Response to Dave Hunt Article on Calvinism

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

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, you can call now by dialing 602 -274 -1360. That's 602 -274 -1360.

Or if you're out of the Metro Phoenix dialing area, it's 1 -888 -550 -1360.

That's 1 -888 -550 -1360. And now, with today's topic, here's

James White. Welcome to the Dividing Line today. My name is James White, and we are going to be talking about an interesting subject today.

I hope you will join us. The number's here locally, 602 -274 -1360. Or 1 -888 -550 -1360.

We are joined today, Rich Parris runs the board, he handles the phone, he takes care of medical emergencies, he codes in HTML, he makes entire websites change form and look in a matter of weeks.

And in fact, that's what Rich has been up to, and all of those of you who are complaining about where your orders are, well, the website looks pretty though, doesn't it?

Yes, Rich Parris runs the board, answers the phone, and you can call in and talk to him and take advantage of his great wisdom.

But we are also joined in studio. I've got some in -studio guests, and they have no idea what in the world we're going to be talking about today, but they're here anyways.

Warren Smith is back, and you know, I'm not sure which mic, I think that's Warren's mic right there. You know, if any of you were on 51st

Avenue this morning, at about between 6 .30 and 7 .30 in the morning or so, you may have seen two people riding bikes down up 51st

Avenue and then down 51st Avenue, and the person in the front in the bright orange jersey, the young man looking confident and not straining whatsoever, that was

Warren. And the old, fat, bald guy that was on his tire trying as best he could to keep up, the guy whose heart rate monitor was putting out plumes of smoke right before it exploded, that was me.

So if I seem a little bit strange today, it's because I'm suffering from heat exhaustion, and I have you to thank for that.

Thank you, Warren. Oh, you're most welcome. Very accurate recollection there, too, by the way. Wait a minute, didn't we have to stop at Chevron for you to get some more stuff to drink, though?

Didn't we? It was a little warm out there this morning, wasn't it? It was quite warm, especially in light of the fact that we spent a good 15 minutes working on the bikes before we actually got out on the road.

Working on your bike, Warren, not mine. Just wanted to remind that. Just wanted to remind you of that. And I'm also joined in studio.

I'm also joined for the first time in a long time by, well, actually, both of my kids are here.

For some reason, Joshua finds it more interesting to be in with Rich, but Summer has joined us in studio.

Hi, Summer. Oh, I didn't hear that. Why didn't I hear that, Rich? I have no idea.

Maybe let's try that one. You still have it? Say something. Hi. Oh, there you are. Just barely there. So Summer has joined us in studio today, too, and we were going to have some other folks here.

We were going to have some other folks. Mike was going to be here. I had hoped that maybe. We had hoped that maybe your

Bible study teacher could be here, but he had to work today. And who's your Bible study teacher,

Summer? Simon Escobedo. Simon Escobedo. We'd like to have Simon here today, but the reason is, and I think

I did mention this to you guys. The reason is that I got an article in the email yesterday morning, and I have asked

Mike Porter and Simon Escobedo to respond to it on our web page, and it will become the main article on the web page.

When you first go on the web page, there's a main article you can read, and it'll replace the article that I have there when they get a chance to get it written.

But this is an article that appeared in the August Berean Call newsletter.

Now we may want to explain to folks what the Berean Call newsletter is. Dave Hunt and T .A.

McMahon have been putting out the Berean Call for a long, long time. I've gotten the

Berean Call for a long time, and of course, since Dave Hunt was a fairly well -known author, he has written books such as The Seduction of Christianity, which launched

Harvest House Publishers, and The Godmakers 1 and 2, and I believe he co -wrote that.

I think Mr. McMahon was involved with that as well. And of course,

Ed Decker also wrote with Dave Hunt on those. I think those two were involved in The Godmakers. And I don't know how many other books, many, many other books,

Whatever Happened to Heaven and all sorts of books, I saw a new one that just came out, a very prolific author.

And I've seen Dave Hunt debate Roman Catholics, and in fact,

I've seen him debate, and not in the formal sense of debate, not like what you both saw a few weeks ago in Fullerton.

And in fact, I should mention that Summer has a review of the debate on our webpage when you go down to the bottom.

Did I send you that nasty note from that Catholic guy? Yeah. Oh yeah, you saw that, didn't you?

He wasn't happy that both my wife and my daughter had reviewed the debate as well. He thought that was really cheesy,

I guess, or something like that. But you all had a good time there, didn't you? It was quite interesting, it wasn't what you expected, was it?

No, it wasn't what you expected. Anyways, he's debated, not in that formal type of setting, but I've watched him on a television program,

Dave Hunt, debating Carl Keating of Catholic Answers. Now for some reason, Carl Keating will debate

Dave Hunt, but he will not debate me. And I thought that Dave did a pretty good job in corralling

Carl and keeping him on topic, which is not an easy thing to do, especially when you don't have a moderator, which most of my debates don't have moderators either, come to think of it, but a moderator who actually steps in and does something and keeps things on topic.

So I've seen him do that, but a few years ago he came out with a book called The Woman Rides the

Beast. And The Woman Rides the Beast is a book on Roman Catholicism.

And as I looked through it, I noticed that, you know, it's pretty obvious that Dave and I take different approaches to how to deal with Roman Catholicism.

