Radio Free Geneva!

You constantly hear people that are Calvinist harp on this.

Bah! Bah! God's suffering! God's suffering! Bah! Suffering! Suffering! Suffering!

They just keep repeating it, and they repeat it so much you start to think it's a biblical truth.

I'll be the one on top of my feet, standing on a stump and crying out,. He died for all those who elected, were selected.

You take lessons from Judas White and Jeff Durbin. It shows in this kind of sequential format and.

Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things? Um, no.

I've said the other day in class that I don't understand the difference between hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism. It seems to me that Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist.

This cannot override your unbelief.

Hydra is evil for causally determining Bucky to kill Tony Stark's parents, but everybody recognizes that Doctor Strange is the hero in Infinity War and Endgame. In Infinity War and Endgame.

To realize that he's gone from predeterminism, now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to...

I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge.

Then don't beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it.

It's not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat. There's a reason to have the choice of that meat.

From our bunker deep underneath Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, safe from Dave Hunt fans, Leighton Flowers, provisionists, and future monks of the Dominican Order, we are Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say to his own eternal glory.

I suppose we should think about the Midwestern thing these days, but, uh, hey, they had that guy there long enough. Hey, welcome to Radio Free Geneva. Every time I listen to Steve Tassi saying that, Rich just said, use your words.

Oh, so many of them. For those wondering, maybe you're new to the Dividing Line. Radio Free Geneva is not something different than the Dividing Line. It's just something we do on the Dividing Line. You know, maybe once a month, once every couple months.

We have this great opening. But this all goes back, wow, to Rich's Garage, actually. I remember the first Radio Free Geneva's. We didn't call them that then. That was their origin. A well-known Southern Baptist minister, who's not with us any longer, had preached a couple of sermons, or at least one sermon, against Calvinism.

And it was filled with straw men and misrepresentations. No, Dinesh D'Souza did not write it, but he could have, given what he's doing these days. And so we just wanted to fix the problems. Go, well, that's actually not what we believe, and this is what we believe, and here's what the Bible says about that.

And so many people responded to that program. That we're like, okay, this is something we need to do fairly regularly. And we called it Radio Free Geneva. If you're not familiar with that phraseology, go back to World War II, Radio Free Europe, things like that, where you broadcast into enemy territory, basically, and spread your message that way.

And that's what we're doing, spreading it into enemy territory. And certainly, over the years, we've seen many people come to realize, wow, I hated a straw man. I hated something that doesn't actually exist.

And yeah, so we deal with a lot of really bad arguments against Calvinism. And there are so many to choose from these days. Oh my, the past two weeks have given us a plethora. We could do this the rest of our lives.

We won't. But we've also dealt with some of the best arguments as well, over the years, on Radio Free Geneva. So it's not just the low-hanging fruit, though there is so much low-hanging fruit. But yeah, that's what this is all about.

And so, we do want to get to some of the current event stuff, because there is just this constant flow of utter blather from people who clearly have absolutely no interest in truthfulness, accuracy, anything.

I mean, it's just, nope! I know the truth about Calvinism. I don't have to read anything. And so many, so many go, you want to say that Calvinism is just the simple biblical gospel, but then, then you have to turn around and you have to tell people to read, you know, a thousand books.

And I'm like, you do realize you're addressing two different topics there, right? Yes, we believe that God saves perfectly in and through Jesus Christ by his own power and sovereignty is a summary of the biblical gospel.

But Calvinism is a system that addresses many major theological topics and has existed under that terminology and that name for, you know, 500 years. And Calvinists write lots of books. They write lots and lots of books.

Thousands and thousands of pages worth of books and have been doing that for a long, long time. And the names, you know, we could go back and start looking at the names of people. We're talking very, very serious works of scholarship.

And yet today, it seems that most people on the internet have the idea that they can watch a video or they can read a few memes and they don't have to worry about all that stuff. They now know everything Calvinists have ever said and they don't have to do any homework at all.

It's great. And people have really been coming after me for going, this is reprehensible. But what did you expect me to do? When I started studying Mormonism, what did I do? I read thousands of pages of Mormon documentation from the Mormon leadership.

Because I was convinced if you're going to address a subject and you're going to address a particular belief of a certain people, you might want to know what they actually believe. And so I spent hours and hours and hours listening to Muslims, talking to Muslims about Islam.

Obviously read the Quran, studied Arabic, but then I went through all of the Hadith. Why did I do that? So that you can know what you're talking about. So that you don't have to be stuck in the internet of today where all you're doing is repeating the last meme you saw and you don't have a clue whether what you're saying is true or false.

