Is God obligated to save?

from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

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

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And good morning. Welcome to The Dividing Line, the early morning edition, at least

I guess if you're on the West Coast, sort of early afternoon edition for those of you on the

East Coast. We are live today on Thursday, the 29th day of January 2004, and we may have to start to one of those da -da -da -da type things for how many days it has been since we have attempted to obtain a copy of George Bryson's The Dark Side of Calvinism.

Yes, it was one month ago today, ladies and gentlemen, that I hit the buy button at Equip .org

attempting to purchase George Bryson's book since I couldn't be given one when I was in studio, and as yet, having just checked the email, it doesn't come by email, it could come by email, but it didn't, and in fact it hasn't come by the regular mail either.

Just checked the mail a few moments ago, nothing there. The postman has arrived, he has met his appointed rounds today, however, the book is not here.

And, you know, someday I would like to be able to do what I was told to do on the radio program, read my book, but I haven't been able to do that yet.

I even got a note, you know, after a couple weeks I went to the website, I said, hey, you know, hello, and I got a nice note back, it said we were back -ordered, but we've got him in now, it's,

I think it said, I need to drag the thing out, I think it said it was shipped, and evidently it was strapped to the back of a tortoise, and is currently crossing the desert between California and Arizona, and I don't know,

I would really like to read the book, I want to find out about Genesis 50, and compatibilism, and why it doesn't work, and it's unbiblical, and all the rest of that stuff, but I can't get hold of it, and I think it would be faster if I asked my friend in Hawaii, who already has it, to send it over to me,

I probably would be able to get it faster that way, but I wanted to be able to talk about that this morning,

I assumed that, you know, a month after you order something, that it might be in, and, you know, if I knew there was going to be problems here, when

I saw the form of the book, and the fact that it's not published by a real publishing house, it's put out by, you know, it's a velo -bound type thing that you can take down to Kinko's, or something like that, and so, that's not easy to produce large volumes of that, that's just not what it's set up to do, and so,

I wondered, and that seemingly is the problem, maybe they got some in, and my order was so far down the list, that that group came in,

I didn't get mine, and waiting for the next one, who knows, I don't know, and the fact that George Bryson is rarely in the

United States anymore, he spends about six months of the year in Russia, as I understand, church planning for Calvary Chapel over there, maybe that's an issue too,

I don't know, but, you know, people have heard me say I'm going to talk about it, and I'm going to go into the issue of whether the book actually answered the questions that it said, was said that it answered, and if you're wondering why

I haven't done that, it's because I don't have the book yet, that's, I've, you know, tried, I've ordered it, waiting for it, it ain't arrived yet, so anyway, 877 -753 -3341, the dark side of Calvinism, seemingly is sitting in the dark someplace, and won't come out in the light of day, oh, goodness, that's,

I know it's not because of my book, I know it's not because it's an issue of, well, you know, we want to send them out together, and we don't have the potter's freedom, no,

I've talked to the folks at Calvary Press, and they have shipped, and they have supplied all the books that have been requested, so don't look at us, at somebody else, that's why you ain't getting it if you're sitting around wondering as well, but anyway,

I did, last time we had the program on, I had just received, and now, of course, now that I'm now looking for it, here's one, oh, that's not it, actually,

I had just received in email a copy of the newsletter, whatever you want to refer to it, from John Armstrong's ministry,

I was sent, actually, multiple copies of the material, here it is, and this is from January 26, 2004,

Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, some observations on a healthy church besieged by critics, by John H.

Armstrong, and as you may know, John Armstrong was down at the

AAPC meeting, again, for those of you who either missed it, or those of you who have some difficulty hearing what

I am saying about Auburn Avenue and about New Perspectivism, I have, for many months now, been commenting on the issue, the, what

I would call, mono -covenantalism of the Auburn Avenue folks, enunciated in the 2002 and 2003 versions of their

Pastors Conference, specifically in the presentations made by Steve Schlissel, by Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, and John Barich, and we have talked about the background to this, that it sort of goes back to the old

Northern Presbyterian versus Southern Presbyterian issue, that's why there was so much criticism, for those of you who have listened to the presentations, so much criticism of Southern Presbyterians, the

Dabney line of Presbyterians, even going so far as to call them wet

Reformed Baptists, that kind of thing, all going back to the issue of calling your children to faith and repentance, which was said to be a bad thing to do, you simply trust in the promise of God in their baptism, and if you call them to faith and repentance, that is, in fact, demonstrating a lack of faith in the promise of God made in baptism itself.

And I have mentioned the fact that this particular movement obviously comes from a very conservative perspective, that on the issue of inerrancy, that these men, to my knowledge, would be completely in support of that vital truth, that the

Scriptures are God -breathed, that they are authoritative. Now I'm starting to have some questions, given my interaction with certain people at New St.