I deal, and it's interesting, years ago, after I had debated Jerry Maditax back in 1990 on the papacy,

I had sent the tapes to Mr. Hunt. And he had written back to me and said, well, you know, that was interesting, but, you know,

I really don't feel that there's any purpose in getting into early church history and stuff like that.

I just stick with the Bible. Well, all right. The problem is that, you know, in books like The Woman Rides the

Beast, most of the discussion is focused on eschatology, on the

Book of Revelation, on seeing the Church of Rome in Revelation chapter 17 and 18 and things like that, and all sorts of stuff about what the

Church of Rome has done in history and how terrible and horrible it was, and things like that. So I found that to be rather interesting.

Well, I have publicly stated that I feel the

Godmakers books are below the standard of argumentation, apologetic, that we should be using.

There are things in the first Godmakers book that are useful, but especially the second

Godmakers book and the film, just simply not good argumentation at all, uses argumentation that good

LDS apologists could just absolutely tear apart, quite honestly. And there's no reason to use that kind of argumentation.

It gives them something to write books about, to say, ah, look at these people, they don't accurately represent us. But the point is that in The Woman Rides the

Beast, in the LDS material, there is seemingly no desire for Mr.

Hunt and Mr. McMahon to interact with the best that their opponents have to offer.

And if you shoot at the low end, then you're leaving yourself open for those who are able to produce the better arguments to refute you and make you look bad.

Well, this article in the August Breon Call newsletter, here is, well it's not really an article.

It's a response to a reader, and most of the

Breon Call is, there will be a particular article and then there will be a section of letters.

And here is the question, Dear Dave Hunt, question. It seems that Calvinism is gaining in influence and as a result is causing controversy and even division in some churches.

I think this is an important subject and I don't recall you ever giving your opinion. Would you please do so in the

Q &A section? Well, what we're going to talk about today is the response. And I think what

I might just do, I'm not sure. It's going to be hard for me to read. It's three pages, three and a quarter pages long.

It's going to be hard for me to read it and not respond to it. But I'm going to do my best, and you all kick me under the table here when

I stop and start preaching. You know, that might be a good way to go. Here's the answer. Here's Dave Hunt's answer.

In fact, I have dealt with the subject in at least two books, Whatever Happened to Heaven, pages 235 -237, and How Close Are We, pages 132 -134.

I think that adds up to three pages and three pages. That's six pages. And briefly, in The Berean Call, ouch, kicked me under the table there, didn't you?

In The Berean Call of March and July 1993 as well as July 1995, we attempt to focus on whatever affects the gospel.

And here's the first thing to remember. And I do not consider five -point Calvinism as a false gospel.

It does, however, involve unbiblical teaching. I have fine evangelical friends who are

Calvinists. We have argued without changing anyone's view and left it there. Now, there's the first thing that's stated.

Keep that in mind. I do not consider Calvinism as a false gospel. But mark that down and say, does that follow through?

I continue. However, it is important whether man is totally depraved or can, through the wooing of the

Holy Spirit, make valid moral and spiritual choices. Whether God wants only a select few, called the elect, to be saved, or whether he wants all men to be saved, 1

Timothy 2, 4, 2 Peter 3, 9. Now, let me stop for a second. Don't kick me. My shins are already sore.

But, when the word elect is cited here, no references are given, such as Ephesians chapter 1, verses 3 through 11,

Romans chapters 8 and 9, 2 Timothy 1, 8, 9, 2 Timothy 2, 10. For example, 2

Timothy 2, 10, which says, For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, in the

New American Standard, elect in the NIV, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus, and with it eternal glory.

Paul even says that he endures all things. The sake of whom? For the sake of the elect.

No references are given. But, when it says whether he wants all men to be saved, 1 Timothy 2, 4, 2

Peter 3, 9 is cited. And, for those of you who have obtained a copy of the Potter's Freedom, you know there's an entire chapter in the

Potter's Freedom called the Big Three. And those are three verses that Dr. Norman Geisler uses over and over again,

Matthew 23, 37, and then 1 Timothy 2, 4, and 2 Peter 3, 9. So, it's interesting that none of the passages that are classically used to present the

Reformed perspective, Romans 8, Romans 9, John chapter 6, so on and so forth, will get cited, but all sorts of the other ones will.

I continue on. Whether Christ died for the sins of the elect only, no references given, or for the sins of the whole world,

John 1, 29, 1 John 2, 2. In order to discuss these differences, we need to remove some common misunderstandings.

First of all, one who rejects Calvinism is not necessarily an Arminian. Now, where have we heard that one before?

It's interesting because Dave Hunt and Norm Geisler don't exactly chum around together, but when it comes to the issue of whether it's

God who saves, or whether God saves the cooperation of man, if I didn't have a name on this,

I wouldn't be able to tell who wrote it, whether it was Dave Hunt or Norm Geisler. Isn't that interesting?

I continue. Many non -Calvinists believe in eternal security, but object to Calvinism on other grounds.

By the way, that's what Dr. Geisler does. He believes in, quote -unquote, eternal security. Now, I would argue that there is no basis for believing in eternal security, if you reject the rest of these things, but that's another issue.

I continue on. Next, it is not a question of God's sovereignty. God is the potter.

