 2. I'd be very interested if Dr. Kanner would provide that kind of information.

I could never be a hyper -Calvinist evangelistically because they cannot believe that God wants all men saved.

Again, I evangelize in response to the prescriptive will of God that says preach the gospel to every creature.

Since I do not know who the elect are then I can understand the parables for example of the soils and I know there are going to be times that I spread that seed that word and it's going to fall on rocky soil.

It's going to fall by the wayside. The birds are going to come and there's going to be people that are going to take my tracks and they're going to rip them up and they're going to spit in my face and I know that's going to happen and I know there are going to be some others who are going to respond very quickly but in reality they don't have a true saving faith and as a result they're going to fall away and I shouldn't be surprised by that because our

Lord Jesus told us that was going to happen but the fact is I don't know who the elect are and I don't have to have that knowledge and if you're going to keep arguing that I have to have that knowledge then who are you arguing against?

It must not be against Calvinists and yet aren't all the passages being cited relevant to all

Calvinists not just quote unquote hyper -Calvinists? Hmm, that's interesting. Well here's a whole section of Greek.

I really like this section. Now let me unpack that for you. He desires fellow. In the

Greek that means he wants. He desires. He intends. He takes delight. He desires all.

You know the word? It's pas. That means everyone. Men. Anthropos. You know that to be anthropological or all mankind.

He wants all men saved. Sozo. He wants them to come to a knowledge. Epigenosis.

It means true knowledge of the truth. Alathea. Yeah, that's what it means.

No two ways about that but it's interesting to me that when we talk about epinosis for example

Colossians 1 .9 we're told for this reason also since the day we heard of it we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge the epinosis of his will and all spiritual wisdom and understanding.

For the Apostle Paul that was something only Christians were to possess. It's something that is a work of the spirit within their lives.

And so again if we look at this passage and we read it in its context he desires all men to be saved to come to knowledge of the truth that is all kinds of men then that makes sense.

Yes, it's his will that all kinds of men are to be saved men from every tribe, tongue, people and nation they are to come to the epinosis of the truth and that is why

Jesus Christ is the one mediator between anthropon men is the anthropos

Jesus Christ 1 Timothy 2 .5 He is the mezzites the mediator he is the heis mezzites the one mediator between God and man and as the

Apostle whoever wrote it in the book of Hebrews said because he ever lives to make intercession for them he is able to save them to the uttermost.

Because he ever lives to make intercession that one work that giving of that ransom sacrifice and we've got some interesting comments here on the issue of ransom and you can tell

I'm hurrying but we're gonna do our best. Where is it that God's sovereignty comes into play? I would tell you this it comes in his foreknowledge.

Now a true H .C. hyper -Calvinist always mixes up God's foreknowledge in his predestination.

Predestination means God chose it, picked it, did it made it happen decreed it to happen as if you had no choice dragged into the kingdom against your will.

Now we've already seen that the presentation of Dr. Cantor is just confused as to the relationship of God's decree and then his knowledge of events in time one dependent upon another not the same thing but one dependent upon the other but I want to especially focus upon that last statement dragged into the kingdom of heaven let's listen to that one more time here.

Chose it, picked it, did it made it happen decreed it to happen as if you had no choice dragged into the kingdom against your will.

Dragged into the kingdom against your will. Now if what he means by that is that before regeneration we are slaves of sin haters of God enemies to him and that then in regeneration we are given a new heart and a new mind that heart of stone is taken out heart of flesh is given to us that the breath of the spirit comes into us and changes us and makes us new creatures in Christ if that's what he's talking about then yes, great, that's wonderful but of course that's not really what's going on, is it?

In other words we are not dragged into the kingdom against our will our wills are changed by the miracle of spiritual resurrection of that heart of stone being taken out a heart of flesh being given that's radical and it's the work of the spirit and I will to enter into the kingdom

I want to follow Christ I'm not being dragged against my will that's a misrepresentation if that is the context in which it was being presented now this idea of foreknowledge on Dr.

