Open Challenge to Jerry Matatics, and Dave Hunt Misrepresenting Calvinism

And welcome to Dividing Line on this Saturday afternoon, my name is James White. We have much to do today.

Those in the channel see that we have as our topic, Jerry Manateeke speaks at a Baptist University and Dave Hunt's recent

Calvary Chapel talk. I won't call it a sermon because I guess that's not something you do at Calvary Chapel, but we have those two major things.

I want to talk a little bit about something we found on Jerry Manateeke's website last night and a challenge to him to debate, as well as the fact that we were sent a videotape of a very recent,

I believe within the last two weeks, talk by Dave Hunt. And the reason this is significant is this would be a talk that he has given after reading my opening presentations in our book project, and hence,

I would argue in a culpable way, that is, he knows what the truth is, but continues to misrepresent it.

Absolutely refuses to listen to what is said to him by anyone. Dave Hunt has determined that he and he alone determines what

Calvinism believes. Calvinists are irrelevant. They will be assimilated. Anyways, we'll be talking about that, but before we do that,

I'd like to bring Michael Fallon on the line. Mike, of course, from Florida sets up our work there in the

Florida area. I was back there not overly long ago for the debates with John Sanders, and we are looking at our cruise coming up basically a year from now, in December, the first weekend

December of 2003, and specifically the fact that there are some, there be some things shaken in the cruise industry, and they're good for you, but not so good for the cruise industry,

I don't think, but they're good of the consumer, and since we're putting together this apologetics cruise for December of 2003, then we need to pass some information along to you and encourage you to get in touch with Mike, let him know of your interest, and hopefully for some of you, this particular information will increase your interest in going with us in December of 2003.

So, Mike, what's, what is going on that is allowing us to even have a better price for the, for the cruise?

Well, certainly, I think everybody's probably pretty aware of the fact that the news has been carrying both on CNN and all the, all the major news channels about different cruise boats that have had the problem with what they call the

Norwalk virus. Right. And the Norwalk virus is nothing different than what you just called the common stomach flu.

Right. And the Norwalk virus, though, which is interesting, is something that is usually popping up mainly in universities, colleges, hotels, places like that, much more so than ever in the cruise industry, and in the cruise industry, maybe you have about 3 % of cases coming from cruise ships or anything like that.

So, I guess that the news media has jumped on the bandwagon and found something exciting to talk about, and in doing so, they have just scared the living daylights out of people about not wanting to go on these incredible cruise boats, which are immaculately clean and well taken care of.

And if you really take a look at the number of people that are on each boat and the amount of people that have have been infected, let's say somewhere around 4 ,000 people on a boat, 60 people come off with the stomach flu.

That's not something really to be too scared about. Right. You know, you can get that sort of thing going to a debate, let's say, you know, with a lot of people.

I just get it from listening to the other guy at the debate. That's, that's why I get sick. Well, but, you know, it's, what has happened is that a lot of people,

I think, and especially the elderly, have have been scared away. And we are able now, though, to pass on some savings to you.

And this will be, while it's available, all these things are, of course, time -sensitive, just much like your, your airline fares and so forth.

So the, the price that we were told was our group rate has been dropped, and we are able to pass those savings on to you.

So we would like to offer to the folks at Alpha Omega Ministries and the people that would like to come on board with us and be a part of our apologetics ministry, get to know

Dr. White and his eating habits. Oh, boy, you just, you're doing so well, too.

I mean, you sounded smooth and polished and professional, and you just wiped the whole thing out, because the only thing worse than Norwalk virus is my eating habits.

Well, the lack of them, you know, you don't know this, but, but really, you know,

Dr. White is a connoisseur of fine food. In the fact that, you know, you throw 10 plates of food in front of him, he might pick a half of one, you know, and then even push it away.

I have a sensitive palate. Yes. Yes, I think his main complaint on our last cruise was,

I think on our previous cruise boats, he really enjoyed the quality of the hamburgers. And this last one, he said the hamburger was a little dry.

Let's try another lime. So actually it was, but that's a whole other subject.

But anyway, what's going on is, I tell you, if you haven't cruised before, this is an opportunity that you're not going to get a chance to have too often, where you can be on board with, first of all, your favorite

Christian apologist, A, number one. Number two, that we are going to be studying Islam and especially the

Islamic attacks on the Christian faith and how to have an apologetic response to them.

And if you've ever been a part of Dr. White's conferences before, this won't just be an hour long deal and then we break and you don't get a chance to see

Dr. L. White anymore. We are going to have Dr. White as well as the rest of the staff of Alpha and Omega Ministries involved and dealing with these things and lots of discussion with them for the entire time.

And certainly we're going to have the opportunity, I guess, to many of the people who work on these cruise ships happen to be

Islamic. Which is why we're going to be referring to Islam as Jumballa the whole time we're on board.

We're studying Jumballa today. We won't be able to put any signs up in front of the...

The Quran exposed today. Nope, nope, nope. Yeah, speaker

Jerry Falwell. No, but this is going to be fantastic. And if you have been to other conferences,

Christian conferences, of course, you know that people can take off and do other things. Well, we're on a boat together and we are all together.

And you'll be seeing a lot of one another. And it just really gives you a great time to get to know us and we can get to know you and we can we can really form lifelong bonds.

So if you have had a time before with Dr. White and you really would like to be able to get a chance to sit next to him and ask him all sorts of questions, now's the time.

However, most of that time will be spent in the gym. So hopefully you'll need to start working out now. Now, this gym is fantastic.

I'm looking forward to it. We were on a similar boat to this one, which is why we've chosen this one back last year.

And the gym is just fantastic. So that's I know that's one of Dr. White's main requirements.

And so we are going to do that. But what we can pass on to you, the consumer, is an one hundred and fifty dollar discount on each one of the of the births, which is per person.

That's a lot. Just go ahead and take a look on the Web site. If you if you'd like to, it's going to be on the right side.

If you click on and just go ahead and click on where it says Apologetics Cruise and you go to the inside cabin where it says eight ninety nine.

Just go ahead and subtract one fifty. Same thing for the category FF and C and so forth.

Right on down the line. Subtract one fifty from the top of each one of those. Wow. And it's a great rate.

It's going to be available for long. And I really hope you'll take advantage of it. And the the time that you can be able to study with us, that that's really the reason why we do it.

It's not just to go and have a good time, but it's an opportunity for folks to get really involved with Alpha and Omega Ministries.

Now, someone just asked him a question. It's in the question. The channel is a good question. Can we have a number?

And I'm assuming they're asking, is there a number where they can ask further questions, contact you, contact a travel agency, whatever?

Sure. Absolutely. My my personal cell phone number, and you can give me a call anytime, is seven two seven four five two six four five three.

Or when Star Travel opens up on Monday morning, you can give them a call at seven two seven five eight four eight one two four.

And also, if you take a look at the website and at the bottom of the page on the

Apologetics information, you'll see something that says click here to email Michael Fallon.

Pop that and you can give me an email, send me an email and I'll respond to you right away. Excellent. Excellent.