Andrews, and also in reading some comments from Wilson and Lightheart and others, in regards to whether they really believe that you can exegete those texts in such a way as to actually know what the original authors intended to communicate, or whether you are, in essence, a slave to history and tradition, and that you can only understand so much of the text as history and tradition allows you to.

I don't know, but my understanding has been that there's still a very conservative background there, and I have contrasted that very clearly with the new perspective of E.

P. Sanders, Dunn, Christus Dendahl, and of course the conservative popularization of that view in N.

T. Wright. I've mentioned that new perspectivism, even before the term was being used,

I was studying that stuff, I had to understand that stuff in seminary. I went to Fuller Theological Seminary, I did a master's degree through the

Phoenix extension of Fuller Seminary, and therefore Dunn and all these individuals were part and parcel of cutting -edge

New Testament theology when I studied at Fuller. Obviously I didn't view that as an issue that was going to be extremely important to me and my ministry over the course of the years, because I recognized that those folks do not approach the issue from a position of inerrancy, a position of believing that the scriptures are

God -breathed in the meaningful sense of that term, that the scriptures present a knowable divine revelation that we can fully understand and appreciate and articulate and teach and live in the light of, and so on and so forth.

It was just part of liberalism that I had to study and understand and interact with when

I was in seminary, not knowing, obviously, that down the road, many, many years later, this type of perspective would be becoming very popular amongst conservatives and hence would have to interact with it then.

But it comes from a different background. I have clearly distinguished them, but I've also, I'm not blind, and when you see the folks from these two different camps with different backgrounds getting together, holding hands, and saying the same things, you can't help but notice that in passing.

And so there was, for example, Steve Schlissel's assertion that justification is nothing more than Jews and Gentiles are together in one covenant.

And you go, hmm, sounds a lot like what N .T. Wright says and what St. Paul really said, even though Steve Schlissel said in the 2003 conference that he had never read

N .T. Wright. I would assume by now that he must have. I haven't seen any comments from him on that, but neither do

I go looking for them either, specifically in regards to him. So that sounds awful familiar.

And then we have John Armstrong, who is now one of the chief proponents of New Perspectivism, the

N .T. Wright version of New Perspectivism, in the United States. And he appears at the

AAPC conference next year, who is speaking at that conference, at the Auburn Avenue conference, but N .T.

Wright himself. There is a conference coming up that John Armstrong is putting up that Norman Shepard, one of the

AAPC folks, is going to be speaking at. And so you can't help but go, hmm, this is interesting.

How do they meld these things together, given the background? Well, my experience so far with people who are buying into N .T.

Wright and finding him to be just absolutely fascinating is that, for some reason, the background of Sanders' views and Dunn and so on and so forth in regards to inerrancy seems utterly irrelevant to them.

And that actually shouldn't surprise anyone if you have lived in any type of connection with academic circles, you know that even in those seminaries, where you allegedly have to believe in inerrancy to teach there, that in reality, most folks do not believe in inerrancy, or they have so nuanced the term or so redefined the term that it really doesn't end up having any particular meaning or any particular force to it any longer.

It's not something that becomes definitional. It's not something that you see as having a truly functional role in the interpretation, exegesis of the text of Scripture.

I obviously believe that it does. In fact, Lord willing, today I'm going to be working on a section of a book.

There comes a point in time when you're working on a book where you start seeing it coming together. I always have a little outline and I put the number of pages of each chapter as I finish them, and I keep a running tally.

And I started the running tally last night, realized that I'm over 50 % fully ready to have that material edited.

And you start seeing just the light at the end of the tunnel, in essence, and you start seeing the shape of the book.

You start getting excited about it. This could be really helpful to folks. And I am looking forward to this book.

It's on Scriptural Sufficiency. It'll be a Bethany House publication. Don't have a title for it yet because we can't come up with anything really good yet.

Anyway, it's not repeating what anybody else has done. In other words,

I'm not saying this will be the one book. No. In fact, I cite, make reference to the work of Bill Webster and David King a number of times in footnotes.

I think people should have that. I think they should have the Soledale Gloria work. I think there's a number of other excellent works on the sufficiency of Scripture.

It's such a wide topic that you could hardly exhaust it in any one book. But I really think this one's going to have its own little niche.

It's going to have its own audience. It's filled with dialogues, discussions back and forth in an apologetic context.

And I'm really getting excited about it as I'm working on it. And the section I'm working on is on the nature of Scripture, and I'm going to include a whole section.

And would I have included this whole section two years ago? I don't know. I'm really not sure if I would have.

But now that I see people who once stood with me, opposing me, and saying basically straight to my face, well, that you may say the text of Scripture says that, but hey, that's just your tradition speaking.

