The Potter's Freedom Part 6

And welcome to the dividing line. My name is indeed james white. Thankful to be with you today. It seems it is bumper car. Uh... derby out there on a saturday afternoon in phoenix. Boy folks put on those seat belts.

Uh... the wackos are behind the wheel today. I dodged a number of them today. I'm very thankful for a set of functioning breaks. And uh... i'm just now trying to get the heart rate back down to normal so we can have an intelligent conversation today.

Middle Knowledge, Molinism, and the Myth of Free Will

I remember well the first time i began looking into something called mullinism. Mullinism. I had heard of this particular perspective because it was being presented and embraced by a fairly well-known christian apologist by name of william lane craig.

And it is the concept of what is called middle knowledge the idea that that there is a middle kind of knowledge that god has of what free agents will do.

In.

In given circumstances and so it's it's uh... it's an interesting system and we're not to be talking about it really today but one thing that's uh... struck me as i studied mullinism is i ran across information that indicated that's the individual that came up with the doctrine that is known as mullinism.

Or the.

Concept of middle knowledge was a jesuit by the name of louis de molina and he had worked for years and years and years to develop this concept out of obedience to the leader of his order. He was a jesuit and the leader of his order was ignatius loyola the founder of the jesuits.

It might strike you a little bit strange that a protestant apologist today dr craig would be using a jesuit uh... concept of middle knowledge. But uh... that actually isn't all that unusual. There are a lot of protestants today that do things like that.

But be that as it may molina was obeying ignatius' order to make sure that the heretics and that was uh... ignatius loyola's way of referring to protestants to make sure that the heretics did not so emphasize the grace and sovereignty of god so as to undermine the free will of man.

And so this entire concept was developed just to find a way of continuing to teach what i will identify today as the myth of the free will of man well that has not changed. Mankind invests a tremendous amount of energy to do one thing to make the creature free and the creator in bondage to make the creature autonomous and the creator the creator needs to be the servant of the creature.

The creator needs to respond to the creature but in all things the creature must have the final say that is a part of sin my friends that is a part of what romans one identifies as the sin and rebellion of man the reversal of the creator creation distinction.

And since it is a part of our sinful nature of our as christians that remaining sin that we still struggle with then we need to recognize that we need to be very very careful whenever we encounter theology that in essence enshrines the freedom of man at the cost of the freedom of god.

Total Depravity and the Reformed View of Human Inability

We have been looking at a book entitled chosen but free by dr norman geisler. This is i believe the sixth week that we have been examining this book. We have this week in two more weeks to do in responding to it.

And it is i believe the intention of uh... the president of the ministry to make sure that these programs are placed in a tape series and made available for people because we know that there are many people all across uh... the valley of the sun now on uh... thirteen sixty at fifty thousand watts as well as on the internet that have been listening to these responses and have found them very useful and very stimulating.

Today we respond to the position of the book chosen but free on the subject of the total depravity of man and the concept of free will chosen but free is based upon a philosophical defense of the autonomy of the creature.

Throughout the book you will find the concept of free will being defended voraciously. In fact we have already looked at passages where the comments from chosen but free for example on romans nine sixteen end up saying that this passage actually teaches the free will of man.

Now i'll be perfectly honest with you if you can read romans chapter nine verse sixteen and come up with the idea that this phrase it does not therefore depend on man's desire or effort but on god's mercy or the new american standard so that it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs but on god who has mercy.

If you can read that verse and come up with the doctrine of free will then i would submit to you that you can read any verse and come up with the doctrine of free will that we are not any longer driving our theology from the text.

We have come up with a definition that is absolutely necessary and we are now enforcing that definition on whatever text of scripture we happen to be running across. The presentation in chosen but free very strongly emphasizes the necessity of believing in the concept of free will.

I have not found however in the book a reference to the free will of god. I have not found references to the freedom of god but i have found a lot of emphasis on the freedom of man. So obviously the key element of reformed theology which is i remind you if you've not heard our previous programs uh... chosen but free refers to as extreme calvinism.