And we've done that with Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholicism. We're sitting here going through the confession of Decithius in regards to Eastern Orthodoxy. We know we're weird, but this is how you do things right.

This is how you do things in a truthful and respectful fashion, which is not how you do things on X or Facebook or anyplace else online these days. So I ran across this graphic. And I thought, you know what?

We haven't done a Radio Free Geneva in a while. And this is a, it's a colorful graphic. I like colorful things. You probably don't. If you're new to the program, you haven't seen my Coogee sweaters during the colder months.

There aren't very many colder months here in Phoenix. But anyway, I like colorful stuff. And so I saw this. It is your standard anti-Calvinist. We don't have a clue what you actually believe, but we're going to put this out here anyway type thing.

So it fits perfectly with Radio Free Geneva. But it's really colorful. And look how this works out. This is the top half. It says Calvinist Tulip Doctrine. Got a big old tulip. Five points of Calvinism and what scripture clearly refutes each one.

That is not good English. But we get the idea. But now watch this. So that's real nice. But watch this. All I got to do is scroll up like this.

Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do. And it fits perfectly. Look at that. Isn't that cool?

I love it. So we're going to start with this. And then Layton Flowers has jumped in. And, yeah, I'll talk a little bit about, you know, Dinesh D'Souza today posted a thing where he said all five points are false.

So he's a full-blown Arminian. We still don't know what church he goes to. Well, I'm a public figure. We don't care. Okay. I'm not asking the address of the church you attend on Sunday, though I would like to know, do you attend a church on Sunday?

Are you under elders? Are you obeying Hebrews that says to be under elders? That, I think, is a relevant question. I mean, I personally am not overly interested in taking a biblical advice or admonishment from people who just go to all that.

You know, just their own thing there. So, anyways, we'll look at the D'Souza stuff and mainly look at John 6. I asked a question, I think, yesterday morning of Dinesh D'Souza and Jenna Ellis. Neither one of them, of course, answered it.

Jenna Ellis allowed Layton Flowers, who has become her voice, to, quote-unquote, answer it. And so we'll demonstrate that, once again, as we demonstrated in public debate in Houston just a couple years ago, Layton Flowers is not an exegete and refuses to learn how to become an exegete.

And that was proven earlier this year in Dallas in the debate that he did there on that, not on John 6, but on a related topic. Anyways, all right, so here are the five points. And, of course, I've said for many, many years, you have to start, honestly, with something other than this.

You have to start with the sovereignty of God, God's freedom. That was a given at the time of the Reformation and the remonstrance. Even Arminius agreed with that. But that would make it stulip. And we know that duped turned out really bad for Ken Wilson, so we don't want to have something stupid like duped.

Anyway, so sovereignty of God should start first. They don't deal with that, so we won't be dealing with that right now. You know what? It's funny. That looks better on that screen than it looks up here.

How does that work? I mean, seriously, it's pixelated here, but it's not pixelated on that screen. That's fairly impressive, actually. Yeah, okay, I can see the pixelation on that, but go back to it. But I can't see it on that.

It's almost like the camera fixes it or something. That's pretty cool. All right, well, anyway, I just noticed things. That's the new thing. I'm not asking questions. I just noticed things. That's how you're cool on the Internet now is you notice things, I guess.

I don't know. Anyway, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints. Total depravity. Man is so depraved that he is unable to choose God or respond to the gospel.

That is not correct. And, of course, it is funny. It did seem that Dinesh D'Souza started backpedaling a little bit today on that thing. Well, technically correct, but in the way it would be understood.

In other words, he recognizes he used it wrong. He used it out of the context of maybe he's actually doing some reading now. I don't know. A little bit late, but who knows? Man is so depraved that he is unable to choose God or respond to the gospel.

If you mean respond as in submitting to the law of God in repentance, yes. But man always responds to the gospel outside of grace negatively. So everybody responds to the gospel. You can respond to it with apathy.

You can respond to it with mockery. You can respond to it religiously by holding to another gospel, to another religion. Everybody responds to the gospel. But if the idea is, well, respond to the gospel positively, that's true.

Why? Because Jesus said so in John chapter 8. Remember? What does he call people? The slaves of sin? Not the voluntarily submitted to, but slaves of sin. And if you continue in his word, you'll be his disciples.

Indeed, you should know the truth. And what will happen? The truth will set you free. And when he said set you free, they became offended. What do you mean we need to be set free? We've never been enslaved anyway.