And when I say, well, let's go to the text. Let's look at the grammar. If you've seen any of the blog wars recently, any of the conversations that have come about as that, it's just absolutely amazing that people who once stood firmly on the side of historic

Reformed theology are now running around saying, well, how dare you think that exegesis is the final arbiter of these things?

It's truly amazing. In fact, I need to pop it up here. I hope it doesn't destroy our stream in the process.

Just last night, there was something really ironic here. Let's see. There it is.

And boy, the internet and high -speed access is a wonderful thing. Mozilla Firebird is also a wonderful browser.

Some of you may recall the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, that's

A -C -E, back in 1996. Oh, by the way, if you hear those little brief breaks,

I still have a cold. The Cambridge Declaration came out April 20th, 1996.

And excellent stuff here. Almost prophetic in some ways. Let me just read a few sections for you here.

Today the light of the Reformation has been significantly dimmed. The consequence is that the word evangelicals becomes so inclusive as to have lost its meaning.

My voice, for some reason, just became very, very strange and muffly and stuff.

I don't know what's going on. We face the peril of losing the unity it has taken centuries to achieve. Because of this crisis, and because of our love of Christ, his gospel, and his church, we endeavor to assert anew our commitment to the central truths, the

Reformation of historic evangelicalism. These truths we affirm, not because of their role in our traditions, but because we believe that they are central to the

Bible. Then, sola scriptura, the erosion of authority. Scripture alone is the inerrant rule of the church's life, but the evangelical church today has separated scripture from its authoritative function.

In practice, the church is guided far too often by the culture. Therapeutic technique, marketing strategies, and the beat of the entertainment world often have far more to say about what the church wants, how it functions, and what it offers than does the word of God.

Pastors have neglected their rightful oversight of worship, including the doctrinal content of the music. Oh no.

As biblical authority has been abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian consciousness, and as its doctrines have lost their saliency, the church has been increasingly emptied of its integrity, moral authority, and direction.

Amen. Rather than adapting Christian faith to satisfy the felt needs of consumers, we must proclaim the law is the only measure of true righteousness, and the gospel is the only announcement of saving truth.

Biblical truth is indispensable to the church's understanding, nurture, and discipline. Scripture must take us beyond our perceived needs to our real needs, and liberate us from seeing ourselves through the seductive images, clichés, promises, and priorities of mass culture.

It is only in the light of God's truth that we understand ourselves aright and see God's provision of our need. The Bible, therefore, must be taught and preached in the church.

Sermons must be expositions of the Bible and its teachings, not expressions of the preacher's opinions or the ideas of the age.

We must settle for nothing less than what God has given, whereas many today don't seem to think we can do that anymore.

That's not part of the Cambridge Declaration. The work of the Holy Spirit in personal experience cannot be disengaged from Scripture.

The Spirit does not speak in ways that are independent of Scripture. Apart from Scripture, we would never have known of God's grace in Christ.

The biblical word, rather than spiritual experience, is the test of truth. We reaffirm the inerrant

Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience.

The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin, and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council, or individual may bind a Christian's conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the

Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation. That's wonderful.

I've included that in the book because I think people need to realize that. But then there was something very interesting.

I was just sort of scrolling down a little bit, and I read this section. Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone.

This is the article by which the church stands or falls. Now, what did Steve Schlissel say about that line in 2002,

I believe it was? It's Hooey and Hogwash. Hooey and Hogwash.

We continue. Today this article is often ignored, distorted, or sometimes even denied by leaders, scholars, and pastors who claim to be evangelical.

Although fallen human nature is always recalled from recognizing its need for Christ's imputed righteousness, modernity greatly fuels the fires of this discontent with the biblical gospel.

We have allowed this discontent to dictate the nature of our ministry and what it is we are preaching.

And so the affirmation of not only sola fide, but justification.

And listen to this. While the theology of the cross may be believed, these movements are actually emptying of its meaning.

There is no gospel except that of Christ's substitution in our place, whereby

God imputed to Him our sin and imputed to us His righteousness. That is the imputational model specifically denied by N .T.

Wright. That is the exact phraseology denied by N .T.

Wright. You scroll down to the bottom, and when it says, A .C .E. Council Members, you know what the first name is?

Dr. John Armstrong. I would like to know, in light of his promotion of N .T.

Wright, and Wright's denial of the very element of justification that is said to be that without which there is no gospel, has

Dr. Armstrong removed his name from this document? Has he repudiated it? And if not, why not?

I mean, if I changed my view, I would have to repudiate such things and say I no longer believe those things.

Now some of the other council members, Alistair Begg, James Boyce, Robert Godfrey, Michael Horton, Al Mohler, R .C.