Well, I would really like to encourage everybody to do this. Talk about a cool opportunity. We were able to get a decent rate last time as well because of what happened with with nine one one.

So we want to lock these things in and be wise and how we're doing this stuff. And I'm really looking forward to it.

This will be the the fourth cruise that we've done. And folks, if if if you've looked at I, in fact,

I'm gonna be talking about this. I get Catholic Answers promotional material in the mail all the time.

And they're constantly in fact, the most recent one, I got a huge fold out, full color, super nice paper thing about Catholic Answers and their need to come up with five million dollars a year to run their ministry.

Five million dollars. And they went on their first cruise just recently.

And I can guarantee you it cost the folks went on that a whole lot more than it costs our folks.

And I'm not sure if that's how they're trying to raise the five million or just what. But these are these are incredibly enjoyable experiences and a period of you could if you want to make it a period of very intense study, you can do so because you have so much freedom to invest your time as you see fit.

And I tell you, sitting out on the deck and contemplating God's creation and considering God's truth.

Oh, yeah, well, some of us saw that. Some of us did get to stare up in the sky at the

Aurora Borealis this last time. Just one of us did. Yeah, well, one of us didn't know where others of us were.

OK, in fact, wasn't one of us asleep at that particular point in time? Yeah, I figured my friend would give you a call.

Oh, oh, man. I need to find I need to find a certain wave sound here.

Let's see. Somebody turn up. So I turn up my my thing here. This I don't know if you could be able to hear this.

Let me see. They're trying. Nobody loves me. Everybody hates me.

I guess I'll just eat worms and die. Yeah, that would be weird.

Anyways, anyways, it is a wonderful time together. And so they need to get in touch with you. ASAP, this is this is not something that is going to continue indefinitely in the future.

This is not the kind of thing where I'll put off a few weeks and just don't do that.

So get on the website, hit the the cruise button, get a hold of Mike, let him know of your interest.

If you've been going at a year off, I can wait. Don't do that. At least get a hold of Mike and talk to him and let him help you understand all the the ins and outs of this.

That's very, very, very important. We need to know of your interest. We need to know if you've been contemplating this and just haven't gotten around to doing it yet.

So well, also, I would want to add also in that is that, you know, with your with your seven hundred fifty dollars, if you choose to get inside cabin, that includes all your meals, all your drink, except for, you know, if you would buy the alcohol, which

I guess our Presbyterian friends would be interested in that, but the rest of us won't. But yeah, so everything...

Oh, now we're stuck with just a Reformed Baptist cruise. That's good. Wonderful. Well, we'll still let them sit with us, but yeah, we certainly would encourage you to do this.

It's a way that you could get the most out of your money, really, to have your time involved in Christian apologetics, as well as on the cruise and have everything taken care of for you.

Oh, it would be it would be impossible to, aside from just the the the luxury of the of the cruise ship, it would be impossible to feed yourself the kind of food that you get on on that boat for that kind of money per day.

I mean, the food is just absolutely incredible. So how would you know? I'm sorry.

Did we lose Mike? Oh, I think I think we lost Mike there. Who was that? I've forgotten. I have no idea. You're taking up all my time here,

Mike. I think this interview is over with now. No, seriously, it's a great deal. Get a hold of Mike and let him know of your interest.

Very, very important that we do this very, very quickly. So thank you very much, Mr. O 'Fallon, for calling in today.

Can I add one other thing? Maybe. OK. Just one last thing. As long as it's not an insult about me.

No, it's no insult about you. OK, just to let folks also know that probably the day before we're trying to get things set up right now, we are looking to try to have a debate for Dr.

White on the Friday before, which would be Friday, the 5th of December. And we are looking at trying to bring an

Islamic apologist down and debate one of the major issues between Christianity and Islam.

Yep. That'd be the way to do it. We're going to roll that into it and hopefully we can have you along with us. Sounds like a plan.

Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. God bless. Hope you enjoy the rest of the program today as we continue on with the dividing line.

Make sure you hit the website, hit that link on the on the cruise. I have this.

Man, you got to see this thing. This tremendous promotional piece that Catholic Answers put out.

Somebody's got some bucks. That's all I can say. Full color folds out. I don't know what size this thing is.

Well, it's a four. It's an eight and a half by 11 quad fold. So you can you can figure out what that, you know, it's it's for eight and a half by elevens put together, whatever that is.

And, you know, full color with with all sorts of photographs and whole nine yards and all to try to raise two million dollars for Catholic Answers.

And I say to five million dollars. And then today

I get a second one. This was just earlier this week. I got this today. I get a second one. We haven't heard from you.

Guys, if you're waiting to hear from me, it's going to be a long time. Let me tell you about it,

OK? Not sending anything in, Carl. You don't have to worry about me. Not not going to be doing that.

Well, anyways, last night I well, sometime this week,

I forget exactly when it was. Rich Pierce told me we got a phone call from a fellow who had attended.

Now, this was initially what I was told. But Rich now says he can't remember this. So, you know, he and I are both getting, you know, very old.

And in fact, I get very old next week. Not well, not this coming week, but the 17th.

I I start my fifth decade. I'm starting to catch up with Skyman and at least percentage wise,

I guess we always do that. But yes, the surgery affected Rich's memory. And anyways, what he initially told me was that this fellow was sending us a video tape from last

Sunday evening's presentation where Dave Hunt spoke at Harvest Fellowship at Calvary Chapel.

And initially what I was told was that the fellow said, look, he talked about James White.

I feel that it's only fair you hear what he's saying about you. And so we were sent this tape. And so we digitized it.

And while I was working out last night, I listened to it. And it did help a good deal to work out last night.

It really did. I got a great workout in because I'd jump off the bench, go, oh, man,

I can't I can't believe it. So anyways, Warren says this is

Greg Laurie's church. I you know, it's possible. Yeah. You know, they would have a TV ministry and stuff.

That is that is quite possible. You're looking at the thing with Bobby out there because you probably have the tape out there.

Anyways, wherever it was, we listened to. Yeah, I know they kept mentioning

Greg, but there's more than one Greg in those groups. But anyways, they

I was listening to that. So I was ready to go. And in fact, I have 19 cuts already put together for the program today to listen to what

Mr. Hunt is saying and respond to it. And so I was pretty jazzed when I came into channel after I got done with my workout, came over.

And then for some reason, someone asked me, what was your first debate? Well, I mentioned it was against Jerry Madetich, started talking a little bit about and I had not gone to Jerry Madetich's website in quite some time.

The last contact I had with Jerry. Well, I think the last time I saw him was when we made in Long Island quite some time ago now.

And I've sort of heard little things. Somebody else say, hey, Jerry Madetich was in town, yada, yada, yada.

But we haven't had much contact. The last thing I saw was a letter that Jerry Madetich sent to a

Reformed Baptist pastor of a small Reformed Baptist church in Vernonia, Oregon.

Now, Vernonia is the type of city that if you're driving through on an interstate at high speed at night, you could probably miss it.