We are the clay, and the clay cannot complain about how God uses it. The question is whether God, in his sovereignty, has given man the power to make genuine moral and spiritual choices, or whether man is totally depraved and cannot choose

God or good. So, I break from the quotation. In other words, his understanding is that you do not make genuine moral and spiritual choices if you're totally depraved.

Of course, the Reformed person would say that a person who has not yet been regenerated makes genuine moral and spiritual choices.

They're just always against God, because they're dead in sin, and they're enslaved to sin.

But they're genuine, anyways. They're genuine choices. And I guess he would say, well, unless you are out of slavery, and unless you are absolutely free from any type of constraint, then it's not a genuine choice.

Anyways, it is biblical that we cannot come to God or Christ unless he draws us by his spirit.

But when he does draw us, do we truly respond, or is our response in receiving Christ imposed upon us by irresistible grace?

Do we really love God from our hearts? Love requires choice. Or are we deluded if we think this is the case?

Now, I would hope that everyone who has listened to our responses to Norman Geisler last summer, anyone who has heard us discuss this subject, you're automatically going, wait, wait, wait a minute.

These are false dichotomies. These are not the proper questions to be asked.

When it says, for example, it is biblical that we cannot come to God or Christ unless he draws us by his spirit, the question then is, who does he draw?

And if you are drawn, will you come? That's not the question he asks. But when he does draw us, do we truly respond?

Of course we truly respond. But what he's trying to say is, do we truly respond so that we can reject the drawing of the

Father to the Son, and that the Father can draw all men to the Son and yet still fail to save, in fact, a large portion?

Even in Dave Hunt's eschatology, a large portion are not going to be saved. Nor is the issue, and actually, you all haven't been kicking me nearly enough, because I've only gotten through four paragraphs.

Okay, all right, all right, thank you. I will stop commenting, just get through it, and then go back.

But this next one is very important, so listen closely. Nor is the issue whether mankind deserves hell. We all deserve to go to hell, and God would be fully justified in sending everyone there eternally.

The question is whether God wants anyone to go to hell. The Bible says that God is not willing that any should perish, and that he prepared everlasting fire not for humans, but for the devil and his angels,

Matthew 25, 41. In contrast, the God of Calvinism wants many to perish.

If he did not, he would extend irresistible grace to all, and all would go to heaven. Which is the

God of the Bible? And you'll notice, see the big old arrow I have here, written in orange?

See that, Rich? You got that? Good, all right. Did Josh see that? I don't think Josh saw that. He didn't see the big arrow? Okay, Josh, you got the big arrow?

Okay. You notice what I've got there? Five -point Calvinism is not a false gospel, and yet, we get down to here, and he's starting to contrast the

God of Calvinism with the God of the Bible. How do you put those two together? If the

God of Calvinism and the God of the Bible are two different gods, then why in the world wouldn't you identify Calvinism as a false gospel?

I don't follow that, but I will shut up now. Well, actually, I won't shut up now, but I will stop commenting now.

Adam and Eve were not depraved, much less totally depraved, as Calvinism asserts for man today. So it was not depravity that caused

Adam and Eve to rebel and sin. One wonders, one wonders, why did God not extend to them

Calvinism's irresistible grace so that there would be no ensuing sin, sickness, suffering, etc.?

One also wonders why Christians who have believed in Christ through irresistible grace don't live perfect lives.

I'm not supposed to stop and comment, am I? Are some Christians, such as Paul, giants of the faith because God causes them to be that way?

Or are others failures because God, for his own mysterious reasons, doesn't give them sufficient grace?

What then is the purpose of the judgment seat of Christ, and what are the rewards God gives to believers if he is the one who causes some to live more fruitful lives while withholding that grace from others who then are destined to live less fruitful lives?

Is there no responsibility on man's part? Are we robots? God is sovereign, always has been, and always will be.

His sovereignty, however, did not prevent Satan's rebellion in heaven, or Adam and Eve's rebellion in the garden.

Choices were made that were not according to God's will. It is not God's will that this world be filled with corruption, abortion, murder, lust, wars, etc.

He allows it, but this is not his perfect will. Calvinism, however, seems to overstate

God's sovereignty, to the point that all evil must in the end be blamed upon him. Why?

Totally depraved man can do nothing but sin unless God keeps him from it, which he could, if he would, for all mankind with irresistible grace.

Do you get the idea that irresistible grace is not really liked here? And what was the one thing that Dr. Geisler constantly harped on in his book?

He detests the concept of irresistible grace, refers to it as divine rape. Yes, God can do what he desires.

He could send us all to hell because that is what we all deserve. However, an innocent reader taking the

Bible at face value, giving the words their ordinary meaning would surely be led to believe that God genuinely wanted to save the whole world, and that Christ came to die for the sins of the whole world and to offer salvation to all.

This would seem to be stated by multiple verses containing phrases such as, "...which taketh away the sin of the world, for God's love of the world, that the world through him might be saved.

I came not to judge the world, but to save the world, to be the Savior of the world, etc." John 1 .29, 3 .16

-17, 4 .42, 12 .47, 1 John 4 .14. And reading other verses containing such phrases as, "...whosoever

heareth these sayings of mine, whosoever will come to me, that whosoever believeth in him, whosoever commiteth sin, whosoever believeth on me, whosoever shall call upon the name of the

Lord, whosoever believeth on him, whosoever will, let him take the water of life, etc." Mark 7 .24,

Luke 6 .47, and you can look up the other references. The average reader would surely believe that whosoever means anyone without limitation, not a special class of people called the elect.