Sproul, David Wells, some big names there. But an excellent thing, you can find this, for those of you, this one

I pulled up is at reformed .org under the documents section,

Cambridge Declaration. If you want to pull that up, I just Googled it, and poof, it was right there. And very easy to get to.

So you might want to take a look at that. It's excellent. But anyways, going back to this little note here, and we do have a call, we'll get to it in a second.

Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. This is John Armstrong, January 26th. Some observations on a healthy church besieged by critics.

And what I found fascinating was, evidently I'm not one of these critics, because the big thing here was the reason for the charge, this is talking about,

I came to know last year that another well -known Presbyterian minister had attacked Steve in open public view, that would be

Moorcraft by the way, following the Auburn Avenue conference in 2002. The charge made by the other minister in essence was heresy.

The reason for the charge was the conference's expressed interest in the so -called new perspective of Paul.

Then he even notes, next year the Auburn Avenue conference has Tom Wright scheduled as a featured speaker. The desire is to encourage dialogue with Wright from the perspective of historic reform theology.

Would that be an admission that his perspective is not historic reform theology? I would assume so.

Anyway, that is not really the issue.

There are those who have been connecting AAPC with that uncritically. I would agree with that.

That's why I say my criticism must not be in view here. Because while you are starting to hear

Steve Schlissel say things that sound like conclusions, how he gets there is very different. And I doubt

N .T. Wright would really buy into the mechanism by which Schlissel gets to the conclusions that he gets to.

But it was very interesting, and my headphones are acting strangely again. It was very interesting that as I read through this, there just wasn't any recognition of what the real issues are in regards to mono -covenantalism, in regards to calling your children to repentance, the role of baptism, all those issues were not even really touched at.

Some of the things that were... The following observations are the result of my four days in Monroe.

Number one, the Auburn Avenue heresy is vastly overstated. Even if you disagree with N .T. Wright on the use and place of righteousness language in the

Bible, and even if you profoundly disagree with him on the doctrine of justification having its primary reference to inclusion in the covenant community, if you really bother to listen to the

Auburn Avenue speakers, you will soon discover that these men are confessional, serious, and conservative Reformed teachers. Well, if you really listen to them, you know that that isn't really the issue.

But anyway, the worship at Auburn Avenue is refreshing and inspiring. Well, that's nice.

Pastor Wilkins and Pastor Lusk are humble men who are willing to listen and learn. The concern for Catholicity at Auburn Avenue is truly genuine and healthy.

I have wondered over the past five years if conservative Reformed congregations would ever take this oft -confessed and ancient biblical truth seriously again.

That's another way of saying that you folks who believe like I used to believe just simply are way too narrow -minded and you're not ecumenical in what you believe.

I am certain that there are many churches that do, but I can now say that Auburn Avenue does take Catholicity seriously.

It was practiced and taught in my presence in wonderful ways. Not a single hard question was dodged in the conference. The five of us who spoke were all different in our thought, background, and style, yet we quickly and easily loved one another and gained fresh respect as a result of our fellowship in private and in public.

Sadly, I have been a speaker in conservative places where the noticeable absence of love and respect is far too obvious.

Okay, let's say that's true. Why wasn't anything said about it back then? Personally, I get a little tired of folks who leave.

They change their perspectives, they change their views, they in essence abandon what they have taught as truth, and then all of a sudden they have all these criticisms of where they were before.

Why weren't they criticizing it back then? If someone who changed their views can document that they were doing that back then, that's one thing.

But I've seen it too many times. It's just way, way, way too common. Fifth, finally,

Auburn Avenue is a place which could become a major contributor to the peace and unity of the Church of Jesus Christ in America.

If these good folks and their leaders keep pressing on in their humble pursuit of the truth, I can only expect two things to happen.

They will be wonderfully blessed and used by God. They will be criticized more and more by some reformed Christians. This is to be expected.

Now think about that for just a moment. Consider what has just been said and how far

John Armstrong has gone in viewing his former comrades as his enemies. Peace and unity of the

Church of Jesus Christ in America is going to be criticized by some reformed Christians. They are working against the unity and peace of the

Church. Now of course, as we have discussed in this program a number of times before, all you have to do is listen to some of the comments made at Auburn Avenue.

And I really have to wonder, are the comments made by Wilson and Schlissel especially in attacking

Southern Presbyterians, in referring to them as wet reformed Baptists, in ravaging the

Puritans for their daring to say that we should examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith.

Why isn't that brought up as not exactly promoting the peace and unity of the

Church, but if someone responds, then they are in opposition to such things. I don't quite follow that.

It doesn't make much sense to me, but that's the way it goes. So the review ended, and if anyone tells you

Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church is an unhealthy place so that heresy is being taught there, tell them to cut out the nonsense and seek for the facts first.