But the key element of reformed theology that has to be attacked and undermined if you're going to maintain the concept of free will and autonomous will a will that is not under any type of necessity that they this will is is free to act as simply as it chooses uh... that kind of a concept you have to attack the reform doctrine of total depravity.

You have to attack the reformed statement that man is dead in sin incapable outside of the sovereign regenerating work of god to do anything that is good in god's sight or even to come to christ. Well that concept very plainly taught in scripture is attacked in the book.

Unfortunately the vast majority of key passages that reformed theologians since the reformation and that augustine himself used to present the concept of total depravity are not addressed in the book.

And those few that are are addressed in a very very surface way. And so i wish i could deal with what chosen but free says about jesus's words that no man is able to come unto me unless the father who sent me draws him udais dunatai no man is able.

I'd like to be able to tell you what chosen but free says about that phrase but it doesn't address it. And i would like to be able to tell you what chosen but free talks about in the old testament about uh... the issue that uh... the leopard cannot change his spots and the the depravity of the heart of man and all those other things.

But those simply really aren't addressed in any meaningful way in the book. We do have however quotations such as uh... the following. What does total depravity imply for extreme calvinists. And from now on if you don't mind since i do not agree that doctor geisler has a foundation for reframing the entire historical debate and changing it from the armenian calvinist debate to the armenian and moderate calvinist versus the extreme calvinist debate.

I think that does absolutely nothing but cause tremendous confusion. I will simply refer to quote-unquote extreme calvinist as reformed theologians. Reformed theologians believe that a totally depraved person is spiritually dead by spiritual death.

They mean the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to god not just a separation from god. Further the effects of sin are intensive destroying the ability to receive salvation not extensive corrupting the ability to receive salvation.

While many extreme calvinist would deny the implications the following chart illustrates the differences now that last line indicates. I think doctor geisler knows when he's writing.

This.

That the vast majority of reformed theologians would say no you don't understand what we're saying here. But let's look at least these words. Reformed theologians believe that a totally depraved person is spiritually dead.

That's exactly right. That's because in ephesians chapter two verse one we read as for you you were dead in your transgressions and sins. That is the state of the person prior to regeneration. That's why we need regeneration.

That's why we need to be born again. We need spiritual life because we're spiritually dead. Outside of jesus christ there is a spiritual resurrection the sense of new life. That's why we have to be a new creature.

That's why we need new hearts of flesh not hearts of stone. That's what regeneration is all about. That's the work of the holy spirit in raising us to new life in jesus christ. So yes we definitely believe that the unregenerate man is spiritually dead.

I continue to quote by spiritual death they mean the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to god not just a separation from god. That is not true that is self evidently not true because the fact that we clearly affirm that a person can have all sorts of knowledge of the truth that in point of fact romans chapter one says.

Men know god exists. The issue is not whether they can have knowledge of god's truth or even have an understanding of what the gospel is it's what they do with that knowledge that is at issue. Paul says that the unregenerate man suppresses the truth of god that is his.

He suppresses it. He responds to it. Yes. But he invariably and universally will respond negatively. The unregenerate man is described by the apostle paul in romans chapter eight as being according to the flesh and as being the enemy of god unable to be subject to the law of god.

That's the biblical presentation. So it is not true. They cannot respond to god because they do respond to god. It's just they respond to god universally in a negative fashion. He goes on to say further.

The effects of sin are intensive destroying the ability to receive salvation not extensive corrupting the ability to receive salvation. I'm not really sure what he means there aside from the fact that in the following chart that he presents he says that under the quote-unquote extreme calvinist view that is the reform view the human will is destroyed.

Now this is a straw man that is present throughout.

The book.

And doctor geyser knows that it is he mentions in an end note uh... that uh... many quote-unquote extreme calvinist would disagree with his conclusions but in fact deny that the image of god in human will is destroyed.