Not only because most lights are turned out, but because at 75 miles an hour, you're past it so quickly, you wouldn't even notice it was there.

It's a very like 2000 people. It's a very small, little town out in the middle of nowhere in Oregon.

OK. And so Jerry Madetich is coming into town. So he sends this letter to the pastor of this tiny church, challenging him to debate the

Immaculate Conception. And it just so happened, of course, that Reformed Baptists tend to know most other

Reformed Baptists. And so the pastor of the church knew of me and knew of Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, knew that I'm an elder there.

And so he contacted me and said, look, I haven't studied these issues, but he's coming to town.

He's doing this presentation. I'd like to be able to give a response. Would you be willing to come up and debate him?

And I said, I'd be glad to. And so when the pastor writes back to Jerry and says, well,

I won't. However, a fellow Reformed Baptist elder by the name of James White would be willing to fly up and do this debate.

Amazingly enough, he never, ever heard from Jerry again. Talk about an effective means of getting rid of folks.

Just mentioned my name. That was it for some reason. No further correspondence arrived.

I can pretty much guarantee you that if the pastor had said, sure, be glad to, we would have had a different situation.

It takes place there. Now, personally, I find it strange that someone who on their website, and you can look on their website, there is a, where is this section down here?

Ah, here under Jerry's picture, which is a older picture, it's about as old as some of my old pictures are.

Under Jerry's picture, it says, in all my contacts in the Roman Catholic world over the past 50 years,

I count Jerry as the most gifted, best educated scripture scholar in the church, end quote.

The late William Mara, emeritus professor of philosophy at Fordham University, founder of the Roman Forum, and host

Where Catholics Meet. Now, that's on, when you put that on your own website, okay, what are you doing challenging pastors of little churches in tiny towns to debate the immaculate conception against you?

And then turning down an opportunity to debate someone whom you've already debated on that subject, who just so happened would know your arguments on that subject, and in fact would have had the opportunity of listening to your tapes, and then going to the text of scripture and finding out that when

Jerry starts ripping off these scripture passages and saying, the septuagint here is parallel with this over in Luke, and he's just, just rapid fire, polished presentation, when you actually sit down with the text, it doesn't say that.

The parallels aren't there. He's got the wrong verbs. Why wouldn't he want to debate someone who can debate him on that level, who has knowledge of the original languages, has knowledge of church history, in fact has debated him before, and has debate experience?

Well, I did find that to be a rather strange thing, that someone who would, on their own website, claim to be one of the greatest, most gifted, best -educated scripture scholars in the entire

Roman Catholic Church, would be investing his time in debating pastors of small churches in small towns, but then not debating people who, of course, could keep him honest.

So I found that strange, but what really got me going was when I clicked around a little bit on the website here, and I come across the

March 2002 Appeal Letter. This is a fundraising letter, but it's what it says, and I'm just going to read this to you.

I'm taking this right off of www .jerrymadatix, jerry with a g, g -e -r -r -y madatix .org,

if you want to look at it yourself, it's linked right there. And by the way, it is madatix, please pronounce it correctly,

I think I'm the only Protestant that does. Anyways, here's what it says, 22nd

March 2002, Dear Catholic Friend, well at least you're sending it only to Catholic friends, of course everything it's sent to me says that too,

I have something thrilling to share with you. Last April, by an amazing providence of God, I was invited to Furman University, a large

Baptist university in Greenville, South Carolina, to give an official school -sponsored lecture. Let me stop right there.

This actually happened, with some help of some folks in the Greenville area, who are regulars in our chat channel, we did some surfing around last night, and this did indeed take place.

Why I haven't the foggiest idea why in the world a Baptist university would have

Jerry Madatix speak, I can't even begin to understand, let alone do it without a response, it's one thing to let him come on campus and speak and do a debate, okay,

I can understand that, but just on his own without somebody to give a response? Anyways, I continue,

Furman even gave academic credit to those who attended. Greenville, the buckle of the

Bible belt, is also the home of another famous fundamentalist school, Bob Jones University, often in the news for its militant anti -Catholicism.

The lecture I chose to give, of course, was how the Bible converted me to Catholicism, one Protestant minister's pilgrimage.

The large amphitheater was filled to double its regulation capacity, with hundreds of students standing in the back, sitting in the aisles, on the floor, and around my feet on the stage.

It was obvious to me as my talk progressed that these bright, serious, committed fundamentalists had never heard the biblical case for Catholicism before.

I stopped for a moment, well, duh. Of course they've never heard Jerry's presentation before, and to someone who has never heard a

Roman Catholic apologist speak before, that indeed can be a very troubling thing. No question about it,

I've said many, many times that I go into most of my debates with two strikes against me. That is, the people there have no idea that a

Roman Catholic can even come up with a biblical defense. Now, it's not a sound biblical defense, it's not a true biblical defense, because it's not based upon sola scriptura, it's not derived from the text, it's forced on the text.

But hey, most of these folks have never heard this stuff before. I can imagine the kind of impact it had.

I continue reading. They sat riveted to the chairs, astounded to hear a scriptural defense of Catholic teaching, as well as scriptural critiques of such

Protestant errors as scripture alone and justification by faith alone. As I conclude my talk, whoops, where'd it go?

Where did you go? As I conclude my talk, I knew I could pull no punches. I knew that neither I nor any other

Catholic apologist would ever get a chance quite like this again. So I told them, charitably but uncompromisingly, that if they remain

Protestants, they could no longer claim, with a clear conscience, to be Bible -believing

Christians, since I had shown them sufficient evidence the Bible taught the Catholic faith, not

Protestantism. I told them that if they wanted to be truly Bible -believing Christians, they needed to become

Catholics. I thanked them for the privilege of addressing them, for their hospitality and attentiveness, told them I loved them, and I would be praying for their conversions.

Their response, truly a work of God's supernatural grace, astounded me. Despite my challenging them to rethink their most fundamental convictions, the entire audience of Protestants stood to its feet and gave me a loud, long -standing ovation.

I was flabbergasted, but that was nothing compared to what followed. For though none of the students had to stay for the ensuing questions -and -answer period, over half of them did, only peeling away by ones and twos over the next several hours.

Now this strikes me as true, because I know Jerry. Jerry will go till the wee small hours the morning.

We debated on the papacy in 1993. He went out with the pastor of the Presbyterian Church we were at for the second night, and they were there, oh goodness, till three or four o 'clock in the morning.

Jerry doesn't sleep much, I don't think, so this doesn't surprise me at all. I continue reading. Although I had begun speaking at 7 p .m.

and finished my talk proper at 9, the last group of students did not leave the question -and -answer period until 2 .30

a .m. It was a powerful indicator of just how hungry people are for the truth when God's grace has its way with them, and how rare they find the opportunity to get clear, convincing, biblically -based answers to their questions about the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism.

Then why don't you have somebody else there to give the other side, Jerry? Anyways, one of those students who stayed to the very end, firing question after question, he was a freshman who was, by his own admission, a convinced anti -Catholic.