Truth be known, such an accusation is pure slander. Of course, nothing in here even addressed the actual concerns concerning monocovinentalism, the role of baptism in regeneration, and terms like that didn't even get touched, but okay, that's how it goes.

So another opportunity for meaningful discussion of those things goes by the wayside.

877 -753 -3341. Jim will be coming to you next, and your phone calls if you'd like to comment today, on the dividing line, 877 -753 -3341.

We'll be right back. Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality.

Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same -Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the

Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including

Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans. Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law.

In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people.

The Same -Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at aomin .org.

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God, James White, in his book,

The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt

Scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author

James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .aomin

.org. What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free?

A New Cult? Secularism? False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Pottish Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, But the Pottish Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very

Gospel itself. In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the Gospel preached by the

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture. The Pottish Freedom, a defense of the

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at www .aomin

.org. Oh, welcome back.

No, I can hear that. I knew that was coming. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number where you start taking your phone calls today.

And let's start off in the land of fruits and nuts. Let's talk with Jim. Hello, Jim. Hey, how are you doing today?

Pleasure to talk to you, sir. How's it going? Real good. It really is frustrating,

Dean, with the subject that you just mentioned and the one I want to discuss.

But it sure helps us to keep our thinking clear and clean and gives us a chance to learn how to be patient, because it's really tough.

Yes. My question is, is the concept that we must accept

Christ to become saved, did that come from the Bible or did it come from the pit of hell? Well, it depends on what you mean by that.

John 1 -11 says he came to his own as those who were his own did not receive him.

And then the next phrase, but as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God.

So the terminology is certainly not unbiblical, but it depends on whether we are using that phrase, receive

Christ, in the way that the biblical authors would have understood it or the way that it is generally utilized within the context of an invitation system.

Arminian, Jesus is standing at your door. He's knocking. There's no knob on the outside of the door, because Jesus is a gentleman and he would never force himself on anybody.

You aren't spiritually dead. You're actually spiritually alive. In fact, you're so spiritually alive, you can determine whether the work of the triune

God, Father, Son, and Spirit, is going to succeed or fail by the exercise of your creaturely will.

If you put it in that context, then very commonly the term is used in a very unbiblical way, in a way that detracts from the glory of God, and in a way that opens the door to every form of satirological heresy known to man.

Because without that element, you cannot have satirological heresy.

You can't have sacramentalism and the limitation of God's grace to certain avenues of effectiveness and all the rest of that stuff if you don't have man's will exalted in that fashion.

So again, if you can define the phrase in a biblical way, then obviously it's being used biblically.

But if you can't, then obviously it's just one of the many ways the enemy has used to promulgate sub -biblical teachings.

Well, it seems to me that the people you've talked to on your program that represents that presented in the way you just described, in which taking the sovereignty away from God and giving it to man, and everybody

I've talked to that believes that, they always replace the word receive, which is a passive term, to an active term of accept.

Right, right. And my concern is, as the more and more clearer we try to make it,

I know you go way out of your way to make it crystal clear. I mean, that's your whole effort is to make it as clear and logical as possible, to make it as easy for them to see what you're trying to explain to them.

And the more you do that, the more they resort to what, in a normal conversation or debate, would be unfair tactics.

Sometimes I almost call it outright lying and misrepresentation to counter the truth.

It seems that the more we learn how to answer their objections, the more extreme tactics they seem to use.

Well, if what you mean by that is that there is no limitation to the extent that a traditionalist, and when

I mean a traditionalist, I mean a person whose theology is derived first and foremost from a preexisting set of traditions or beliefs rather than from the

Word of God itself, there is no limitation to how far a traditionalist will go to defend their tradition and to defend at least the image that their tradition is consistent with Scripture, then

I would agree with you completely. There is no limit to how far that will go to the point of utter absurdity.

But that is, in essence, what we are seeing in many situations today.

It used to be that we would sit around and comment on how, on the most recent radio program we did in Salt Lake City, this caller who was a

Mormon just demonstrated an incredible willingness to twist the words of Scripture. And that didn't really surprise anybody.

But today, that willingness to look at a text of Scripture and turn it on its head seems to be more prevalent and widespread than ever before, even within that which historically has been called

Evangelicalism. Well, what I'm beginning to wonder is, at what point, after they've been told the truth so many times, they're educated people, they can't deny they don't understand the concepts of what's going on, and they keep resisting

God's truth. At what point might their own salvation be in question? I'm not judging anybody personally by name, but just to think for themselves.

Well, I've got a pretty consistent track record at this point, however, in attempting to discourage folks from investing precious time and energy in going to that point of discussion.