But this is the logical outcome. From his perspective no that is not the logical outcome. Reform. Theologians do not say that the human will is destroyed they say the human will is enslaved. They do not say that the image of god is destroyed but that the image of god is marred.

And that in point of fact it's obvious the bible refers to fallen men as bearing the image of god. It is very common around our church for example when we talk about men even reprobate men uh... that we recognize the fact that they are image bearers of god and are to be respected on that basis.

So it is not true that the human will is destroyed that the human will is enslaved. Jesus said john chapter eight that he who commits sin is a slave to sin. And since we are all sinners the human will can never be described as free.

In fact the bible never describes it as free. The biblical phrase free will is used only in the old testament of free offerings that people can give. It's never applied to the will of man. Instead terms like dead enslaved and unable no god seeker romans three eleven et cetera et cetera are what we find throughout the text of scripture in regards to the will of man.

Ephesians 2 and the Necessity of Regeneration

Now how does chosen but free. Respond to a passage such as ephesians two. One that says as for you you were dead in your trespasses and sins. And when you follow that passage.

Through.

The apostle paul makes it very plain that this spiritual death meant that we were objects of wrath. But then verse says. Verse four says. But god being rich in mercy because of his great love with which he loved us even when we were dead in our transgressions made us alive together with christ by grace.

You have been saved. This is the action of god. There is nothing in ephesians two that says that god could not make us alive in christ until we enabled him to do so by the exercise of our free will. No exegesis of ephesians chapter two beginning at verse one and going through verse ten would ever lead anyone to that conclusion.

Instead it is god because of his love not because of our faith who made us alive together with christ. Resurrection power. That's regeneration. That's what god does. And notice. Paul presents that before not after the discussion of grace and faith in ephesians two eight and nine how does chosen but free respond to ephesians two one.

Here's what says. This is from page fifty seven. This extreme calvinistic interpretation of what is meant by spiritual death is questionable. First of all spiritual death in the bible is a strong expression meaning that fallen beings are totally separated from god not completely obliterated by him.

As isaiah put it your iniquities have separated you from your god. As a fifty nine two in brief it does not mean a total destruction of all ability to hear and respond to god but a complete separation of the whole person from god.

Well that's very interesting but doesn't have a whole lot to do with ephesians two one. First of all again there is another straw man misrepresentation of the reform position because it does not say anything about complete obliteration.

The spiritually dead man is not completely obliterated whatever in the.

World.

That means man does respond to god. He does so by suppressing the truth. He is in fact as if he should. Chapter two says the object of wrath child of wrath abiding under the wrath.

Of god.

Neither we told exactly what the relationship of isaiah fifty nine two is to ephesians chapter two. I don't see that there's any verbal parallels i i there's no argumentation presented as to why we should go back to the fifty ninth chapter of isaiah when paul's not quoting from it and as a result say that well spiritual death means merely separation it does not result in the things that the new testament teaches in regards to the inability of man john six forty four john six sixty five the enslavement of man to sin john chapter eight verses thirty one and.

Following.

Et cetera et cetera. So we're not told exactly the relationship of isaiah. Fifty nine whatsoever i read again in brief it does not mean a total destruction of all ability to hear and respond to god. And that's not what we say it does but a complete separation of the whole person from god.

Well there is definitely a complete separation of the whole person from god. But that's not all because paul's point is you were dead but god made you alive. You were dead you were an object of wrath but god because of his great love made you alive in christ not just made you savable as chosen but free says but he in point of fact actually saved.

Then he goes on to say on pages fifty seven to fifty eight. Second even though they are spiritually dead the unsaved persons can perceive the truth of god. In romans paul declares emphatically that god's truth is clearly seen by them so that they are without excuse.

Again any reformed theologian anyone that's that is cited in this book. R .c. sprole or uh... doctor palmer or uh... doctor raymond uh... hodge machen warfield. All of these individuals who have written on this subject have all clearly differentiated between the obvious fact that man is not obliterated that man has knowledge of the existence of god and his suppression of that knowledge from the biblical presentation of man's inability to come to god unless drawn by the father.