His goal that night had been to win me back to biblical Christianity, and he had prayed much that morning that by God's grace, eyes would be opened to see the truth and to reject error.

Warning, be careful what you pray for, you may get it. Alright, I'll let him finish the story.

He posted the following words on the internet recently. So here's a quote from this student who identifies himself at Furman University.

My name is Jonathan Errington, and I had been a fundamental evangelical Southern Baptist all my life.

I was as anti -Catholic as one could be before I heard Jerry Matitick's at Furman last April. To be blunt,

I thought all Catholics were going to hell and had no idea what Christianity really was. However, while listening to Jerry from 7pm until 2 .30am,

when we were forced out by school policy, not because of Jerry's unwillingness to listen to more of my accusations and pedantic questions,

I realized that Jerry Matitick was one Catholic who knew the Bible, was a Christian, and had posed questions to me that I could not answer from my

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide background. He offered both a friend of mine and me all of his available tapes for free and gave us his email address for any further questions we might have.

Since that day, I've announced my decision to join the Church, have entered RCIA, and I now desire to become a priest.

While listening to Jerry for seven and a half hours, I heard nothing but Biblical and historical proofs. I praise the thrice holy

Trinity for working through Jerry Matitick to lead me to the Catholic Church, and I now desire to serve

Christ's true Church in the holy priesthood. And that's what we read on the website last night.

I have some comments about that, but we need to take a brief break and be right back right after this.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪

Steve Camp singing Pilgrim's Progress, and before that, another one of his great

Reformation themes has a new CD out. I haven't heard it yet, but he promised to send it to me. We did an interview on WMCA with Steve on Christian music this past Thursday.

Chris Harns and myself, we interviewed Steve Camp. It was a lot of fun. So, hoping to see him in January and all sorts of new stuff.

Anyways, we go back to the subject. I got a little fired up. This really touches the whole reason that I do debates.

And I normally don't, you know, I like to leave it up to the audience to determine the winner of a debate.

But I'm going to do something I've never done. I have crushed gerrymatics in debates before. It wasn't even close.

When we did the papacy debate in 1993 during the papal visit, it wasn't even close. He gave it his best, but when the man stands in front of an entire audience holding the first volume of Juergen's quote book of early fathers turned to the index saying, these are the early fathers that agreed with me, that is self -destruction.

I mean, it was not even close. During the break in that debate, the man went up into the choir loft and is writing notes for the second half of the debate.

That's how bad it was. The audience during the

Marian debates, when we got going back and forth on the subject, he kept saying, well,

Jerry, show us these things. Where in the early church did they say the things you're saying?

Well, they're there. Give us one. Well, Mr. White, you can't expect them all to have addressed this.

Jerry, I'll take one. The audience exploded. The audience exploded.

It's just absolutely, I mean, when Jerry has to keep coming into debates over and over again saying, oh,

I'm so unprepared. I've been so busy. I've been writing my notes as I've been driving through traffic and all

I've had to eat today is a Coke while I was driving through traffic and we've been moving and all my best books are packed up in boxes and Mr.

White is such a wonderful debater. I feel like David and Goliath. When you have to start your debate with that kind of rhetoric, well, the last time we debated beforehand

I even sent him a fax and I said, Jerry, the last at least three debates we have done you started off talking about how unprepared you are and how it's

David and Goliath and all the rest of this stuff. May I make a suggestion, sir? Be prepared this time. That's what

I told him. I was very straightforward. I'm sick of it. I'm tired of this pedantic misuse of the audience.

Just be ready. And I'll give him credit. He was. And that made it a good debate.

But he has admitted many times to having lost the vast majority of the debates we have done.

And so it angers me. It angers me, first of all, that Furman University would have this man come on campus and not provide a meaningful response.

That's the first thing that angers me. Okay? Secondly, that he would, you know, hey, if someone hands him the opportunity, what do you expect this man to do?

This man is a purveyor of false teachings. What is a purveyor of false teachings going to do when you open the door and say, here, attack our kids.

Okay? So the primary thing that I'm upset about is that somebody allowed this man to stand up there and do this stuff.

That's the first thing. Secondly, we've contacted the student and have said, are you aware of the, have you heard the other side?

You know, I don't care if he was raised his whole life in a Southern Baptist church. You can go to a

Southern Baptist church your entire life and never hear a response to things on sola scriptura and sola fide and things like that.

It shouldn't be that way. Hopefully the students that I teach in seminary, that wouldn't be that way when they preach in their churches.

But in a lot of Southern Baptist churches and a lot of Baptist churches and a lot of churches, a lot of Protestant churches, you're never going to hear a discussion of sola scriptura.

And you may hear sola fide mentioned, but you're not going to have a response, given that it would be on the level of, of what

Matitix is throwing out there. I've debated him on justification. I've debated him on sola scriptura three times.

I had Patrick Madrid tell me on the phone that it was the first time he'd ever heard a

Catholic lose a debate was on the second sola scriptura debate that we did, up in Oma, 1992.

So, I have contacted the students that I'd like to send you, he talked about free tapes, just letting

Rich know, we're sending free tapes too. I'd like him to watch the

Marian debates. I'd like him to watch the sola scriptura debates. I'd like him to hear the papacy debates from 1993.

Find out that there is an answer. Because it's obvious to me, he's never heard that answer at all.

And here he's getting ready to leave and become a priest or a monk, and he's never heard the other side.

He thinks that because he had a prejudice against Catholicism, that that somehow made him knowledgeable.

It did not, and it does not. In fact, most of those who are the most prejudiced are the least knowledgeable in why they reject

Roman Catholicism. But I have also contacted Mr. Matitix. I sent him an email last night, and I was very straightforward.

As you can tell, I'm rather passionate about this, and I was very straightforward in what I said to Jerry. First of all, I brought up the issue of his ducking out on the challenge that he made to the pastor in Vernonia, Oregon, when he found out that I would be willing to come up there and face him.

And then I brought up this issue, and I said, alright, let's reprise. Let's reprise this at Furman.

If what you say is true, then this would only increase your opportunity of even more people coming to hear what you have to say.

So let's reprise it, except this time, it's mano a mano, one on one. And I challenged him to debate four issues.

Two of them I would defend, two of them he would defend. I would defend Sola Scriptura. I would defend justification.

He would defend the papacy, and he would defend one of the Marian dogmas. Specifically, maybe the bodily assumption, immaculate conception.

I think I mentioned immaculate conception. I think that would be very fair. And we have some folks, some fine folks in channel right now who live in the

Greenville area, and they're certainly willing to assist in setting things up. Even the student himself who responded to me this morning said he's willing to set these things up in any way he can.

So it's all in Mr. Matitick's lap now as to what he's going to do, because I have called him out.

I am challenging Jerry Matitick, and I told him, and I don't do this very often, folks.

Mr. Matitick will even have to tell you this, but I told him straightforward last night, I've defeated you before, and I'll defeat you again.

I was very straightforward. And I'm going to tell you something, there's not going to be any ecumenical ooshy -gooshy on this one.