And the reason is fairly simple. First of all, it's very easy for us to slide into an attitude of making agreement with the entirety of my understanding, the standard of all things, and I don't do that.

I think it's a danger we need to be careful of. But beyond that, I think we need to be very consistent in criticizing a theological position, recognizing that a theological position then results in impact upon the worship of the

Church, the practice of the Church. It impacts pastoral concerns. These are not just pie -in -the -sky, contextless presuppositions separated from the space -time continuum, as people like to say.

The Christian truth is a whole. It's related to one another. Your doctrinal beliefs impact your pastoral exhortation, your pastoral work, and everything else.

I think it's far more important that we stay focused upon identifying false teaching.

And if you can teach people to identify false teaching and to recognize inconsistencies there, then they themselves will recognize false teachers.

The problem is when we spend a tremendous amount of time just simply on the idea of false teachers and on names and personalities rather than the substance of what is being taught, people can lose focus upon what's really important, what we're really trying to communicate, and that is that these doctrines, these teachings, are vitally important.

There is a reason why Paul kept saying to Timothy, watch your doctrine, watch your doctrine, exhort and sound doctrine, even in the last epistles that he's writing to Timothy before he dies.

There is a sound biblical reason why we're concerned about that. But Paul certainly could have filled his letters to Timothy with many more names than he did.

Now, he did name some. Alexander the Coppersmith, Demas is left as loving the world, you've got Timonius and Philetus.

You have some people that are named, but something tells me that if Paul had wanted to, he could have filled entire chapters with names of false teachers and so on and so forth.

He didn't do so. He instead focused upon the doctrinal issues because that's where you really touched the meat of the matter.

I was going to say, I'm not looking at it as a negative point of view. I meant as a point of view, almost like a mission field, like there's a group of people here that I care about, that believe stuff that I think if they actually got that, you know, believed it when they died and entered

Heaven and said, I get here because I accepted you, they might not get in.

And so my view is they keep claiming, they will say, well, you're saved so I can be saved too, and it's an in -house debate, and use all these terminology.

And I'm thinking they're fooling themselves. What I'm looking at about it is how do you approach these people if you want to help them?

Because I think some of them might not be saved. I don't know for sure, but if I care about somebody, it's just like anybody you think might not be saved, you want to tell them the truth so that you can help them.

I think we need to differentiate between, you know, the danger is if a person is trusting in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation, that they believe in grace alone through faith alone.

You say, but if they believe that they themselves are the ones to determine whether God would save them or not, they are being inconsistent.

There is an inconsistency in their theology. Yes, there is. There's no question about that. And that's where I approach them.

I mean, I approach them on the level of you need to recognize that God is honored by our being consistent in what we believe, that God is honored in our being consistent in what we understand of the gospel.

That's great. And then we also approach them saying, if you are not consistent in that area, then you open the door to all sorts of heresies and false teachings and things in the process.

I think that's where you approach them. And that's where you're going to find out fairly quickly whether they are actually trusting in Christ and his salvation alone or whether they are, in fact, trusting in something that they have done.

And that's going to open the door for you to do that. And that's either going to enrich their lives as a believer when they realize that they need to trust in Christ solely and that they are being inconsistent in that area, or it will give you the opportunity you were just discussing of actually sharing the gospel with them because they have been deceived.

But that's where I would start is to press upon someone the centrality of a trusting in Christ and in him alone for their salvation.

So, yes, evangelism is not just for people who openly deny or are ignorant of the gospel.

Evangelism is something that takes place within the church. Paul evangelized the Roman church. And what was he doing?

He was proclaiming the gospel to them. And if we are consistent in that proclamation, there will always be that process of challenging everyone, even those who claim to be in Christ, to examine themselves to see whether they are in the faith.

That's Paul's exact terminology. As unpopular as that is in the vast majority of theologies today, that's biblical terminology, and therefore you need to use it.

So I think, though, the approach should be to assume that a person who claims to be your brother in Christ, in the sense that they affirm justification, they affirm the inerrancy of scriptures, they affirm the substitutionary death of Christ, there is some basis for accepting that confession as having some meaning to it, is to exhort them on that basis, rather than assume that just because they may not have read the books we've read or they may have the understandings we have, that they aren't and that we're trying to get them to be.

Well, I guess I'm getting to the point in which you've made clear and they understand the argument, and they still claim for, and this is what

I can't understand, is what reason they have for saying, well, I can't believe in a sovereign God, I do have to count on my own contribution to being saved.

And they say, I hear what you say, but I have to trust in myself. Well, obviously someone who goes to the point of saying,

I can't just trust in Christ, or I'm trusting myself, that's of course someone that you share the gospel with.

I assumed that you were talking about individuals who would claim to be consistent believers in justification by faith, but they are at the same time promoting a perspective that exalts the person of the man over the person of Christ.