Again we we we struggle to to understand how chosen but free can make statements like this that simply beg the question and and show no real understanding of what the reform position has been about. It continues on to say.

In short depravity involves the corruption of life but not its destruction. The image of god and fallen humans is a faced but not erased even unsaid saved people are said to be in god's image. Chances nine six images marred but not eradicated by sin.

James three nine. Nothing to argue with their because that's not what reform people say anyways despite chosen the freeze representation of them in that way fourth is spiritually dead amounts to a kind of spiritual annihilation rather than separation than the second death would be eternal annihilation to a doctor rejected by extreme calvinist.

I think we can start seeing what happens when you don't allow calvinist a reform theologians to actually define their position. What about passages that teach that it is necessary that god drawn individual that god enable an individual.

One passage it is addressed though i think john six forty four would have been the one two to really address. But it isn't dressed is john six sixty five where jesus says. And he was saying for this reason i have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the father.

And again this is the exact same greek phrase used john six forty four who dies do that. I know one is able to come to me unless has been given to him by the father. Here is the response of chosen but free.

Moderate calvinist armenians agree with this. And he in this particular point by the way is primarily responding to our sea sprawl or sea sprawl sites this passage frequently in his presentation of the sovereignty of god i continue the quotation as for himself admits the real question is does god give the ability to come to jesus to all men.

And that is a part of the real question. Because the fact that's it says no one is able. I have to wonder at that point if chosen but free really accepts jesus's statement that no one is able. Or is the response that simply well no one is able outside of grace.

But grace is given to everybody equally. And therefore it's not really big deal. Certainly not what the bible teaches. And that may be why john six forty four isn't addressed in that sense. Because all who are drawn in john six forty four also raised up on the last day.

And it is self-evident that if you are raised up in the last day that is eternal life in yohaneen vocabulary in john's usage of terms. Anyways i continue the quotation from page sixty of chosen but free.

The answer is that there is nothing here or anywhere else to say god limits his willingness to provide this ability to only some. Indeed the bible is clear that he is patient not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repent.

Second peter three nine. And that he wants all men to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth. First timothy two four. So what's the response. John six sixty five. The response is god gives this ability to everyone on the basis of second peter three nine of first timothy two four will look at them in just a moment.

That's not.

That's not exegesis that is not the looking at the text allowing it to speak for itself. Jesus said this is why i told you that no one can come to me unless the father has enabled him. That is natural man lacks the ability to come to christ unless something else happens.

And what is that. The enablement of the father. And this is the direct parallel to what happens just a few verses earlier in verse forty four where there jesus says no one can come to me less the father who sent me draws him and i will raise him up on the last day.

Those who are drawn by the father to the sun are raised up by the sun on the last day. The drawing of the father the son is effective in the context. That's john six thirty seven. All that the father gives me will come.

This is just simple exegesis just letting the text speak for itself and define its own terminology. So why do we have to go to second peter three nine of first timothy two four to understand john six sixty five.

Remember what's happened john chapter six the day before over five thousand men not including women and children are following after jesus. And he walks away from because they want to make him king. He leaves.

They follow him to the synagogue perium. And what does he say to them. He literally by his preaching in his presentation drives away all of these individuals because he keeps saying unless you're drawn by the father you can't come to me.

All of the father gives me will come to me. And the one who comes to me i will never cast out. This is the will of him who sent me that of all that he has given me i lose none but raise them up at the last day.

This has been what his teaching is has been focusing upon himself and the sovereignty of god. And now they've all left. And that's the context. John six sixty five. In fact he's literally saying. And he was saying this is in in the imperfect this is going on.

He keeps saying to them. For this reason i said to you. What reason. Well because they just all walked off. They've been. They've rejected him. There's twelve men standing there and even one of them isn't one of the elect.