This man is destroying souls, and if he dares to debate these issues, well, we'll all see what's going to happen.

Okay? There's going to be no pulling punches. The cross -examination period in these debates will be very, very interesting.

All right? So Mr. Matitick, what are you going to do? As I pointed out in my email to you, a few things have developed since we last debated.

There's an 1 ,100 -plus page work out there that I can guarantee you you can't even begin to touch.

Your arguments have never been sufficient to even begin to touch the work put together by William Webster and David King on the subject of Sola Scriptura, and I bet you you haven't even looked at it.

And I doubt you've read Eric Svensson's work on Mary. I doubt you've even read my little book on Mary. And I put a little 400 -page work myself together called

The God Who Justifies since the last time we debated as well. Some things have changed, and I don't get the feeling that your arguments have.

I think you're relying on the exact same arguments you've always relied on, because you know what? That's been my experience as a

Roman Catholic apologist. Roman Catholic apologists have a set series of arguments, and for some reason, they just don't listen to what anybody else has to say.

They just keep repeating the same thing over and over again, seemingly hoping to gain a new audience that will find these things to be new and therefore to have some kind of weight to them.

Well, that's not going to work for me. I know your arguments. I can refute your arguments. If you think you have the truth, debate me.

In Greenville. Let those folks, let those young students that you bedazzled with your smooth talk hear your arguments exposed to the light of truth,

Mr. Matitix. And if you don't, what you're saying is you know. You know you've lost before, and you don't want to lose again.

That's all there is to it. Calling you out. Get in touch with me. Let's do it. All right? Yes, I know.

We would provide Jerry with high -quality videos of the debate himself. Let's stretch out here just a little bit.

Maybe we could play some pretty Christmas music for a moment. I don't want to go into the

Dave Hunt stuff quite that... Like I said last night,

I was doing real well on the bench, man. I'm going to tell you. It was great. Oh, man.

All right. I'm reading the channel. Anyways.

Warren will sing for me? That will put me in a much worse mood. I can guarantee you that. Actually, I'd like to hear it, though.

Go ahead and open up the mic. I'd like to hear it, because I keep trying to hear that in church. It's a very difficult thing to do.

It's very hard. Anyways, we are going to move on here. I have 19 cuts.

I'm not going to get to all of them, obviously, today. I mentioned at the beginning of the program that I came in a little bit riled up anyways last night because someone had kindly sent us the videotape of a talk.

These aren't sermons. Again, people have been upset that I say Dave Hunt rambles.

Well, listen to this thing. It's so obvious that he sort of looks down, sees a point, talks about it, looks down, sees another point, just moves on from there.

Other than the fact that he tried to address all five points of Calvinism, there was no cohesive element to this at all.

It's just a little point over here, a little point over there, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, and that's fine. Again, if that's how

Dave does things, fine, wonderful, but don't get mad at me because I note it. I don't think that that's really fair.

Anyways, what is significant about this talk is the fact that it's recent.

And our main page article right now talks about accusations made against Calvinists in general by T .A.

McMahon on the Breean Calls website about the mean -spiritedness of Calvinists and all the nasty things that they've been doing and all the rest of this kind of stuff.

And what is very significant to me is when Dave and I first talked in August of 2000 on the air, and you can listen to that to this day, two things.

A. Dave says he has read hundreds of Calvinist authors since then.

And yet, the misconceptions, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and simply -ments that he used in our first encounter remain the very heart and soul of his presentation today.

Nothing has changed. Secondly, I know where Dave and I are in writing this book.

And I know that when he gave this talk, he had to have already read all of my opening statements in which

I offered full refutations and rebuttals of the heart of his argumentation.

And in fact, I very clearly speak about misunderstandings that Mr.

Hunt has and say, let's lay this aside. Let's put this aside. Here is the truth.

This is what Reformed people believe. So, has that had any impact?

Has that improved Mr. Hunt's apologetic against Calvinism? Or has he simply, like the open letter, ignored the correction?

Well, sadly, the only thing I can say to you is, Dave Hunt does not have ears to hear.

Because over and over, and I'm not going to get to all of them, but at least twice in this talk, we hear again,

Dave Hunt say, of course, Calvinists say we have no will. I've even said, in the open letter, in the book project, put this canard aside.

We do not deny that man has a will. We say that the unregenerate man's will is enslaved to sin.

And here's what Romans 8 says, and here's what John 6 says. Here's the foundational basis of that. Do you think he deals with any of that?

No. No, doesn't touch a bit of it. Does not touch a bit of it.

But he continues to say, Calvinists say, that man doesn't have a will. And what he means by that is that man does not have an autonomous will, but he won't say that.

And so only one of two possibilities exist. You either say that Dave Hunt is grossly dishonest.

Grossly dishonest. Full well -knowing. Exactly what

Calvinists believe. Full well -knowing he's misrepresenting what they believe, but doing it anyways.

Out of sheer dishonesty. Or, Dave Hunt is, as I have said many times, a slave to tradition.

And so much so, that he can look at a page of text and only see, recognize, and assimilate that which fits into his own tradition.

Those are the only two possibilities. So, you say, oh, big words.

Well, let's listen to him and find out if I'm telling the truth. I think there are a lot of people in churches, just like some of you, who are going to be shocked to find out that John 3 .16

doesn't mean what you thought it meant. In fact, I think we offered the tape.

I had a discussion, debate, if you want to call it that, with two Calvinist pastors a couple of months ago.

And that was one of the things that I said in our discussion. I said, well, you're telling me that what

I believed growing up as a boy in Sunday school, and what millions of other Sunday school children think around the world, that for God so loved the world, means that God so loved the world.

And that he gave his own begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.

So, you're telling me that he doesn't love the world, he doesn't love everybody, he only loves a select group called the elect.

And Christ only died for them. I mean, is this what you're saying? I mean, I knew what they were saying. And they said, yes, you've got it wrong.

And all these Sunday school kids out there have it wrong. I think a lot of people would be shocked. Now, there's nothing new about that.

From the beginning, that has been one of his arguments. Now, let's turn this around.

Let's examine this for just a moment. Let's use the Sunday school kid argumentation methodology.

This is Sunday school kid apologetics. What Sunday school kids understand defines truth.

So, there are billions of little Roman Catholic kids who go to church.

And they've been taught that Matthew 16 means that the Pope is the

Vicar of Christ on earth. Now, they're going to be shocked if you tell them they're wrong.

Right? What kind of argumentation is this? Dave Hunt has been presented with the exegetical explanation of John 3.

He has been told, Dave, the word whosoever, the way you're using it is not supportable in the text.

The text says, everyone believing. It's simply saying that all the ones who are believing receive eternal life.

You keep reading into whosoever something completely foreign to the word. Answer that,

Dave, and all he'll ever do. He even does this in his talk. Well, you know, Calvinists will always come up with an answer.

And they'll talk about the Greek, and they'll talk about the original language. But that's not what the Bible says.

And off to the next point. He never, ever, ever responds to the exegesis. It's just, well, whosoever is used all these times.