What I found is, the more time I spend talking to them on the levels you've been talking about, it eventually does come down to that.

And it seems that they're so defensive of that human will. That's what it comes down to.

It may take months or years to get them to that point, but ultimately there's something keeping them from turning it over and letting

Christ have it all. I understand. And when you talk to someone like that, you press the truth of God's sovereignty.

Christ's sheep hear Christ's voice, and they'll respond to His truth. It may not be in our timetable, but it will be in His.

Thank you very much for your phone call today. Before we move on to Nathan in Oklahoma, a lot of folks who listen to this program do so while in our chat channel, which is sort of the

Alpha Omega Ministries living room, in the sense that it is a little family there. I was trying to watch the channel here and also talk with Jim over there in California, and just saw that one of our regulars, in fact the queen of the channel, always number one in the stats, well, as long as her modem is working and the network actually functions, just came in, and we've known for a long time that this particular person, who goes by numerous nicks, but we'll just go with Spidey Geek for today, which should make everyone go, okay, all right,

Spidey Geek, that's good, has been working on being an author and loves comic books, and she was just mentioning that she came in channel and a big meeting today, long story short, looks like she's going to have an opportunity of pursuing that dream, and we've all been watching the development of the characters and the drawings and stuff like that, and so we all rejoice with her and give the

Lord's best to her and hope that someday when she's big and she's too busy to be in our little lowly channel that she'll remember back to those strange people in Prasapala Gyan who encouraged her and who made fun of her and did things like that, so we knew there was a big meeting today and we were all excited about it.

I was a little worried about it. I didn't want hopes to be dashed and things like that, but anyways, it looks like it all turned out wonderfully, so we send congratulations out to the east coast somewhere in the mid -Atlantic region of the east coast and thank the

Lord for that. So anyway, let's go ahead and move on to Nathan in Oklahoma.

Hi, Nathan. Hello, Dr. White, how are you? Doing good. Good. I was reading this morning in John chapter 12 and I don't know who else to ask.

You seem to know quite a bit, so I thought I'd ask you where Jesus talks about how he didn't come to judge the world in verse 47 but to save the world, and obviously having listened to your program and having some of your books and stuff,

I've kind of realized that Christ came to save his people and this idea of a particular redemption or a definite redemption or limited atonement appears the more that I study the scriptures to see this, and I was confused about this idea that he came to save the world and then in context,

I guess it's more that Jesus was offering salvation to, you know, legitimately offering salvation to even those that were not elect, as in the context, you know, he says, believe in the light while you have the light, as he concludes his ministry, and some of them,

I mean, most of them chose not to believe, and so my question is, is I'll hear the argument of those that are against Calvinism will say, you know, well, you can't, if you're a

Calvinist, you can't say that God offers the gospel in good faith because how could God demand a person to believe if faith comes from him?

As this last caller was kind of talking about, you know, how can God expect someone to believe if they can't, and so in that sense,

God doesn't truly offer salvation to all through the gospel, because man can't believe, and so it's not in good faith, and so my question is, how would you respond to that?

And then my thoughts were, in this passage in John 12, is that Jesus does offer the gospel to those who hear it, even the non -elect, but they choose not to believe it because in their sinful nature, they can't,

I mean, or they don't want to. Yeah, they don't want to, because their nature is contrary to God and his things, or his ways, and so they don't want to.

Yet also, as it says in John 12, verse 39, speaking of those who don't believe, John says they couldn't believe, and they couldn't because God didn't give them, as you have said in the example of Lazarus, John 11,

I mean, he didn't give them the ability to believe. Well, and the key here,

Nathan, is to start with demonstrating the problem and the presupposition in this entire discussion, and that is that God is somehow under obligation to free condemned sinners from the effect of their own sin.

This is the assumption, it was the assumption throughout the Bible Answer Man debates, the assumption throughout the debate with George Bryson, the assumption throughout any debate you have on this issue.

Fundamentally, if someone is going to argue against the right of God to save a certain people, part of their presupposition must be that God owes to man the ability to,

God owes, let me change that, God owes to man that he remove from man the effects of man's own sin that man loves to engage in.

This would be similar to a person standing before a judge who takes ecstasy, crack, and drinks three gallons of vodka, and then goes hurtling down the highway in a

Hummer at 127 miles per hour and plows into a school bus and kills 14 children.

And he, of course, survives because when you've got all that stuff thrown into your system, you're invincible. And so he stands eventually before the judge, and he says,

Judge, how dare you try to condemn me for my actions because you did not remove from me the effect of the drugs and the alcohol before I had the accident.

You can't hold me accountable because once I did those things, I'm no longer accountable.

It may have been the result of my own choices, but you can't hold me accountable for the result of my own choices.