Taking at face value statements such as, "...come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, who will have all men to be saved, who gave himself a ransom for all, the

Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, etc." Matthew 11 .28, 1 Timothy 2 .4

-6, 2 Peter 3 .9. The same reader, again believing the all means all, and that any means any, would conclude that God lovingly and freely offers salvation to everyone.

The Calvinist, however, because of his belief in total depravity and irresistible grace, those are the two bad things, that's not a quote, that's just what

I mentioned, requires that God must not only draw sinners to himself, but make them accept Christ.

The Calvinist thus arrives at an esoteric understanding rather than the ordinary one. He concludes that all, any, world, whosoever, etc.,

though these words almost always mean what they say, sometimes mean only the elect, when, whenever Calvinism requires it.

Isn't this an artificial view imposed on scripture rather than derived from it? That it is foreign to scripture seems apparent from the fact that Calvinism requires the entire

Bible to be reinterpreted in a way that does violence to the ordinary meaning of words. Repeatedly, God pleads with men, choose ye this day whom ye will serve.

But no one can make such a choice, except God causes them to choose him through irresistible grace. Over and over,

God pleads with his people Israel through the prophets to repent and turn from their sin, so that he won't have to judge them.

He weeps over Israel, defers his judgment, sends more prophets to warn, and finally and reluctantly pours out his wrath.

But all the time he is pleading with the people to repent, who are totally depraved and therefore can't repent, unless he extends irresistible grace to them.

Yet he withholds it, all the while condemning them for doing the only thing they can do, and which he alone could prevent by extending grace, but mysteriously won't.

Jesus weeps over Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered you together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but ye would not.

By the way, just in passing, that's a misquotation. Look it up.

Matthew 23, 37. We'll look at it in a second. Look up Matthew 23, 37. Christ could not state more clearly that he truly wants to bless them, and that they have rejected him.

But Calvinism changes the whole picture. If they are totally depraved, then they can't believe in him unless he causes them to do so through irresistible grace.

So would I, and ye would not, for the Calvinist, really mean I would not, and ye could not? If they could only reject him because they are totally depraved, why does he weep and plead while withholding from them the irresistible grace they need to obey his pleadings?

This is not the understanding that a thinking person, a thinking person, would derive from reading the

Bible. It is an unnatural imposition to support a dogma. If I should hold a rope thirty feet above a man at the bottom of a well, and plead with him earnestly to take hold of it so that I could pull him out, wouldn't he think

I was mocking him? And if in addition I were to berate him for not grabbing the rope, would he not begin to wish he could grab me by the throat?

And how could I maintain to any reasonable persons that I really wanted to bring the man up out of the well, but that he was the one who wasn't willing?

So how can God really want to save those to whom he doesn't extend irresistible grace, that being the only means whereby they can believe the gospel?

Isn't the doctrine of Calvinism really a libel on the character of God? Does it not present a God who does not love everyone enough to want all to go to heaven?

A God who sent Christ to die only for the elect and not for all, yet no basis can be given for why

God, who is impartial, would elect one and not another, nor is there anything in any of us to cause

God to elect us at all? For the Calvinist to take verses which clearly say God loves the whole world, and he is not willing that any perish, that he wants all to come to the truth, etc.,

and to say the world and any and all only mean the elect, is to impose on those verses a view which perverts the meaning of what is being said and conflicts with the rest of the

Bible. We have at least one verse where this artificially imposed meaning won't hold, and he is the propitiation for our sins, not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Surely our hours must mean the elect, and the whole world must be everyone else. It could not be said in plainer language that Christ's blood was shed not just for the elect but for the sins of the whole world.

Limited atonement thus collapses, and with it much of the rest of Calvinism. God is vindicated as a

God who is love, who truly loves all so much that he has done everything needed to save the whole world. Christ paid the penalty for all, the

Holy Spirit seeks to convict and draw all. Therefore anyone who is in hell for eternity is there not because God could have saved them by extending irresistible grace, but did not.

They are there because they rejected the salvation God provided and freely offers to all.

Well I don't know about you, but I think Dave Hunt's been reading Norm Geisler. But one thing is awfully clear, and that is while Dave Hunt says, see the

Bible's clear, the fact that he does not deal with even one of the hundreds of passages that Reformed authors put forward about the electing grace of God, the deadness of man in sin, the slavery of man in sin, the fact that he hammers away on irresistible grace without ever once mentioning that from the

Reformed perspective all that means is that God sovereignly raises dead men, those who are enslaved to sin.

He frees them from their slavery, he gives them spiritual life, he takes out their stony heart, gives them a heart of flesh, biblical terminology by the way.

The fact that not once does he ever address any one of those verses is what drives

Roman Catholic apologists batty in dealing with his stuff on Roman Catholicism, what drives

Mormon apologists batty in dealing with his stuff on Mormonism. He doesn't listen to the other side.