Look at Strong's Concordance. That's not exegesis. This is supposed to be convincing argumentation?

It's very hard to take it seriously. Let's continue. So they are promoting this more and more.

It's odd that when I make a response, I'm accused of causing division.

It's almost like the Catholics, you know. If you say anything about that, well, you're an anti -Catholic.

Well, they don't call themselves anti -evangelicals. Shouldn't this be a two -way street?

Well, why would anyone say that Dave Hunt is causing division? Well, here's my explanation of that.

Dave Hunt is causing division because he is spreading untruths about the

Reformed community and Reformed theology. Because he will not listen.

He will not respond to the reality he somehow insists that he, and he alone, is in a position to define

Reformed theology. That seems to be all that's going on here.

And so when I say he's causing division, it's because I've seen it happen. I've seen churches affected by his book.

I've seen individuals affected by his book. And I'm going to tell you something. I'm going to keep pressing.

I'm going to keep pressing. Dave, we need to debate. This book will not exhaust it.

There needs to be cross -examination in public debate in front of video cameras.

As soon as this book project is finished, we need to debate.

Not once, but a series of debates. We can do it over the course of weeks.

We can do it over the course of a couple days. We can make this work, but there needs to be interaction between the two of us.

And I'm going to keep pressing that. Anyway, so I want you to remember, please, one thing to remember.

All of the arguments... Okay, let me make sure I'm going to repeat that. Here's the thesis that he wants to present to these individuals.

Here's the main thing he wants to get them to hear. Now listen to exactly what the substance of his argument is.

Anyway, so I want you to remember, please, one thing to remember. All of the arguments, and they're very erudite.

Some of them are really brilliant. Calvinists tend to be intellectual, because it's an intellectual belief.

In all the quotations of Scripture, in the original Greek and Hebrew, and so forth, it has one ultimate goal.

And that is to bring you to the conclusion that God, who is love, 1

John 4, 8, does not love everybody, that the God who,

Psalm 145, 9, says, His tender mercies are over all His works. He does not...

He is not merciful to everyone. There's the thesis. There's the fundamental assertion that scandalizes

Dave Hunt. Dave Hunt absolutely denies to God the freedom that he, as a creature, demands for himself.

And that is the ability to differentiate in the matter of the expression of love.

Dave Hunt shows love in different ways for different people.

He obviously understands that how a person loves your wife, your parents, your children, differs from the way you love the enemy across the battlefield.

It differs from the way you love an inanimate object. It differs from the way you love an animal.

And obviously, God's love for the people of Israel differs from the way that God showed love for the

Egyptians, or for the Philistines, or for the Babylonians. Those are obvious things, but Dave doesn't deal with those things.

Instead, God has to have peanut butter love. This undifferentiated mass of love that must be capable of failure.

That is the only love he will accept. Now, does he know about what

I just said? Does he know about what

I just indicated about the differentiation of God's own love? Yes, because you see, again, he's made these comments after reading my opening presentations.

He has to know these things. Now he no longer has an excuse. He can't say, oh,

I only started studying this two years ago. That's the thesis.

There it is. And once you defeat that thesis, I submit to you, once you point out, look, husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church.

Does Christ love the U .N. the same way he loves the church? If you answer no to that, you've just blown

Dave Hunt's entire argument out of the water. It can no longer be used.

Because that is its foundation. Well, we've only gotten to three cuts, and I have 16 more to go, and not a lot of time.

So we're going to take our break and be right back as we continue listening to Dave Hunt's comments recently in his continuing crusade against Calvinism.

A godly man, such a rarity today. So many stars, strong and true, quickly fall away.

Well, here I stand. Some of you are going, man, calm down. I tell you, folks, one thing, if you want to get my goat, then put yourself in a position where you should know the truth, and you simply ignore it.

And that's, you know, isn't that interesting? That's exactly what has gotten my goat about both these situations. And in fact, we're going to get to some of these sections here.

The stuff that Dave says on the Gospel is downright

Pelagian. It has a whole lot more in common with what Gerry Madetich says than what I would say.

And that's an amazing thing. It's a sad thing. It truly is a sad thing. Well, we need to press on here. He does not want everybody to be saved.

Although it says he's not willing, then he should perish. But the Calvinist is determined to prove to you he does not want everyone saved.

He has, in fact, predestined billions of people. Well, if you say that, the

Calvinist says, well, where does it say billions of people? Well, the disciples asked Jesus, are there many that are saved?

And he said no. He said the broad road leads to destruction. The narrow way leads to life.

And few there be that find it. So, that sounds like a lot of people.

And he, for his good pleasure, has predestined them to eternal damnation.

And they do not have a chance because they cannot understand the Gospel unless he provides them the faith and the grace without which they cannot respond to him.

And he withholds it from them because it pleases him to do so.

Now, do you see the fundamental flaw in everything that Dave is saying here? He's presenting men as these poor, innocent creatures.

And oh, the big, mean Calvinist God withholds from them what they need. They want to be saved.

They want to do the right thing. He's a Pelagian. Dave Hunt's a

Pelagian. He has no concept of man as a rebel sinner. In fact, it's fascinating.

I just happened to be thumbing through What Love Is This today. And I don't know why

I just opened up to this. And I'm probably not going to be able to find the specific pages. It's way toward the back. But it was fascinating.

He talked about God blinding the eyes of unbelievers. And yeah, here.

This is page 411. And it quotes 2 Thessalonians 2, 10 -12.

Where it talks about God blinding their eyes, sending a deluding spirit upon them in the Holy Land yards.

And listen to what he says. Here we see not a God who arbitrarily blinds people so they can't be saved, but a loving

God who is also perfectly just in giving unrepentant rebels the desire of their hearts which leads their damnation.

Dave, hello, we are all unrepentant rebels. That's the point.

He has to create a subgroup of sinners called unrepentant rebels. He's a

Pelagian. That's the fundamental issue.

That's what he keeps... I just cannot believe that you would ever believe that because that's

God's loving... I don't think that that is the love of God.

That's why I titled the book, What Love Is This? I don't think that's the

God of the Bible. That's why the subtitle is Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God.

Well, there you've got it. There's the thesis. I don't think that's the love of God. I've never thought about issues such as compatibilism.

I've never thought about issues such as whether my view of simple foreknowledge actually allows me to escape any of the criticisms

I'm leveling at Calvinism. I've never thought about the differentiation of God's love and the objects...

I've never thought about any of those things, but I have my tradition based on John 3 .16,

and therefore I'm going to defend that tradition. And that's exactly what's going on here.

I'm defending that tradition. Now, this next section's a little bit long, so I need to get started on it.

It's about three minutes long, so you can go ahead and pull me down as soon as we get this thing started. Here's Dave.

You know, what is the point of this? After all, why is this so important?

Well, I'll give you some quotes from the book, just a few of them. Here's Leonard Copse, maybe a man you haven't heard of, but he's a leading

Calvinist. He says, Calvinism is pure biblical

Christianity. John Piper. Some of you would be familiar with that name.