And people immediately say, but it wasn't my choice, I was born in sin. That's what federal theology is all about.

It was Adam's choice, and we sinned in him. And if you don't like that, then rip

Romans 5 out of your Bible and stop calling yourself a biblical Christian. And don't trust that Jesus Christ's righteousness will avail for you, because if you don't have the federal headship of Christ over his people, you don't have his righteousness.

So you've got to start by challenging the presupposition that exists there that God somehow has to remove from us the results of our own sin before we can be held accountable.

That's the first thing. Secondly, in the context, I mean, it's right here in front of us. This was to fulfill verse 38, the word of Isaiah the prophet, which he spoke,

Lord, who has believed, I report unto whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed. For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, he has blinded their eyes, and he hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted, and I healed them.

And yeah, I know all the people who run around, well, that's because they hardened their heart first, and God's just simply allowing them to do...

That's nowhere in the context. That's eisegesis, that's reading into it. These things

Isaiah said, because he saw his glory and he spoke of him. Nevertheless, many even of the rulers believed in him.

But because the Pharisees, they were not confessing him for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue. What? For they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.

See, they have a will. They are human beings, created in the image of God. They love.

Their love expresses what they themselves truly are passionate about, what they themselves truly honor, and what they love.

And so they love the approval of men rather than the approval of God. Jesus cries out and says,

He who believes in me does not believe in me but in him who sent me. He who sees me sees the one who sent me.

I have come as light into the world so that everyone who believes... Notice, everyone who believes. Same phraseology used in John 3 .16.

All the believing ones, everyone who believes in me, will not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my sayings and does not keep them,

I do not judge him for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings as one who judges him, the word

I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. So when someone says,

See, here's... Jesus came to save the world. Okay, did he? If they want to use the term world, if they want to say every single individual, then they would have to conclude if they're going to take that position, if they're going to be consistent with the

Dave Hunt position, that world always means every single individual rather than Jews and Gentiles taken together, the entirety of all the groups of man.

If they want to take it to mean every single individual who has ever lived or ever will live, then

A, what does this mean in the sense that when he says that I came to save the world?

Does that mean he came to try? That's basically what people are left with. Yes, he came to try.

So in Matthew 1 .21, his name will be called Jesus because he will save his people from their sins.

Does that mean he will save only a certain people and he will try to save the others but not save them?

Obviously, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Does Jesus save? Does he fulfill his purpose?

Yes or no? And I like to press that because people just have this mushy, ushy -gushy, sloppy -agape traditional way of...

It's the sloppy -agape lexicon is what it is. We need to print the sloppy -agape lexicon and put these words in there with the sloppy -agape definition.

Which means, world means everybody. And then we can show you all the places where that ends up turning the

Bible completely on its head. I think it's something that might be worth putting on the website someday. The sloppy -agape lexicon.

But did Jesus accomplish what he said he would accomplish? Obviously, the whole point of the teaching in the

Gospel of John is yes, he did do that. And the offering of the Gospel that is made is to everyone who would believe.

There is no question that no one... And this is important because this is a frequent misrepresentation of Reformed theology.

You will see it all the time. You'll see people on the radio constantly misrepresenting

Calvinism. What they will say is, it doesn't matter what you do, even if you want to be saved, you can't because you're not of the elect.

I've heard it all the time. I hear it over and over again. There has never been and there will never be a person who desires to bow to the lordship of Jesus Christ in repentance of sins to receive eternal life who will not be saved.

Never. No such thing. These passages are not addressing the issue of whether there is anyone who, outside of the grace of God, effectively working in their lives, would ever do that.

But the point is, Christ will save every single person who calls upon his name.

That's not addressing whether God is under some moral obligation to take rebel sinners who spit in his face, who show hatred to his law, and remove from them the condemnation of their own sin, give to them spiritual life, give to them those gifts and abilities that are pleasing in his sight, so that they then can lean and trust upon Christ.

That's an issue that's addressed very clearly in scripture, but people close their ears and their minds to those passages because of the fact that they see these passages and they read into them a meaning that simply is not there.

Okay? So then the gospel is... How would you respond if it's not offered in good faith?

Well, real quickly, because our time is up. As I said, if they think that good faith means that God has to remove the penalty of sin and the effect of sin, then that goes back to what

I said at the beginning concerning the issue of the person standing before the judge. It makes no sense. It is offered.

Men in sin do not desire to embrace it. The offer is real anyways. Hey folks, we're out of time.

Thanks for listening today. We'll see you Tuesday evening, 5 o 'clock for The Dividing Line. God bless. Crossroads, can't let this moment slip away.

We must contend for the faith our fathers fought for. We need a new Reformation day.

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.