He doesn't deal with what they're saying, and now he's turned his guns upon the very

Reformation that freed Europe and the rest of the world from the dominion of the very system that he identifies as being the worst in all the world,

Roman Catholicism, and in the process ends up agreeing with Rome on this issue over against the

Reformers. He would agree with Erasmus against Luther, Pygius against Calvin, he would agree with Arminius against the

Synod of Dort, he's on Rome's side when it comes to the nature of the will and the nature of grace, and yet finds in Roman Catholicism the most horrible system there could be.

This type of absolute inconsistency just should not be, folks.

It should not be. Now some of you may be big fans of Dave Hunt, and he's written some good stuff.

He makes good points. In The Woman Rides the Beast, he makes good points. In The God Makers 2, and this is one of the main things that even when

I did a radio program with two BYU professors and a Mormon attorney, I made this point then.

In his books, for example, in God Makers 2, and in fact I wrote to Ed Decker, and I said,

Ed, God Makers 2 is a bad movie, and it's a bad movie because you use bad arguments.

And the main thing that ends up happening is you will have one section that talks about how

Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer, and how that's wrong, and it's the wrong

Jesus, and Ed, you're right. That is the wrong Jesus, and that's one of the main reasons we have to evangelize the

Mormons, is because they've got the wrong Jesus. But, when you then have a section before it, and a section after it, where you're misrepresenting the

Mormons, and you're presenting easily refuted arguments against the Mormons, don't you see what's going to happen?

When you use bad arguments against someone, and then you put those right around a good argument, they ignore the good argument, and in fact dismiss the good argument because the bad arguments that you're using.

You have to be consistent. Well, that's what we have here. Dave will say right things about Roman Catholicism, but for some reason doesn't seem to recognize he agrees with Rome on the one issue that Martin Luther identified as being the very hinge upon which the

Reformation turned, and that is the sovereignty of God and salvation and man's deadness and sin.

These are the very same arguments that Robert St. Genes used against me in our debate on justification by faith in May on Long Island, and Robert St.

Genes is a Roman Catholic. Dave Hunt and Robert St. Genes use the same arguments against Calvinism.

They cite the same passages and make the same errors. It's truly incredible. Now, what do you all think?

I'm going to continue going through this unless we have folks who, and there's so much to respond to. I already started to respond to some of this.

One of the things that I wanted to definitely respond to, and I asked you to look it up, Warren, was

Matthew 23, 37, and I want to, before we take our break, we're going to take a break in just a minute, but before we do,

Matthew 23, 37, here's what Dave Hunt says. Jesus weeps over Jerusalem. How often would

I have gathered you together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but ye would not.

What does Matthew 23, 37 actually say? Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her.

How often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

There you go. He is addressing those who were unwilling that Jesus gather their children under his wings.

That is, he's addressing, in Matthew 23, the Jewish leaders. The entire paragraph in this article that says

Calvinism changes the whole picture. Christ could not state more clearly that he truly wants to bless them and that they have rejected him.

No, that's not what Matthew 23 says. Matthew 23 is saying that the

Jewish leaders are the ones to whom Jesus is referring. He is the one who, the

Lord has been berating them throughout Matthew 23, calling them hypocrites and a brood of vipers, and he says that they would not allow

Jesus to gather their children, those under their authority, and that's not what ends up in the article.

Now is that purposeful? I don't think it was. But it does show you how eisegesis can take place, how you can take a tradition and read it into a passage, rather than letting the passage speak for itself.

602 -274 -1360, 1 -888 -550 -1360.

What do you think? Maybe you'd like to get on the phone and talk with us today about this article in the August edition of the

Berean Call. We'll be right back. For your information, not all commercials that air during The Dividing Line represent the viewpoint of The Dividing Line or myself, either.

In fact, that happened last night, too. I found out later on that while I was filling in for Marty Minto that one of the regular commercials actually was promoting

King James -only -ism, and in fact I got it. Yes! Didn't know that, did you? Rich just gave me. Yes.

Yeah. Uh -huh. That was the Chuck. Mm -hmm. Mm -hmm. Yeah, in fact, someone sent me an email last night that said, hey, did you know that that particular individual defends the long ending of Mark, Mark 16, 9 through 20, on the basis of numerics and the repetition of multiples of 7?

And I'm like, joyous. Anyways, it's deep, yeah, it's wonderful stuff. Anyways, we're looking at the response of, it says,

Dear Dave Hunt, and it uses the personal pronoun and refers to his books. So from the

August Bree and Call newsletter, and one of the things we were just looking at was the misuse of Matthew 23, 37.

And then, right after that, we have a further misrepresentation, and by the way, I forgot to mention that I am joined in studio by Warren Smith.

Hi, Warren, again. You're still here. You've made it through half an hour. That's good. Still here. Mic is still on. The mic is still on.

Well, I've got the controls over here. Summer's here. Hello, Summer. Hi. And Josh is sneaking out the door and running, even as we speak.

The kids are here, and I'm glad to be joined by you all today. Then we saw this incredible misrepresentation.

If I should hold a rope 30 feet above a man at the bottom of a well and plead with him earnestly to take hold of it so that I could pull him out, wouldn't he think

I was mocking him? Now, I don't know. Summer, have you ever seen, I don't think you've ever been in a class that I've been in where I drew my three pits.

And I'm not sure if Simon, Josh, you know what I'm talking about. And maybe Simon has used the three pits example.