They were enslaved to Rome, and they so loved their personal freedom. We've never been enslaved to anyone. But they were slaves right then. They really were. Love the blue, Rich. I got to admit. I'm looking at that with that background, and I'm going, okay.

I don't even care that my dome reflects the blue. I don't really. All that proves is that I used a brand new Harry's razor when I shaved this morning, and I actually cut myself, but hopefully that won't show up.

Anyway, I've spent a quarter of a century scraping sharp metal objects over my dome. 2001, quarter of a century. Wow. Anyway, how did I get on that? I don't know. Man is so depraved. Total depravity simply means that the fall of man into sin affects all of man.

That there is no aspect of man that is not impacted by the fall. Okay? So physically impacted, mentally impacted, spiritually impacted. There is no aspect of man's existence that is not touched by his fall in Adam.

Total depravity does not mean total in the sense of complete in the sense of man is as evil as he can be. That is commonly misunderstood. It has been corrected since the term was even first utilized to describe this.

But again, evidently when it comes to Calvinism, you don't have to read what we've actually stated. You can just simply get it from the internet and even before the internet existed. So the teaching is that it is true man is unable to choose God.

Romans chapter 8 says that those who are in the flesh cannot submit themselves to the law of God and they cannot do what is pleasing to God. If repentance and faith is pleasing to God, the Bible says the lost man can't do it.

It's right there. I mean, and that's actually the subject it's addressing. You know, it's right there. But people just sort of ignore it. So that's total depravity. Refuted by scripture, John 6, 44. I saw this and I went, now I get Matthew 23, 37.

It's one of the big three. It is taken out of context. It's a judgment passage against the Jewish leaders. And it's talking about how they stand in the way of those who are under them, hearing the gospel, entering the kingdom, stuff like that.

And it says you were not willing is addressed to the Jewish leaders, not to the people. So it's just, it's common standard misreading of Matthew 23, 37. The context, the whole nine yards. You know, that very first Radio Free Geneva.

I remember we had to deal with Matthew 23, 37 all the way back then. So it's, you know, the big three. That's one of the big three that gets cited all the time. Entire chapter on it in The Power of Freedom.

Gives you the context and all the rest of the stuff. We've done entire programs on that. Because I, was it Flowers that tried to get around 23, 37? Well, he's probably tried to get around everything at some point in time.

So maybe. But I don't get John 6, 44. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. How does that refute the scripture? I don't know. Because that's one of the key Calvinistic proof texts.

Is no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. No one has that ability. Unless something supernatural happens. And that came up in the debate with Leighton Flowers two years ago. You know, what's the supernatural element of regeneration?

Well, there isn't one. That was where we really got the naturalistic gospel of provisionism. So, I don't get the John 6, 44 part. That's a Calvinistic text very clearly. So, we go from there. Unconditional election.

God chooses certain individuals to be saved without any foreseen faith or response. Yes, the emphasis of course is that there is no condition upon which election is based. So, fulfilled faith, fulfilled works, your genetics, what nation you're a part of, how tall you are, what works you're going to do, whatever.

Election is completely based in the sovereign will of God. We talk about the autonomous will. There's one autonomous will and it's God's. You can't have two autonomous wills. Because if they clash, then one has to take predominance over the other, and then you no longer have an autonomous will.

So, if God's will is autonomous, it's the only autonomous will. He can make creaturely wills like we have, but we are not autonomous. We are creatures. God is God. So, election unto salvation. And there are people who say, election never means anything about salvation.

It's just like, you've got to be kidding me. Read Ephesians chapter 1, and aside from the complete wackoids that say, that has nothing to do with believers, that's only about the apostles. There is no text on this subject, so plain, that there are not people who will twist them.

Trust me. I've seen it all. We've been doing this for a long time now, and we've seen it all. So, here's the big three, by the way. So, Matthew 23, 37, 2 Peter 3, 9, 1 Timothy 2, 4, entire chapter in the power of freedom, exegeting each one, not just quoting it and taking it out of context, in 1 Timothy 2, 4, God desires all men to be saved to come to the knowledge of the truth.

All men is right after the introduction, and I mentioned this online just yesterday, right after Paul says prayers should be made for all men. If all men meant every single individual, then he could have just stopped right there, right?

But what he does, he says, for kings and those in authority. Oh, why would he have to do that if all men means all men? Because he's talking about all kinds of men. He introduces distinctions. Pray for kings and those in authority.