Cantor's part really gets really really odd he goes through a section where he talks about knowing which one of his kids could do something bad and then uses that as the basis of defining

God's foreknowledge that's the difference between God's foreknowledge and God's predestination

God's predestination would put the match in the hand and light it for him God's foreknowledge he knows who will choose him he gives an equal warning he gives equal access now of course there are many

Arminians today who are accurately pointing out that if God does have that kind of knowledge then no one is truly free if he absolutely perfectly knows exactly what people are going to do then he doesn't really have man does not really have a free will and that's where open theism is coming from a denial to God of his knowledge of future events but again no effort is made here to substantiate this philosophical definition of foreknowledge in regards to for example passages like Romans chapter 8 and foreknowing that's a completely different thing number three

I couldn't be a hyper -Calvinist theologically because they don't believe Christ died for the world look at verses 5 and 6 died for the world well again we define world as men from every tribe, tongue, people and nation the children of God who are scattered abroad brought into one

John chapter 11 we define it in the context that makes sense without violating the context of scripture itself and so unless you're going to say kosmos always means every single individual that God the

Father placed the sins of all of those Canaanites that Joshua wiped out who were involved in Moloch worship that he put the sins of all those people on Christ even though they were already under his punishment there was no chance they were ever going to be saved they'd been dead for over a thousand years and yet for some wild and crazy reason that somehow shows his love

God the Father puts the sins of those who are already undergoing his punishment and are already being punished for those sins on his son and that somehow is how we're supposed to understand kosmos in the

New Testament I'm sorry don't see where that comes from outside of the emotional preaching of the same tradition over and over and over again without the examination of what that means now there's only three times in the entire

Bible where the word ransom is used here and of course in Matthew and Mark telling the same story Matthew 20 verse 28 just as the

Son of Man did not come to serve but to be to be served but to serve and gave his life a ransom for many oh but the word ransom here they say oh see it means many it didn't say all there and in Mark 10 45 it also says a ransom for many honey don't go to pot on that the word many there actually means it's

Palouse which means an adjective it means larger greater bigger in other words he gave his ransom for a whole lot more people than you know so don't think that you're limiting

God by saying many oh first of all the term ransom appears many more times than three in the

Bible it appears many times in the Old Testament what he meant was that in most

English translations the term ransom only appears three times in the

New Testament but even then he's not quite right because in point of fact in 1st

Timothy chapter 2 where the term is translated ransom here it's antilutron an antilutron is a hypoxilogamata it appears only one time in the

New Testament here it's less emphasized form lutron does appear in Matthew 20 28 as was mentioned but that's a that's not technically the same term it's the same root but it's not technically the same term however he then talks about Paulus and he says that's a whole lot more than you think wasn't the best interpretation of the text there what actually is the background to Matthew 20 28 and Jesus' discussion of a ransom for many what would the

Jews have heard I mean if we really want to do some exegesis here and you see the use of a term and it's used many times in the

Old Testament what's the first thing you do it's something that evidently Dr. Cantor forgot to do or doesn't know to do or just rushed too much to be able to do in this particular instance what do you do you look at the

Old Testament and specifically you look at the Septuagint and when you do that you find something fascinating about this term many in regards to salvation it appears in a very important chapter of the prophecy of Isaiah Isaiah chapter 53 remember

Isaiah 53 the suffering servant gives his life

Isaiah 53 11 should have been where Dr. Cantor went but that would have caused a problem because Isaiah 53 11 says as a result of the anguish of his soul he will see it and be satisfied by his knowledge the righteous one my servant will justify the many palois as he will bear their iniquities uh oh the many are those that he bears their iniquities that sounds like particular redemption that sounds like God has an elect people and he joins those people to his suffering servants and so his suffering servants death avails for them and that would explain why

Paul can say I have been crucified with Christ doesn't it yeah that's what exegesis would do if you're actually looking to accurately represent the text and not just preach your traditions finally my brothers and my sisters

I can't be a hypercalvinist missiologically because a hypercalvinist does not see missions as a world obsession look at verses 7 and 8 for this reason

I was appointed a preacher for this reason he said for this reason Christ died he gave himself a ransom and for this reason

I was sent he said as a preacher as an apostle I am telling you the truth I am not lying does it sound like Paul's getting in the spirit here does it sound like he's getting a little fired up he says

I am not lying to you as a teacher of the gentiles in faith and in truth therefore he said

I want men in all places well of course the problem is um and I I'm wondering

I guess I skipped it I apologize I'm going to have to just uh uh I very very much apologize let me just two things missions

William Carey those early missions people were what they were calvinists and he he repeated and I guess last night