And I'm not sure, Warren, if we've known each other long enough now for you to see my wonderful artwork of the three pits example.

I have not been introduced. Not seen that one? Josh is mocking you from the other room. He does that a lot, though, doesn't he?

We've got a problem there. Now, Rich, you know the three pits, right? Rich knows the three pits. Okay. The three pits are,

I stole them, I unabashedly admit that I stole them from my church history professor at Fuller Theological Seminary many years ago.

And he was illustrating the difference. Are you going to mock my artistry? Is that what you're going to do, Rich? You weren't going to do that?

No, I wasn't going to mock your artistry, no. You don't need to. Anyone who's seen it doesn't need to have you to tell them how bad it is.

Is that the point? I wasn't going to say anything like that. Oh, okay. No, no. You had your headphones on.

You had the microphone ready. I would not come on to the program and mock your artistry, no.

I wouldn't dare do such a thing. Josh is mocking my artistry. Stick figures come to mind.

I've got to see it now. It's a mental thing. I would not mock your artistry, no.

Josh is mocking my artistry right behind you. But anyways, basically what I do is I draw two pits at first.

And this is explaining something in the history of the church, and it was the great debate between Pelagius and Augustine.

And interestingly enough, it's very much like this right here. This article that Dave Hunt, this illustration he's using, and that is in Pelagius' pit, there is a stick figure, and Rich is right, that's all

I can manage. There is a stick figure at the bottom of a pit, and he can't get out by himself.

But he's standing there. And salvation is pictured as God standing on the edge of the pit, throwing a ladder down to him in the form of the good example of Christ, good works, things like that.

And in Pelagianism, man is not spiritually dead. Every man who is born is a new

Adam. And the only reason he falls into the pit is because of the examples of others and things like that.

And so he is able to climb up, by his own power, this ladder that is made up of the example of Christ.

Now, the other pit is Augustine's view. And in Augustine's pit, you have a man, and again, it's my stick figure thing.

He's laying on the bottom of the pit, and he has a tulip growing out of his chest. Okay? He's dead.

All right? He's not standing there waiting for someone to throw a rope down to him or a ladder down to him.

He is a corpse. He is dead. All right? Now, in this one, you have

God the Father standing on the edge of the pit, and he's lowering a ladder down. But on the ladder is

Jesus Christ. Jesus comes down, raises the man to spiritual life, picks him up, and carries him out of the pit.

Then in the middle, I draw a third pit. And this is the pit of what's called Semi -Pelagianism.

And that, sadly, is what Semi -Pelagianism, in essence, is what most of Christianity quote -unquote embraces today.

And that is, it is the idea of the man is sitting down in the pit, and his leg's broken.

And his arm's broken. And like me, he's suffering from heat exhaustion. It's a hot pit.

And so, what you've got is you've got the ladder being thrown down to him.

And he can't get out of the pit without help. But it's a cooperative effort. Jesus can't take him out on his own.

But it's a cooperative effort between the man who is sick, he's ill, but without his cooperation, he's never getting out of that pit.

Okay? Now that's what we have here. And from, seemingly, the

Bree and Calls perspective here, man needs to have the ladder thrown down to him.

Because it says, no one could get saved unless God calls them. But what we have here is

Synergism. And this was the issue with Robert Syngenis, too. Synergism.

That is, the working together, the cooperation of two free wills to result in salvation.

God and man cooperate together. Man can't save himself. And God cannot save man alone.

The two together have to work together to result in salvation. That's Synergism.

That's what Rome believes. That's what Mormonism believes. That's what the Watchtower Society believes.

And that's what Arminianism teaches. The world's religions are all

Synergistic. That is, it's a cooperative effort between whatever kind of deity they have and man.

And the whole issue of the Reformation turned on the difference between Synergism and Monergism.

Monergism being the biblical truth that God saves perfectly.

That God can save his people. As Jesus taught in John chapter 6, all that the

Father gives me will come to me. And the Father's will for the Son is that he lose none of those that have been given to him, but he raise them all upon the last day.

He must have the power to be able to do that. And that's why Jesus is described in Hebrews chapter 7 verses 24 through 25 as the one who is able to save to the uttermost.

That's what a Savior is. We would not call someone who was not truly able to save a

Savior. But that's why Jesus Christ is called a Savior. And that really is what the issue is here.

Mr. Hunt doesn't understand. God is not holding a rope 30 feet above a man at the bottom of a well.

That's what Arminianism presents. In reality, it's Arminianism that is saying, you know what?

God's walking through a graveyard with a cure. For whatever killed you, here's the cure.

All you've got to do is raise yourself up out of the grave to grab it. Well, no one can do that. You see, the issue is he rejects total depravity.

He rejects that man is dead and sent. I was going to say, when I heard the analogy of the guy at the bottom of the well, the first thing that went through my mind was the problem is the guy's under 30 feet of water, and he's been dead, and he could care less about the rope.

That's exactly right. That's what the biblical presentation of man and his sin is. But that's not what people want to believe because that doesn't exalt man and put him in a position of control.

And that's where this whole passage falls apart. Now, just briefly, we're going to take a quick break.

Come back. We're not going to take a break? We already took care of all of our break stuff. Excellent. Well, then we don't need to worry about that.