I know they're persecuting you, but pray for them anyway. Kinds of men. See, all men in the Jewish mindset of the first century is Jews and Gentiles. It's not every single individual. It's not the Amorite high priest in the Old Testament.

It's not the Eskimo in the 1920s. It is all men. All kinds of men, Jews and Gentiles. And Paul tells Timothy, make sure to pray also for those who are in authority, that you might live a peaceful life.

And then, you know, the rest in 1 Timothy 2. I threw this out to somebody. Whether they responded or not, I could have missed it, I suppose. But also pointed out the issue of mediation. There's one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

What does he mediate? Who is he mediating that to? What's in recession? In other words, 1 Timothy 2 .4 is actually a text that presents and teaches particular redemption, which is limited atonement. 2 Peter 3 .9, The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, not wishing for any to perish, for all to come to repentance.

The all is defined by the context itself. Follow the pronouns back, it is all the elect. That's what it says. Just read it. What was 2 Peter written to? Who's he talking about? He's talking about the delay of the parousia.

Why? So that the elect can be gathered in. If that coming had happened back then, what would happen to you? You never came into existence. But God had a purpose, and so that's what he's doing. So we provide the exegesis to these texts in the parous treatment as well.

And I'll admit, the vast majority of folks, you know, I'm not sure who created this. There is a... I think there is a... I wonder where that went. Oh, there it is. Yeah, it says down there, preach. I don't know if there was something beneath that that I didn't catch in the screen cap or something.

I don't know. But... Oh, I'm missing something there at the bottom. Sorry. Under total depravity, people are able to reject or respond to God's call. No, people are able to reject. And they do respond.

But they are not able to submit themselves to God's will outside of having their heart changed. The heart of stone does not willingly become a heart of flesh. Okay? That's all there is to it. God's desire is for everyone to be saved.

Well, what do you mean by that? Was God's desire for the Amorites to be saved? I asked this question, and I haven't gotten any answers at all. It's just almost like the Old Testament. We don't want to talk about that.

But was it God's desire for the Amorites to be saved? Now, some people will say, well, in the sense of a general vague desire, sure. But how did God provide for the salvation of the Amorites before he brought Israel in to wipe them out, man, woman, and child?

You ask that question, and people just start looking at you like, I've never been asked that question before. Okay. So, I am going to have to scroll this a little bit. But hey, that's all right. It almost perfectly fits.

Limited time atonement. Christ died only for the elect, not for the whole world. Well, okay, that's a semi-accurate definition, but it's certainly not a complete definition. And I will criticize my Calvinist brothers on this one, to be honest with you.

On this one, we tend to, I think some people tend to be embarrassed by limited atonement, particular redemption, whatever you call it. And so we just run over it too quickly. I think it's one of the most beautiful of the doctrines of grace.

It is one of the most biblical. Anybody who's heard me debate on this subject, Michael Brown and I debated on this subject. Trinitarian harmony in the gospel. It's a Trinitarian doctrine. It directly connects into the doctrine of the Trinity.

And it is simply the statement that what the Father does in salvation, and the Son does in salvation, and the Spirit does in salvation, is in perfect harmony. And so the Son dies, sacrificially bears the sins in Himself.

His people are united to Him, so His death is their death, His resurrection, their resurrection. Those are the people that the Father has elected, that the Father has chosen unconditionally. Not based upon them first doing this, not based upon foreseen faith, and all the rest of that kind of fun stuff.

All these Greek categories that people try to introduce into the biblical text. The Father elects the Son. Those people are united with the Son in His death, burial, and resurrection. So those are the ones for whom that sacrifice is made that is specifically intended to bring about salvation.

Because there are aspects of Christ's death that transcend this. But the specific aspect of Christ's death that brings salvation is specifically for those the Father has elected. If it's for a different group, then He's at odds with the Father.

And then we'll see with irresistible grace, now the Spirit comes in, and the Spirit brings people to life, raises them to spiritual life. Who? The same group that the Father has elected. The Son has died to redeem, and at the point in time determined by God the Father in His decree, the Spirit brings spiritual life, raises them to spiritual life, grants them the gifts of faith and repentance.

They repent and believe, they're justified, and you have the whole ordo salutis discussion goes on from there. So limited atonement is simply saying that Christ does not do salvific work for individuals the Father and the Spirit are not going to save.

Why would He? The Trinity is not going to fight against the Trinity. And I'm not sure why we don't present it that way more often. It's very plainly in Owen's thinking and stuff like that, but I'm not sure why.