I had actually lost I lost all my cue list I had to had to put it back together again but dr. canard told the story and it's a it's a very popular story and I really wish now that I I had made sure to put the cue in here and I I apologize he told just a little portion of the story you may have heard it told where William Carey is preaching to a group of men and and he wants to go to India he wants to be sent to India to to to spread the gospel and someone stands up and says sit down if God wants to convert the heathen he'll do it without your help he says that was a hyper -calvinist and that rang a little bell in my mind and we're actually going to be going more than 15 minutes over I guess we'll go until we get done here but hopefully less than 80 that rang a little bell in my mind when

I was speaking at Westminster Theological Seminary a number of years ago my my good friend a tremendous scholar

Jim Renahan who heads up the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies there had spoken on the subject of Carey and I wrote to Jim last night and even though Jim is not even on this continent he's not on this side of the world he responded to me today and pointed out that the information that I was looking for is found in the

Reformed Baptist Theological Review 1 -1, January 2004 I highly recommend the Reformed Baptist Theological Review this is on pages 57 and 58 of Jim Renahan's discussion of this this gives you a much fuller context than Dr.

Canner did in his sermon it says the most famous incident typifying the struggle of the day is

John Ryland Sr.'s rebuke of William Carey in 1785 Carey was asked to propose a topic for discussion at a ministerial or fraternal he suggested the topic should be whether the command given to the apostles to teach all nations was not binding on all succeeding ministers to the end of the world seeing that the accompanying promise was of equal extent according to some reports to which

Ryland responded quote young man, sit down, sit down you're an enthusiast when

God pleases to convert the heathen he'll do it without consulting you or me besides there must first be another

Pentecostal gift of tongues end quote while there is some question whether this incident took place there is reason to believe that Ryland's purported response reflected the sentiments of some in the

Fuller -Carey circle at least at that early date Fuller's The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation had only been in print for a year and he himself was only beginning to grapple with the practical implications of his recently articulated theology now here's the interesting part the words reportedly spoken by Ryland are not so clearly the expressions of hyper -Calvinism but of another theological problem present in mid -18th century thought i .e.

the loss of apostolic authority consider again the sentences young man, sit down, sit down you're an enthusiast when

God pleases to convert the heathen he'll do it without consulting you or me besides there must first be another Pentecostal gift of tongues two phrases generally overlooked and by the way,

Cantor mentioned neither of them are important you're an enthusiast and there must first be another

Pentecostal gift of tongues these phrases do not speak of hyper -Calvinism but rather of a misunderstanding of biblical authority the 18th century of course was heir to some of the false notions of the 17th century and one of the movements that seriously hindered

Baptists was that of the Seekers this strange group whose most famous adherent is probably Roger Williams the founder of Rhode Island believed that the apostasy and defection of the church under the ascendancy of Rome was so thorough and complete that all ordinances were corrupted and lost

Williams rejected his own baptism because it was not in a line of succession back to the apostles and for that reason could not be valid for Williams and others it was necessary to seek for the true church only new apostles sent by Christ could reinstitute the lost ordinances and of course the

Pentecostal gifts were the signs of the apostles when these gifts reappeared it was thought that God was giving the signal that the time of restitution of lost practices was at hand until then they were lost many mid 17th century

Arminian Baptists were shaken by this kind of argumentation and went over to the Quakers they had been called shattered

Baptists while the mainstream of the particular Baptist churches rejected this notion and developed a theological polemic for the validity of their baptism they did not escape all its implications in Ryland's words the issue was not the validity of baptism but the necessity of apostolic acts to bring the gospel to the dark parts of the world this argument seems unusual to us but it was foremost in the minds of some of these men they would not and could not act until God sent a new

Pentecost and new apostles I'm sure

Dr. Kanner was unaware of that I was unaware of a lot of the background issues to that until I heard Dr.

Renahan referring to those things but I'm hopeful that Dr. Kanner will be blessed by that information and hence not use that type of thing any longer now this next section however be careful if you're a

Calvinist you're going to be offended here but that's okay we're getting toward the end of the sermon they don't have any reason to reach missions they do it out of duty or they do it because it's something to do but they don't have a hunger and an obsession the reason

I'm on Liberty Mountain because I've got fellow faculty brothers and sisters that have a hunger because I've got ten thousand kids running around me that feed that hunger we believe that God can reach everyone we believe that God can reach every nation we believe that every person with a breath and a pulse is there because God has put them there so that we can go to them and reach them but we won't do it if we allow this infection to take over our churches we won't do it if we become so in love with this system that JC doesn't stand for Jesus Christ it stands for John Calvin we won't ever grow a church with that type of doctrine we won't ever reach a world with that type of doctrine let me say something to Dr.