Very briefly, then we'll go to our first caller. There's a long section here about the innocent reader taking the

Bible at face value. All the whosoever wills. There's all sorts of whosoever wills.

People say, well, that's contrary to the Reformed position. No, it is not.

Well, well, why? If men are dead in sin, then whosoever will makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense. Who will? The Bible tells us that outside of that tremendous miracle called regeneration, that there is no

God seeker. There is none who seeks after God. There is none who can come unto Christ outside of that working of the

Father whereby we are drawn. By the way, John 6 .44 doesn't say that the

Father draws everybody to Jesus, because it says that everyone who is drawn is raised up at the last day with eternal life.

He draws those that he gives to the Son to the Son, and all of them come to the Son. That's what

John 6 .35 -39 teaches. But people say, well, whosoever will contradicts

Calvinism. No. When a person has been regenerated, they are the only ones who will respond.

And Mr. Hunt keeps saying, well, you know, do we not genuinely respond? Yes, we genuinely respond.

But we respond to what God has done in us. He causes us to be born again, and as a result, we embrace

Christ. I trust in Christ, but why do I trust in Christ? Because of what he has done in me first.

We love him because he first loved us. He was the one who made that move toward us.

Well, that is part of the discussion. Obviously, a much fuller discussion will be appearing on the webpage soon.

I've now put a lot of pressure on both Mr. Porter and Mr. Escobedo to put their pens to paper, or in this case, actually, their fingers to keyboard, and put that article together where we respond to this.

And by the way, I have contacted Dave Hunt's ministry, and I have invited him, or T .A.

McMahon, to be on the program and to discuss this issue. And I want, unfortunately, they don't have an email address

I can send that to, so I've had to send that via the ye olde snail mail post office, along with a copy of the

Potter's Freedom. But we are going to try to arrange to have this discussion and have both sides present it, because I truly would like to ask

Mr. Hunt, Mr. McMahon, one of their representatives, all right, you say this is the case, let's look at John chapter 6, let's look at Ephesians chapter 1.

You didn't even touch any of them. You did not even make an attempt to present the

Reformed position. Why not, let's look at the Bible together, let's see what the real issue is here.

And I'd especially like to ask them, why do you agree with Rome on this vitally important issue?

This is what Luther said divided the two sides. This was the very foundation of the

Reformation. Why on this issue do you believe the Bible teaches otherwise? Certainly it can't be the argumentation that was presented here.

602. 274. 1360. 1888. 550. 1360. Let's again talk with Pierre back in Virginia.

Hello Pierre. Hello Pierre. Hold on,

Pierre, Mr. Pierce is making an adjustment. Are you there now? Hello? There you are. How you doing, sir?

Hi. Mr. Pierce knew he was going to have to make that adjustment, and he told us in the car going down here, it's not going to work the way they told me to do it, but it's there now.

Yes, sir, what's your question? I missed a lot of the conversation, unfortunately. The internet is that way sometimes.

I'm sorry? The internet is that way sometimes. Anyway, I just had some question about your reading of Matthew 23, 37.

I think, as I read it, and I've read it in four different versions, and it's all pretty much the same to me.

It looks like Jesus is, in fact, not just addressing the leaders, but in addressing Jerusalem he addressed his people.

And not just his people, but to live in Jerusalem itself, but because Jerusalem represents the capital of Jewry, if you will, he is actually addressing all

Jews, and not just the leaders. And I think this is a clear,

I think the way that traditional Christianity interprets it is, in fact, the correct interpretation.

So when it says, I wanted to gather your children together, who's that?

If Jerusalem is all Jews, then who are the Jews' children? Well, he's addressing the city as representation of the children are all the

Jewish people. Okay, then who is those who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her?

Those refer to the Jews that reject the prophets, which has always been the majority of the

Jews. Well, I'm confused. You have two groups in Matthew 23, 37. It says, how often

I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling.

So the you and the children are two different groups. You seemingly are saying they're the same group. I'm afraid

I don't read it quite that way. Well? He's addressing Jerusalem as a city, and Jerusalem represents all of the

Jewish people. Okay, then who is Jerusalem's children? Well, it's the Jews, because it's...

So they're the same group, and so Jesus says,

I wanted to gather your children, that's you, but you were unwilling. Is that your idea?

Uh... I'm sorry, it just doesn't make any sense. Matthew 23, the introduction, is about the

Jewish leaders. You start at the beginning, the scribes and the Pharisees, goes all the way through. It talks about the seed of Moses there in 23, 2 through 4, so on and so forth.

You've got the woes all the way through the section 29. Then it's 34, you start the message of judgment that's going to be upon them.

I am sending you prophets and wise men, and then 37 says, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her, how often

I want to gather your children together, and you were unwilling. So you've got to make a differentiation.

If you're going to say that Jerusalem is all Jews, then the children has to be somebody else. If you're going to say the children is all

Jews, then Jerusalem has to be somebody else. But if you say they're both the same thing, it doesn't make any sense.

Well, only in the sense, I'm saying that Jerusalem represents all of the Jews. And so when he addresses

Jerusalem, he addresses the people of Jerusalem, and really,

I guess you could say their offspring, the various generations of Jews that have existed over the existence of Jerusalem itself as a city.

Well, when were the Jews unwilling that the next generation of Jews be gathered? I mean, if we're going to start dividing up by generation.