I'd never heard of John Piper. We have a friend who's doing a tremendous underground work in Mongolia, and I first heard of John Piper from Mongolia.

John Piper was sweeping Mongolia, I mean, among the few underground Christians. And so I got a question from Mongolia about John Piper.

He's a pastor in Minneapolis. John Piper says, quote, The doctrines of grace, and he enumerates them, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints.

That's called TULIP, T -U -L -I -P. A beautiful flower. Bad theology, in my opinion.

Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints.

He says, This is the warp and woof of the biblical gospel. John H.

Gerstner writes, We believe with Spurgeon. Actually, I'm named after Spurgeon, believe it or not.

My father named me David Charles Haddon Spurgeon Hunt. And my mother,

Redline Spurgeon. So my name actually is David Charles Haddon Hunt. Spurgeon was a

Calvinist. However, Spurgeon, you read him, he seems to go back and forth on this.

But anyway, Gerstner says, We believe with Spurgeon that Calvinism is just another name for Christianity.

Lorraine Bettner, you might know that name. A tremendous apologist, as far as pointing out the errors of Catholicism.

He says, The five points of Calvinism set forth clearly the way of salvation.

A Baptist Calvinist leader says, If you do not know the five points of Calvinism, you do not know the gospel.

Another man, Arthur C. Custance, says, Calvinism is the gospel.

Now, Calvinism is the gospel. And if you're not a Calvinist, you don't know the gospel.

And if Calvinism is biblical Christianity, and you're not a Calvinist, you're not a Christian. Now, of course, many

Calvinists would back off and say, Now, wait a minute, we're not really saying that. But they are saying that.

I've just quoted you, and I could quote you more. Does that make it important?

I think it does. Well, I agree, it certainly makes it important. For some reason, Dave has a real hard time with our saying that this is the biblical gospel.

Doesn't he say what he says is the biblical gospel? Doesn't he start off by saying that he's giving the biblical gospel?

Are we supposed to be offended by that? I know he thinks he's giving the gospel. I'm not offended by that,

I just demonstrate he's wrong. Why is he upset that we would say that? Now, some of you are going,

He had never heard of John Piper? Yes, yes. Dave Hunt launched into his crusade against Calvinism, and he'd never heard of John Piper.

Now, think about that for just a moment. Anyone read a book called The Justification of God? I can guarantee you, even though Dave makes reference, he makes reference in his book to John Piper's book.

You know his only response to John Piper's book on Romans chapter 9? Well, it sure is filled with a lot of Greek.

That's because it's a doctoral dissertation, Dave. It's supposed to be. But he explained his point, and there's no interaction at all with what

John Piper says. And yet he dismisses it. It's not possible.

I listened to his whole thing here. It's later on, we won't get to it today, but his whole discussion of Romans chapter 9 is blown away by Piper.

Specifically, word for word almost, but Dave will repeat it in public settings, acting as a teacher, when he knows he has no response to what

Piper has to say. How can you do that? You can do that when you confuse your tradition with the truth of the

Gospel. And then did you notice, I knew that he was named after Spurgeon, by the way, which

I find ironic, but remember one of the things that came up in the open letter?

Dave, you've misrepresented Spurgeon. You said in your book, you said in your book that Spurgeon unequivocally denied particular redemption.

Does that sound like he's saying that anymore? Think we might have gotten through on that one? Have we heard any admission that we got through on that one?

Nope, haven't heard any admission. But it sounds, well, he went back and forth on these issues.

Oh, really? I thought he unequivocally, now doesn't unequivocally mean not going back and forth?

Isn't that the, isn't to equivocate going back and forth? So unequivocally means not going back and forth, right?

I think so. But we're not going to hear that admission, are we? No, we're not going to hear that admission.

James White. Ah, well, wait a minute. I did get mentioned here. And I must,

I will thank, I will thank Dave for the kind words here at the beginning. Sadly, he will then misquote me.

James White, who is one of the leading Calvinists, in fact, he and I are doing a debate book together.

We are debating one another, in black and white, very carefully. I think it will be an important book.

You can read it, what each side has to say. He says, quote,

Why is one man raised to eternal life and another left to eternal destruction?

It is according to the kind intention of his will. So God's kindness caused him to save so few and damn so many.

I think that's a misrepresentation of God, in my opinion.

Well, thank you, Dave, that that's your opinion. But as I had to point out in the book, that's a very unfortunate use of ellipses.

Let me play again his quotation of what I allegedly said. Why is one man raised to eternal life and another left to eternal destruction?

It is according to the kind intention of his will. That's from page 177 of the

Potter's Freedom. And that section is exegeting

Ephesians chapter 1. And here's what I actually said.

It should be noted that at this point, all the verbs in the passage have had God as their subject. Men have not added an iota to the discussion outside of being adopted in the family of God, i .e.

saved, and that perfectly. God is the one who is free in eternity past. He is not controlled by the whims and will of the creatures.

He has yet to bring into existence. Here's the specific quote. The next phrase answers many a question of mankind.

Why has God chosen to save a particular people? Why is one man raised to eternal life and another left to eternal destruction?

The scriptures offer an answer that is satisfying to the believer but insufficient for the person unwilling to trust in God's goodness.

What is the basis of God's act of predestination? It is according to the kind, it is, quote, and this is a quotation from Ephesians 1, according to the kind intention of his will, end quote.

Each word is important. It is his will, not our will. And remember, this is speaking not of some general plan to save so that it is

God who initiates but man who actuates. This is the specific predestination of individuals to sonship.

The basis of this specific decree is God's will. No mention is found of man's will, end quote.

By taking out the context and by stringing things together, listen, here again, here's what

I said. The next phrase answers many a question of mankind. Why has God chosen to save a particular people?

Why is one man raised to eternal life and another left to eternal destruction? There's the phrase eternal destruction, but it's in the context of why is one saved and not another saved.

The scriptures offer an answer that is satisfying to the believer but insufficient for the person unwilling to trust in God's goodness.

What is the basis of God's act of predestination? Which is in this context to what?

To eternal life. It is, quote, according to the kind intention of his will.

All of a sudden that becomes... Why is one man raised to eternal life and another left to eternal destruction?

It is according to the kind intention of his will. If you take out what is the basis of God's act of predestination, how can you be accurately representing something?

I don't know, but that's what he did. But, hey, I should at least be happy that I'm now a leading

Calvinist. I've never liked being in the back. Being a trailing Calvinist is really not a lot of fun.

So now I'm a leading Calvinist, and I'm very, very thankful for that. And I would like it if all the people in the channel, especially

Theopharis, who is constantly ragging on me, would now refer to me as a leading Calvinist instead of the trailing

Calvinist. That would be a much better way of doing things. I believe in predestination. The Bible teaches predestination.

But it is never unto salvation, but it is unto blessings or service, and it is always by foreknowledge.

Predestination is never unto salvation and always based upon foreknowledge.