Okay, 1 John 2, 2, He is the propitiation for our sins and not for our sins, but all for the sins of the whole world. That would simply ask anybody who cites that, what does propitiation mean? And most of the time they're just like...

If it's a real propitiation, then the only possibilities here are is that universalism, everyone's going to be saved. And there are people who take that. It's funny. People who will cite stuff like this, I'll often ask them, have you ever debated universalists?

They'll look at me like, they exist? I thought the Unitarian Universalists were the weird little old ladies down at the corner at the old, old building. Well, they are, but there are real universalists.

I'm this close to being absolutely convinced that Pope Francis was universalist. I mean, when he tells that young kid that his father went to heaven, who is an atheist, I think a large portion of the leadership of the Roman church is actually, clearly they're inclusivistic.

They believe that any faith act toward God is a faith act toward Jesus. That's obvious. But I think a bunch of them are universalists. Now that is not consistent with Roman Catholic teaching over history, but they don't care and they have no way of addressing it, to be perfectly honest with you.

So there are lots of universalists. And people like this who just want to decry Calvinism, this is where balance comes in. We've said over and over again, we are thankful that we didn't just stay focused upon one group.

Because when you're focused upon one group, you tend to become imbalanced. And people attack Calvinism. Just look at Leighton Flowers. Where's the balance? I see no balance. Look at Dinesh D'Souza right now.

Where's the balance? There's no balance. Calvinism, ah, evil. And I'm glad that we didn't get stuck doing that. Because the tendency is when you're pulling one direction, and it's only one direction, you're going to become imbalanced.

And there's enemies back here too. And so we've seen people, Mormonism, they're so focused on Mormonism, they end up seeing Mormonism in everything. There's a Mormon behind every bush. Well, there isn't a Mormon behind every bush.

And their interpretation of Scripture starts getting imbalanced towards seeing arguments against Mormonism everywhere when there's a lot of passages of Scripture that have absolutely nothing to do with Mormonism at all.

So, you have to be balanced. John 3 .16, For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, has absolutely nothing to do with limited atonement.

Well, it says, whosoever. Yeah, who's the whosoever? It's actually, well, again, English gets in our way here. I'll scroll it up here. Oops, scrolled in the wrong direction. It's literally all the believing ones.

All the believing ones. So, everyone who believes can have eternal life. The whosoever part is thrown in by English. It is not a part of the original language. It is indicating that it is a general statement.

And we believe whoever believes. But who's going to believe? You have to allow the entirety of Scripture to address that subject. And that's not being addressed in John 3 .16. Christ died for the sins of the whole world does not flow from either one of these two.

Unless you just simply assume, well, 1 John 2 .2 has to be every single individual, and that leads to universalism. Irresistible grace. And I'm not sure if the AC was turned down before we got started.

Irresistible grace, the elect will inevitably respond to God's grace. They cannot resist it. Well, that's not what it means. I mean, it's true as far as it goes, but it's not really even close. Irresistible grace is simply the assertion that when the Spirit of God, in the decree of God, chooses to raise one of God's elect people to spiritual life.

So, in my experience, I was very, very young. And I'm very thankful for that. In other people, it's toward the end of their life. Most people, it's in their youth, their early adult years. You know, whenever it is, when that day comes, the Spirit of God raises the dead sinner to life.

And the dead sinner cannot resist that resurrection power. Isn't it astonishing that so many people want to be able to say, oh, no, no, no, no. I'm, no. I don't want a Spirit of God that can raise me to spiritual life.

I want to do that myself. It's just stunning when you think about it. But that's what you've got. That's what people are saying. Nope, I did it. I did it in my time, not his time. I did it my way. That's exactly right.

Didn't expect to break into that, did you? Okay. Yeah, that's why I hate that song. But anyway, that's, you know, I didn't know Frank Sinatra was a patron saint of synergists and provisionists, but he is, very clearly.

Well, Elvis did it. Everybody did it. Yeah, Sidney Christmas did it on Britain's Got Talent recently. Anyway, it is astonishing that this beautiful truth, that God is actually powerful enough to raise the spiritually dead to spiritual life.

People hate it. Norman Geisler called it spiritual rape. I mean, it's just astonishing the lengths people will go. And, you know, I just go, so, all right. So the big picture we're given in the Gospel of John of Jesus' sovereignty over death is when he raises Lazarus from the dead.