For this reason i said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the father. Where in the world is this quote-unquote. Free will. I don't know. But it's not in john six sixty five.

The “Big Three” Prooftexts: Matthew 23:37, 1 Timothy 2:4, and 2 Peter 3:9

Let's take a look at the big three. What i mean by the big three. Well throughout the book. And we just saw it happen in john six sixty five. Throughout the book there are three verses that are cited over and over and over and over again as almost a mantra saying obviously in light of these verses nothing else.

None of those reformed passages can be what reformed theologians of all thought to mean. And we just saw a couple of them cited first timothy two four. Second peter three nine. The others. Matthew twenty three thirty seven.

Matthew twenty three thirty seven says jerusalem. Jerusalem who kills the prophets and stones. Those who are sent to her. How often i want to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.

And you were unwilling. That passages cited eleven times in chosen but free. Don't worry. I count them all. First timothy two four. God desires all men to be saved to come to the knowledge of the truth.

That one cited ten times. But the most favorite one by far. Second peter three nine. The lord is not slow about his promises some counsel on us but is patient towards you not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance cited twenty.

Times.

Grand total putting these three together and they're often cited together as a group. Putting these three together and looking only at the sections of the book that make biblical argumentation taking away the the sections that are talking about historical issues are philosophical.

Issues.

In the sections of chosen but free that make biblical argumentation one of those three verses is cited at least once every four pages. Once every four pages. And their meaning is simply assumed. It must mean the following thing.

And that meaning is simply assumed. Do those three passages teach this concept of free will and that god does not have a sovereign decree of election in regards to a specific people. That's will be looking at and taking your phone calls already have one caller online.

Taking your phone calls at five zero eight zero nine sixty. We'll be looking at those right after this. Welcome back to dividing line. My name is james white. We are looking at chosen but free again this week.

This week looking at the subject of the total depravity of man and the inabilities of man. It's uh... strikes me as as well quite simply amazing that in light of the fact that uh... doctor geisler in his book chosen but.

Free.

Frequently refers to reform theologians as i said eating the text engaging in i said jesus twisting it talking about how painful it is to watch reform theologians misusing the text of scripture. He talks about the reform position being morally reprehensible.

And in fact uh... in regards to what i'll be saying in first in the two four for example he regards my understanding of that is a as a tactic to divert the issue to other passages and things like that.

All these rather strong condemnations of reform theologians. It is amazing to me in light of that that uh... chosen but free itself presents. Such interpretations of passages such as matthew twenty three thirty seven is a favorite.

Of.

Non-reformed individuals. Jerusalem. Jerusalem who kills the prophets and stones those who were sent to her. How often i want to gather your children together in the way. And gathers her chicks under her wings.

But you were unwilling. You did not want to do so they say see there's free will. The problem is if you listen to it we're talking to a city here aren't we. We're talking to the people of israel. We're talking about god's dealings with the nation of israel.

Finally we get to a passage that's actually talking about nations not romans nine. And here in romans nine we're talking about individuals are millions. When i say we're talking about nations and we talk in matthew twenty three about nations they want to say we're talking about individuals here a passage.

It clearly refers to god's dealings with the nation of israel throughout the old testament and his constant sending of profits. And even says there those who probably kills the prophets and stones those who were sent to her.

Who were the prophets sent to any nation. And yet all the sudden matthew twenty three becomes the proof text that says that fallen men can be seekers of god and have the ability to come to god on their own.

It's it's amazing to me. And i ask you just just see if i'm not being fair when i state that this is the passage is cited over and over again to attempt to get around every passage that plainly in its own context teaches the inabilities of man.

It's it's eleven times. It's cited ten times. First timothy two four is cited. God desires all men to be saved to come to the knowledge of the truth and chosen. But free knows. Dr geyser knows for example john owens masterful response to this in the death of death and the death of christ.

But has he respond page two. Oh two of this. Unlike passages john owens offers the dubious view that all does not mean all here his tactic is to divert the issue to other passages. Were all does not mean the whole human race.