Kanner if he intends to use that kind of empty rhetoric in the debate he might as well not show up first of all it doesn't intimidate me and secondly to the people who

I debate for serious minded individuals that was a ridiculous statement first of all

JC is John Calvin I know that Danny Akin has used that terminology too and that is absurd and insulting it would never cross my mind to talk to synergists and say oh well you probably think that Jacob Arminius is

God and you probably burn candles to him or something that is the kind of absurd rhetoric that shows no respect for the word of God and here you have the belief that God has elect people described as an infection in the churches an infection in the churches why then why then did the apostle

Paul the greatest missionary of all say for this reason I endure all things for the sake of the elect the elect so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory there is your motivation for missions there is your motivation for preaching there is your motivation for fidelity there is your motivation for putting up with persecution the kind of preaching that Dr.

Cantor just gave us might look good on television in 21st century America but it doesn't do a whole lot of good for people who are undergoing persecution in other lands you need to have a true foundation in the word of God the entirety of the word of God unfortunately

Dr. Cantor started going at the flow and sort of lost control toward the end so if you don't want to preach and teach and reach then you've got a choice take your little doctrine find you a tree and reach other hyper -Calvinists for your little doctrine but if you ain't willing to preach and teach and reach

I'm going to tell you right now don't come to Liberty Mountain because we will infect you with a gospel fervor and a heart and a desire to see souls saved so that the day we come around that throne you're going to look around and see every color every stripe every tongue every nation every people and 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 but we call on his name because he was a whosoever will type of God it's a shame to hear all

God's people saying amen given the number of misrepresentations and lack of exegetical substance in what we just heard but it is again so odd for me to hear that kind of applause before and after a sermon

I just have a completely different viewpoint of how you're supposed to respond to the ministration of God's word which of course

I don't really know that we had a fair ministration of God's word in that context especially given the things that we just presented but last thing here running out of time was

Dr. Falwell himself I want you to listen to what Dr. Falwell says as he introduces the invitation and then listen to what he prays what he says and then listen to what he prays he will not unless you come to him unless you trust him he will not force you against your will to come to the cross he has provided for you everything you need

I want you right now if you don't know him as we're all standing in prayer

I want you to come down here and tell one of the pastors why you've come and go to the prayer room tonight and we have godly men to pray with the men who come and godly women to pray with the women who come and tonight trust him as your savior your redeemer and if you already know him but you've not been committed to reaching others then your heart's grown cold

I want you to come and if you feel the call of God upon your life for the ministry heavenly father now listen here help every man woman boy girl here listening to my radio watching my television to do now what they will be glad they've done when standing in your presence one day do not let one person say no to your precious will save the lost did you hear it did you hear it let's just play out last section one more time one more time in your presence one day do not let one person say no to your precious will wait a minute do not let one person say no to your precious will didn't we just get done with a whole sermon that said god can't do that god won't do that save the lost he's already trying dr.

Falwell he's doing everything he can it's up to the lost now isn't it it's all up to them god's given a hundred percent effort he's put everything out there the father has decreed that their salvation jesus has died to obtain it the spirits come to bring conviction but the trinity can't save anyone if you're a synergist and that's why i'm not that's why i'm not did you hear dr.

kennedy ends the sermon i'm a whosoever kind of guy a misunderstood construction from pass hoppist you own that's the kind of guy he is i am a triune god will not fail to accomplish his will and glorify his grace type of guy and that's why i'm not a synergist and that's why i am a calvinist not a hyper calvinist that's why i'm a calvinist and that is i hope what people will learn october sixteen in the debate in lynchburg thanks for listening to dividing line we went a little long today you may want to comment i've invited doctor kennedy come on if you'd like to comment we'll be back tuesday we have air conditioning now thanks be the lord it came on during the program and lord willing it'll still be running next tuesday and we'll be back then see you then god bless we need a new reformation day brought to you by alpha and omega ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at p .o.

box 37106 phoenix arizona 85069 you can also find us on the world wide web at aomin .org

that's a -o -m -i -n dot o -r -g where you'll find a complete listing of james white's books, tapes, debates, and tracks join us again next tuesday morning at 11 a .m.