I mean, this is the big picture. This is, you know, John chapter 5. The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and come to life. Here's the illustration. Here's Lazarus. He's been in the tomb for four days.

Lord, he stinketh. Okay, decay has already set in, right? And so in front of everybody, Jesus cries out, Lazarus, come forth. Man, if Lazarus doesn't come forth, you think everybody standing around is going to be going, okay, this guy's a weirdo.

Yeah, obviously. So Jesus is putting it on the line, Lazarus, come forth. Can you imagine the voice coming out of the tomb? No, thank you. I'm going to wait for Saturday. Or, nope, I finally got rid of those two meddling sisters.

I'm fine. Thank you. No. When Jesus says, Lazarus, come forth, guess what happens? Lazarus comes forth because Jesus is the Son of God. And he has the power to give life. And nobody can stop him. That's all irresistible grace is.

And why does a Christian go, I hate that. I detest that. It's astonishing. It really is. Now, refuted by scripture, anytime you see someone quoting Acts 751 here, you're not dealing with a serious person.

You're just not dealing with a serious person. And what I mean by that is they don't seriously understand the position they're denying. It's the first one everybody goes to. Because you always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did.

So do you. See, you can resist the Holy Spirit. Oh, is this talking about the Holy Spirit coming to bring regeneration to the elect of God? No. It's Stephen talking about the history of Israel and condemning the Jews again.

The context isn't even close. Anybody can quote this plainly is not serious about interacting with what we are saying in regards to the work of the Spirit in bringing spiritual life, regeneration. So anytime you see that, and there is a brother, he wrote, I think, a seven and a half page response to me just on John 637.

That's the one that Dinesh D'Souza made reference to in a rather disgusting way. Called it what was a scriptural suppository, I think he called it. Yeah, it was brilliant. Oh, he did. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, that was last night.

That's what I posted in the thing. That's the end of any respect I have for that man. It's done. Finished. This nice fellow outside the U .S., he quotes Acts 751. It's like, oh, all right, well, sorry to see that.

Context, completely different. No application whatsoever. Matthew 23, 37 is over here. Notice it's used twice. How often I wanted to gather your children together and you were not willing. Does that have something to do with the spirit raising the elect person to spiritual life?

It's, again, condemnation of the Jewish leaders for their role in standing in front of the people, hearing the message of the gospel and the kingdom. It's a condemnation passage. So neither one of them is even close to being relevant to irresistible grace.

If, if, and by the way, they spelled irresistible properly. Normally it doesn't get spelled properly, but it did here. Here you've got, if you understand what Reformed people are saying, maybe you wouldn't make these mistakes.

But there just seems to be this, we don't need to know. All we need to do is have a surface level thing and you're going to be, you're going to be taken care of there. So the final thing about Bobby Weber here, people can do resist God's grace.

Okay. In the sense of God's grace leading and, and, and harnessing man's evil and keeping it from being, okay, sure. That's not what we're talking about. That's not what irresistible grace is about. We're talking about when God chooses to raise his people, the spiritual life, nothing in the creature can stop the spirit from doing so.

That's all it's about. That's all it's about. Perseverance is ain't. So this is funny. Obviously a Baptist put this one together. Calvinists teach believers must persevere to the end as proof of election.

Baptists emphasize God's unconditional preservation based upon faith in Christ's promise. So here's, here's what's going on here. Okay. There's a, there's a Baptist who put this one together. And they don't understand that what they call eternal security makes zero sense if you don't have the other four points.

Okay. None. I, by my free will got me into this, but I, by my free will can't get out of it. It doesn't make any sense. Nobody in church history believed anything like that because it's just, it's like, okay, you got yourself in, but you can't get yourself back out.

So once you're in, you're stuck. It's sort of like Islam, you know, once you join, you can't get back out again without capital punishment, I guess. And of course, Calvinists teach believers must persevere to the end as proof of election.

No, my perseverance is proof of my election. Not the, not the other way around. Just, you can't reverse the statement and make it true. A believer will persevere because Jesus will not lose any of his sheep.

Jesus said in John chapter six, I've come down from heaven, not do my will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me. That of all that he's given me, I lose none of it, but raise it up on the last day.

And how does he do that? By giving us persevering faith. So it's not my perseverance. My perseverance is a sign of something else. Jesus' ability to save. That's why he's described in Hebrews chapter seven as able to save Panteles to the other ones.

So no, it is not that. And so when you get the scriptures, they are scriptures that teach the perseverance of the saints. Because you have a Baptist who doesn't realize that this belief is based upon this theology.