I mean, again, whatever we do here, let's put it this way. Citing Matthew chapter 23 in regards to the depravity of man and man's enslavement to sin is an eisegetical citation.

That is, that's not what Jesus is talking about. Jesus in Matthew 23 is talking about judgment coming upon the nation of Israel, not the capacities of man.

The scriptures, when it talks about the capacities of man, says in 1 Corinthians chapter 2 verse 14 that the natural or fleshly man does not discern or understand the things of the

Spirit of God. He is not even able to do so. All through the Bible, you have Romans chapter 8 verses 5 through 8 that talk about the fact that man is incapable of submitting to the law of God, is incapable of doing what is pleasing to God.

Jesus says in John 6, 44, No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

When we go to those passages where the Bible actually addresses the capacity of man, the phrase is inable, incapable, unable.

That's the phraseology that the Bible uses. So to even go to this passage is to take it out of its context and to force it into a foreign context to discuss an issue that it doesn't even discuss.

So I think that's one of the first things people need to recognize, is that when they hear someone, and there are many people who, by tradition, cite such passages, that when they hear someone using something like this, they are not paying attention to context.

And that's something that's very important to do. Now I think you said last week, Pierre, that you're LDS, so LDS Mormonism has no concept of total depravity.

No, that's correct. And in fact, I can cite a number of other scriptures to substantiate that.

A number of what scriptures? Scriptures that would substantiate the fact that men are capable of responding to God.

Well, maybe you could give me an LDS interpretation of what Jesus said in John 6, 44, then. Well, in fact,

I should mention to you, Joseph Smith changed this, he didn't have any reason to, there is no basis for it, but he did change

John 6, 44, he did alter it. 6, 44? Yeah, Jesus says,

John 6, 44, he says these words, No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

What does Jesus mean when he says, no one can come to me? Well, I think that in part what you're saying is correct, that obviously

God has to extend the invitation, but the invitation is extended unto all men.

And then he raises up those that come unto him. So the coming is the voluntary part, is that the idea?

Yes. So when it says, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day, you would take the

LDS idea that this is just simply resurrection, or would you take the idea? Well, raising up on the last day, yes, refers to resurrection, but more than that, it refers to exaltation.

So all who are drawn by the Father to the Son will be exalted? If they come in the fullness of, yes.

But where does the passage say that? Because all that the Father draws the Son are raised up by the

Son. All of them. Notice it says, I will, draws him, and I will raise him on the last day.

Many of the statements of our Lord can have a double meaning. And so this refers to salvation in the general sense that all of us will eventually turn unto

Christ and accept him to some degree and receive some degree of glory. And we will all be raised, of course, we will all receive resurrection, regardless of whether we are good or evil.

I think even the Protestants and Catholics believe in that. Well, not on the grounds that Mormonism teaches it.

Perhaps not, but the idea that all men will be raised, from the dead,

I mean. I'm talking about the flesh now. Yes, but the biblical viewpoint here in John 6, 44, is when it says,

I will raise him up on the last day, that is a resurrection to life. That is a resurrection to everlasting life, and there is nothing in the context that leads a person to believe that those who are raised up on the last day are any different than those who were drawn by the

Father to the Son. So if you're saying that this is exaltation, a concept utterly and completely missing from all of the

Christian scriptures, but a part of LDS scripture, but even if you read that into the text, then you're saying that everyone who is drawn by the

Father will be resurrected, and in Mormonism, that simply isn't the case, is it? That everyone will be resurrected?

That everyone, will everyone who is drawn by the Father be resurrected to exaltation? Oh, no.

Okay. So, when you say in 6, 44, that being drawn by the

Father to the Son results in their being raised up to resurrection, where do you get a...

All I'm saying is that it refers to both resurrection, I mean, obviously the resurrection is extended to all men through Christ, through the atonement, but specifically,

I think the first interpretation would be that he's referring to those who are exalted.

Those who are exalted. Now, you'll admit there's nothing in John 6 about exaltation, right? Well, the word itself is not used, but the concept is there.

Where? Well, the idea that coming unto the Father is, for us, as Latter -day

Saints, means exaltation. Well, okay, Latter -day Saints, but Latter -day Saints didn't exist until April 6, 1830.

In the context in which John 6 was written, in the synagogue in Capernaum, was there anyone there who would have had any idea whatsoever of your interpretation of this passage?

Well, I don't know because I wasn't there. Alrighty, thanks for calling today, Pierre. We're out of time. You can hear the applause in the background, and John Tesh firing up on the piano.

And we appreciate your being with us there, Pierre, and the questions and looking at John 6.

Folks, don't get the wrong idea. I appreciate the good things that Dave Hunt has done. I am inviting him to come on this program and to discuss this issue because I believe he is inconsistent on this point.

And inconsistency is not something that Christian apologists should be guilty of. These are important issues.

These are vital issues, and I think you've been able to see that even in the conversations we've had today. Summer, Warren, thank you very much for being here.

Thanks. You could come again sometime, Summer. Yeah. Yeah. There's four or five words now, something like that.

Warren, thanks for being here again. It's been a pleasure. Appreciate you being here, reading the Scriptures for us. Rich, thank you very much.

We'll see you next week on The Dividing Line. The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -0318 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 aomin .org, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.