That is simply not the case my friends that's not what john owens did. Yes. He demonstrates that the word all does not in every single instance mean every single human being. And that's that's actually too easy to prove what he does demonstrate.

In what i demonstrate in my presentations on this passage is that to make first timothy chapter two verse four mean every single individual is to force you to be a universalist. And it is to ignore the context of the passage.

Why do i say that first in the two one i'd urge them first of all that requests prayers intercessions and thanksgiving be made for everyone. The niv numerics there be made on behalf of all men. Now my friends is paul saying to timothy that our prayer meetings are to last seven days a week in twenty four hours.

A day.

Is he saying that we are to pray for every individual man. Of course not. How could he be commanding us to do that. Look at the context first in the two two. When he says all men what does he mean for kings and all those in authority.

That we may live peaceful and quiet lives and all godliness and holiness. What are kings and all those in authority. They are kinds of men kinds of men. And there is a temptation in the early church since the rich and those in power persecuted christians to not pray for them.

To not pray for certain kinds of men. But paul says no.

No.

You're to pray for all men that means all kinds of men for kings and all those in authority. This is good he says in first timothy two three and pleases god our savior who wants all men that is what's all kinds of men just as revelation five.

Who does jesus christ save men from every tribe tongue people in nation every social strata bond and free male and female jew and gentile. He wants all men to be saved to come to a knowledge of the truth.

For there is one god and one mediator between god and man the man christ jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all men the testimony given in its proper time. So my friends if you want to make first timothy two four universalistic then jesus is the mediator for every single individual man.

Is he not. That's what the passage says. Well does jesus mediate for every single man. If that's the case then jesus either saves every individual man or there's only one other conclusion you can come to.

And unfortunately this isn't dealt with and chosen but free even though it's plainly owens argument and that is you're presenting the idea that jesus christ can die in the place of and then intercede on behalf of his perfect work in the place of men and they end up in hell.

That is the result of the position of chosen but free. What they end up having to say is jesus christ can substitutionarily atone for pay the price of sin for and then stand in the presence of the father mediating for on the basis of his perfect work an individual.

And all of that means nothing unless the autonomous will of the creature says yes unless the pot enables the potter it all fails. Is that what the new testament teaches is that the result of the intercessory work of christ you see john owen well presented and every reformed theologian that i know of well presented an argument that has never even once touched and chosen but free.

And that is the key proof of the particular redemption. And the particular redeeming work of jesus christ is found in his work as our mediator and high priest. And since he is able to save to the uttermost because he's a savior that's really where the issue lies.

Now we have two callers online and i can tell by rich pierce's face that i'm preaching far too much in here at the moment. But there is one other that i just want to touch on really quickly. Then we'll go to our calls.

Second peter 3 9. The lord is not slow in keeping his promises. Some understand slowness. He is patient with you not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance. Very simply it's cited 22.

It's at 20 times 20 times in the book. The assumption is this obviously means there is no decree of election. And i'll be very simple and very straightforward. Second peter 3 9 is in epistle of peter.

The second epistle of peter which is addressed to the elect. And peter is simply explaining here why is the parousia the coming of christ delayed. Why hasn't christ returned. And the answer is because god is patient.

God is gathering his people and god wants none of his elect to perish. And aren't you and i glad sitting here in 1999 that god has been patient that the parousia hasn't happened yet. All of his people will come to know him.

Because the fact that god's sovereign over all things. And he's still drawing his people to him. That does not do away with the clear teaching of the bible that god has an elect people ephesians chapter 1.

And that doesn't simply mean that god elects to save. Whoever believes the decree of election is personal. It is of a people not a plan. Well i think i better go to a phone call here and i better go to a new world record for the dividing line.

I am going to go all the way. And i am absolutely being honest here to clapgate england. Yes indeed. Martin is calling from clapgate england. Martin thank you. What time is it there. It's um let me think 20 to 11 at night.