April 13, 2006

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

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now 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.

Reviewing Dr. Kanner’s Sermon on Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism

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. Ergin 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 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. Ergin 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.

For someone like myself, that's very, very unusual. But that's what took place.

Let's listen in. Think of Dr. Ergin Kanner. This guy's still in his 30s. 30s. Just a boy. A rambunctious one, but a boy. And I looked down and saw this guy on the hill. I thought, there's a layman, Ergin Kanner, right down there, sitting on the aisle.

I won't tell you what his shirt says, but it's true. Welcome, Dr. Ergin 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's 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. And 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 scratched 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.

And 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. Kanner and I in email will remember a category error that Dr. Kanner 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. Kanner 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'll be able to get that cleared up rather quickly in the debate itself.

Baptist Identity, Invitations, and the History of Calvinist Controversy

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 the sermon where it'd 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's 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.

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's evangelistic.

If you think that every single service that's what it's supposed to be, then you're 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.

I don't know who he's referring to and the idea that splitting churches, it's always placed in the idea that 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 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 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 is 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. Cantor'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 in the extension of his 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.

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.

That 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. He 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.

He said, what's silly? If God wants them to be saved, he's going to save them himself. I'm like, what? He says, yeah, I'm a Calvinist. Well, he wasn't. He was a hyper-Calvinist. 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. It would be very nice if Dr. Cantor would then tell his audience that, for example, both the London Maps 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, 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.

Whoa, 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 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 elect 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 desserts 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 and 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. Kanner 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, you know, there's just not very many of them out there.

1 Timothy 2, the Meaning of “All,” and Contextual Exegesis

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. Kanner did, in fact, did a lot of Greek. And that's good because I like to hear that.

But unfortunately, he says 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.

I'm 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.

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 and 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 is 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 is paspasapon. 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 1 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 1 Timothy chapter 2.

The idea of messetace. 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 pass always mean every single human being who has ever lived or ever will live?

No. Everyone knows. Anyone who is serious about acts of Jesus knows that paspasapon 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 1 Timothy since 1 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 is going to give us divine powers? That we are 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 does not 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 are going to be a universalist you have to recognize that the context can tell us what all is referring to. Romans 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 is all things. Well no in the context obviously it does not mean he can eat a rock or he can eat a tree or something like that. It is defined by the context. Romans chapter 14 verse 20.

Another. I am not going to go through. Romans 15, 14. Let's just skip down to 1 Timothy. Just as an example. Here is 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 Panton, Anthropon. 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 quote. Adoption of the traditional translation of Malista. As especially leads to some strained exegesis. These problems disappear if we accept the other possible translation 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 Panton, Anthropon. It is not every single human being who has 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 has ever lived see the progress that Timothy is 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 Posposapon. That does not mean a universal. Every person who has ever lived and ever will live.

Context determines these things. And so when we go back to 1 Timothy chapter 2. And we look at the issue. Of what Paul is saying. And we look at his use of that term. 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. 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 Posposapon. He just needs to look a little bit more closely.

At Posposapon and its various uses in Paul's writings. Let's continue on now with the sermon.