Huh. Is that why Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2 .13, but we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the

Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the

Spirit and faith in the truth? I'm not sure who it was. It was somebody in the channel.

And if you're in the channel, tell me it was you. It may have been Mark Ennis.

I'm not sure. But someone pointed out to me. I think it was Mark, because he was muddling through Hunt's book, and he pointed out that in the

Scripture Index, there is no reference to this verse, 2 Thessalonians 2 .13, and there isn't. Nowhere in the entirety of Dave Hunt's book does he ever deal with the verse that says, but we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the

Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation. And yet, over and over again, he says, predestination is never to salvation but only to blessing.

And then he says it's based upon foreknowledge. Now, we're going to hear later on, probably not today, but we're going to hear later on where he tries to play games with the meaning of foreknowledge.

And he cannot give a response. All he can do is mock the discussion of the difference between the verb, the noun, prognosis.

He just muddles them all together, ignores the entirety of the exegetical issues, and just mocks it.

That's all he can do. But even then, if it's based upon foreknowledge, foreknowledge of what?

God seeing who would choose him. Choose him for what? For blessings? No, choose him for salvation.

Within one sentence, he contradicts himself. He says, predestination is never to salvation, but it's always based on foreknowledge of us choosing to be saved.

This is why there has to be cross -examination.

Because even in the written work, I can't force him to deal with something. I can only point out, he didn't deal with this here.

He didn't talk about this here. You can't, in a live setting, you can go, no, you just wandered off 13 topics down the road.

Back to the point, please answer this particular statement. When he says he believes in predestination, that's like when they say,

I believe in the sovereignty of God. He's just given his sovereignty over to man. That's all. Now Paul went about persuading man.

He said, knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade man. But wait a minute.

I don't need to persuade the elect. They're predestined to heaven, right?

I can't persuade the non -elect, because there's nothing you can do for them.

They've been predestined to hell. What is Paul doing? Spending his time disputing in the marketplace.

Why is he trying to persuade people? What is the point? The Bible says, you know, the

God of this age, Satan has blinded the minds of those who believe not. 2 Corinthians chapter 4.

What? What? Wait a minute. Satan can't blind the elect.

And God has already damned the non -elect. Satan could go on a vacation.

I mean, what? There's really nothing for Satan to do. And again,

I'm not trying to be funny. I'm just trying to be rational about this.

Well, not really being rational about this, because it has been explained to Mr.

Hunt over and over and over again. I've seen the letters that were sent to him.

I've seen the letters that were sent to him. He knows that we believe that God predestines the ends and the means.

And he knows that we believe that we as individuals don't have knowledge of who the elect are.

And so we are commanded to proclaim the gospel to all creatures. And I know

I cannot change the heart of an unbeliever. But I don't know who the elect are.

And so God has ordained that we be used as the means by which he proclaims his truth.

And yes, to the elect, our words will be life. And to those who are not, they will be death.

There is no question of any of those things. But mocking these things does not accomplish anything, does it?

Well, I suppose it does if all you want to do is poison the minds of others to a belief that you cannot refute.

And no, you cannot refute, but don't want to believe. That's what's going on here.

You see, once you recognize God can love in the same ways that we can, and God has ordained the ends as well as the means, the entirety of his whole presentation collapses.

There's nothing left. All he can do is just keep repeating himself. And again, you say, well, you really should be more kind about all this.

This man has been told repeatedly in as many ways as you could possibly be told.

In interactive ways where people have actually said, no, you've misunderstood. Here's why.

But he will not listen. And if that does not frustrate you, then you've upped your meds just a little bit too far.

He, remember, and as I read that many times, and I find it very difficult to understand, and that's why he says,

I tell the truth. I lie not. I could wish myself accursed from God.

I would go to hell if I could save my people, the Jews.

What love he has. What compassion. But wait a minute. Paul, you are going against God.

You've got people here that he has damned to hell. He has predestined them to eternal torment, and you are concerned about them?

Are you saying God was wrong? So I find that Calvinists, again,

I don't want to make blanket statements. As I said, some of my best friends are Calvinists, and some of them are very zealous in preaching the gospel.

But I don't understand why. Listen to that. I don't understand why they would be. Then why are you writing books against them?

Why are you going around the country promoting a horrible attack upon them that is so inaccurate?

If you admit, I don't know why they're so zealous, we've tried to tell you, Dave. We don't know who the elect are.

The entire argument that he just presented is based upon the assumption that we can know who the elect are, and we cannot.

So the argument is completely fallacious. It has no merit.

It has been refuted over and over again, and yet it's presented. And did you hear the passion? I mean, he's very passionate about it.

There's no question that he really believes Calvinism is really, really wrong. Now does he have a reason to?

No. Has he been corrected? Yes. But it's obvious.

He really, really believes that it's very, very, very wrong. Amazing stuff.

But I find that most of them, as I read their books, and I've gone through an awful lot of Calvinist writings in the last couple of years just studying this, they exult in the sovereignty of God.

Oh, it's wonderful. The sovereignty of God. Praise God for His sovereignty.

He governs everything. But there's nothing about love. Almost nothing about love.

But we'll get into it, how they describe the love of God. How could you have a compassion for people that God has predestined to eternal torment?

We don't know who God has predestined to eternal torment, Dave. And I don't know about the rest of you, but this middle section to me sounds like mockery.

The sovereignty of God. Oh, it's wonderful. The sovereignty of God. Praise God for His sovereignty.

He governs everything. But there's nothing about love. Excuse me.

Excuse me. Let's think logically for just a moment. If what

Dave says at the beginning of this clip is true, that he has read hundreds of Calvinists, then this statement can be nothing but a lie.

But there's nothing about love. There's nothing about love? There's nothing about the love of God?

All we talk about is sovereignty? Anyone who knows the literature knows that is simply untrue.

It is a lie. Why say it? What's the motivation here?

I don't know. Other than the fact that Dave Hunt simply refuses to admit the reality of a different and more biblical and more consistent and more rational view of God's love than his tradition.

And he cannot allow his tradition to be examined. He cannot allow for the possibility that his tradition may well not be biblical.

That's the only conclusion I can come up with. But that sounded to me,

I don't know about the rest of you, that sounded to me like mockery. And I, the last thing

I'd ever want to be caught mocking is the sovereignty of God. And then lying right afterwards.

I ain't never talk about God's love. Hasn't read much of Edwards, has he? Hasn't read much of Calvin for that matter.

An amazing, an amazing thing to listen to. Well, we only got through 11 of the 19 or so that I had made up and I'm not even halfway through the talk that was given.

I don't know if we're going to continue this next week or not. But I know one thing. You listen to this program today and you didn't fall asleep from boredom anyhow.

I suppose that's a good thing. Hey, thanks for listening today. I hope you sense the passion in what

I had to say. These are important topics, vitally important topics. I hope you'll be here again next week as we continue on The Dividing Line.

I believe we're standing at the crossroads

Let this moment of suffering Must contend for the faith above us fought for We need a new

Reformation day It's the sun, it's being trampled

It's time for...

The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and 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 A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks.