March 29, 2005

Webcasting around the world 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.

Refuting a Sermon Against Calvinism

And today is another edition of Radio Free Geneva. We continue our response and refutation of the sermon, The Five Points of Calvinism Exposed and Exploded by Dr. Danny Oguin of Tower Grove Baptist Church in St. Louis.

I did not realize the last time we fired up Radio Free Geneva that Danny Oguin was Dr. Oguin. Someone posted the URL to the church. I had looked for it during the night before. Could not find it. Someone needs to work on their meta tags.

But it was posted during the course of the program. And so as I looked at it after the program, I saw that it was Dr. Oguin. No disrespect intended, since I did not know that during the course of the program.

But we are about 27 minutes into the program. I'm actually going to back up just a little bit, not the program, into the sermon itself. And get a running start at our next section. You may recall we were just getting ready to go into the subject of limited atonement.

And right before that, though, we got a fairly decent idea of exactly where Dr. Oguin is coming from. Let's back it up just a little bit and take a running start here, listening to the sermon from Pastor Oguin on Calvinism.

Well, do those people who are elect have to hear the word of God in order to be saved? They said, yes, they have to hear it. I said, there's a condition. It can't be unconditioned. Why? I asked him another question.

I mean, I have fun with Calvinism. I mean, it's a pet peeve, all right? I could dance up here for a little bit, all right?

Now, as you can tell, Dr. Oguin was getting just a little bit on the animated side. That does happen. Unfortunately, we're talking about unconditional election. As we pointed out last time, Dr. Oguin does not seem to understand what unconditional election is, despite the fact that he had earlier said that he had spent nearly a year studying the subject.

He wanted to become a Calvinist, but God told him he couldn't, and the Bible didn't teach it. One would think that in reading on Calvinism for that period of time, he would at least understand what unconditional election is, that he would be able to understand that unconditional election means that God chooses the elect not based upon what they do.

There are no conditions that they fulfill which results in their election. Now, you notice the argument he's making now is that if God chooses to save in a certain fashion, that is through the preaching of the word, if he uses any means, if he uses the gift of faith, saving faith, repentance, all these things, that means that there are conditions as if that's somehow contradictory to the fact that he chooses individuals, not based upon what they do, but upon his own will.

You can see that there is no connection between the two, and I would assume anyone with two graduate degrees from a seminary would be able to follow that reasoning. But for some reason, as we have seen so many times in our responses to so many different people, when it comes to this particular subject, there is no willingness to engage the same mental faculties that are used in almost any other subject because of the issue of tradition.

Here comes the tradition, and the tradition is very clearly seen in how this sermon unfolds.

I have a ball with it. I asked him, I said, now these elect that you say they're not, but that you say are elect, do they have to repent? I said, you know, Jesus said, except you repent, you shall likewise repent.

But this unconditional election, those who are elect, do they have to repent? Oh, yes, they have to repent. I said, there's another condition.

And, of course, that would only be true if what we were saying is that God chose them on the basis of their fulfilling the condition of repentance, which, of course, is not what we're saying. None of those many books, the 50 volumes in his library, said that.

But for some odd reason, when it comes to this particular subject of honestly representing the opposition, we don't get any honest representation.

It's not unconditional, and they can't do anything with that, okay? That's the way it is with all man-made doctrines. You say, Brother Danny, would you let a Calvinist come in here and explain their view?

No. I expose Mormonism. I'm not going to call a Mormon in here. Let him explain their... I expose Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not going to let a Jehovah's Witness come in here. I'm going to preach the truth from the Bible, keeping the Word of God, okay?

I'm not going to let... I don't want a Calvinist preaching behind this pulpit.

Well, there you have a real recognition on Dr. McGuinn's part of the history of Calvinism among Southern Baptists. That would mean he wouldn't want Dr. Boyce, the founder of Southern Seminary, to preach from his pulpit.

And he doesn't want any explanation. It is a given fact, from his perspective, that Calvinism is wrong. That's why he can misrepresent it. That's why he can attack a straw man. That's why he can be less than truthful in his presentations.

Because he's not going to let any conversation take place. There's not going to be any interaction on something like this. That's how so many people deal with this particular issue, is just shut it down.

Don't let anybody say anything. Scare your people half to death if someone does start talking about something called Calvinism. And make them run for the hills. And that way you never have to really deal with the fact that you haven't dealt biblically, or logically, rationally, with the position that you're attacking.

That's the game plan, the MO. Dr. McGuinn is not alone. In fact, as we're going to see when he misrepresents Spurgeon, he's just following others here. There's nothing new here. He's just repeating what others have said.

This has been done many times before him. And sadly, it will be done many times after him as well. Alright? It's false.

Unconditional election makes God more than a monster and man less than a robot.

Well, and again, very deep alliteration and sermon outline there. But since nothing of unconditional election has actually been dealt with, it's very difficult to take this seriously. In fact, I know there are people on the channel that wonder why we're even doing this.

And let me once again point out that individuals like Dr. O 'Guinn, and before when we responded to Herb Revis, and when we have been responding to Paige Patterson, and to Adrian Rogers, and to many of these individuals, Charles Stanley, and their misrepresentations of the issue, we are dealing with the fact that these folks exercise their influence to attempt to keep Reformed theology from being known by others.

And if you believe this is important, if you believe what the Bible says here, to be consistent in the proclamation of the gospel, to be consistent in your apologetic methodology, that these are issues that must be understood and dealt with, to deal with questions concerning theodicy, the origin and purpose of evil.

To be able to handle all these things, these are subjects that must be addressed. Therefore, those people who are influenced by these influential people, and they are kept from hearing the truth of what the Bible says, these individuals are being kept from maturity.

They are being kept from knowing the truth about these issues, and the result is they are apologetically weakened, etc. etc. So, we have to address these things. And we're the ones who are accurately representing us by playing their own comments, by inviting them.

I mean, if Dr. O 'Guinn, or Herb Revis, or Adrian Rogers, or Paige Patterson, would like to come on this program, and respond to what has been said, we would be happy to have them. Be glad to have them.

I mean, I'm the one sitting here, who when doing radio programs on a book that I've written, with Multnomah Publishers, co-authored in a debate forum against Dave Hunt, I'm the guy that has to come on after Dave Hunt.

Not when Dave Hunt's on. Dave Hunt won't come on with me, to respond to these issues. I would, Norman Geisler, welcome to be on the program. We have shown ourselves more than ready to engage these issues.

But it is the other side. You just heard it. I don't want no Calvinist preaching behind this pulpit. I'm not going to let them explain their position. Well, why not? You certainly recognize, and at least Paige Patterson is honest, and direct in recognizing that.

And he well knows the influence of a James Boyce, and the other Reformed writers. And the fact that there are Reformed Southern Baptists. There are Southern Baptists who believe what was taught. And they're still there, and they're not going anywhere.

And seemingly the only way that they can deal with them, is they know they can't defeat them in debate. They can't meet them on the basis of the text of Scripture. You can only preach this kind of sermon against them, and hope to create enough prejudice to drive them away.

That's the extent of the argumentation that's being offered.

Limited Atonement and the Meaning of 1 John 2:2

That's right. The third point, listen to this, is limited atonement. Now, you know why I had you to read 1 John 2? Go back to 1 John 2 for just a moment, okay? You know why I had you to read 1 John 2 and verse 2 just a few minutes ago?

Because this is so close to what I'm talking about. Now, limited atonement. You see, total depravity, I mentioned that. Unconditional election, that's false. That's a $3 bill. Now, the third point is limited atonement.

And they've taken the flower, the tulip, and formed a lacrosse stick. The first letter in tulip is T, total depravity. And the second letter in tulip is U, unconditional election. The third letter in the tulip is L.

They've taken a beautiful flower and made it ugly. But the third letter, L, stands for limited atonement. Now, you know why I called all your attention to the words all and that Christ died for all and 1 John 2 and verse 2, and here's the perpetuation for our sins, listen to this, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the what, the whole what, the whole world.

Now, obviously, and we will be pointing this out very frequently as we do the various Radio Free Geneva responses to the worst of the worst. Obviously, from my perspective, if an individual has done the kind of study that inevitably those who preach these kinds of sermons claim they have done, then they would, if they were really confident of their position, if they were confident that they could bring a Calvinist in and demonstrate from Scripture that that Calvinist is wrong on the basis of Scripture, then they would tell the audience how it is that Calvinists respond, not just in some shallow way, but they would actually present a meaningful argument against their position and then answer it.

But, of course, they never do that. They never go through the responses, and for many, I just, you know, you're constantly faced with this choice. This person is either very ignorant or dishonest, one of the two.

I mean, their own claims put themselves in that position. They've claimed to do all this study. They've claimed to have all these resources. They've claimed to do all this reading. But they give absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they've done any of it.

So either they're misleading us in saying they've done all this study, or they're then misrepresenting what they actually did study. What other choices are there? I don't know what they are. Obviously, so many of these people will read what they're reading with massive blinders on, these massive glasses of tradition that keep them from maybe seeing what they're reading.

I don't know. But the fact of the matter is, if you can't accurately represent what someone's saying, if you can't, for example, here, go into what Reformed people have said about 1 John 2 .2 and the discussion of what world means and all the different meanings of world in John, if you won't even take the time to realize, you know, I might have some people sitting in front of me that have studied the word propitiation.

And they know it means a taking away of wrath. And they understand how it's very much connected to the concept of substitution. And they might be thinking, well, wait a minute. If Christ has truly propitiated the wrath of God against the sins of the world, and that means every single individual, then upon what basis will the wrath of God ever come against those individuals, if they were united with Christ?

And that's one of the reasons that, believe it or not, some people are wondering, if I ever will, there's a series, and those of you listening to this years down the road, this is sort of irrelevant to you, but there's a series I need to get to when the Lord gives me the time to do so on the blog, in getting back to the subject of the union of the elect with Christ in his death.

Is that a reality, or does it only become a reality in toto at the point of saving faith? Where the non-elect join with Christ, so that it can be said that Christ propitiated the wrath of God on their behalf.

I do not believe that that is a coherent or consistent or biblical position. And yet there are many who hold to that position, but at least discuss it. We're not even to the point here, we're not even to the point of dealing with those who at least try to talk about the extent of the atonement and the issue of propitiation and what it means, things like that.

This is just simply being thrown out there with enough emotion to hope that people aren't going to think about what's actually being said. And I find that, to be honest with you, very disrespectful of the audience, to in essence be banking upon the fact that my audience is not going to check me out, they're not going to think about this, they're not going to challenge this, they're just going to believe me because I'm yelling louder than I normally do.

I don't find that to be respectful to the audience in any way, shape, or form.

You know why I called that to your attention a few minutes ago? The third point in the five points of Calvinism teaches limited atonement. And they say that Christ did not die for the sins of the world.

And if you'll study them, some of you may have a reference Bible, you'll find this in, or that verse, they'll say, they'll use it in explaining that, they'll say the word world is a generic term. How sweet.

How sweet. Well, that kind of sarcastic response is not a response. I mean, it is in fallacious argumentation, it is in bullying argumentation, it is in authoritative argumentation where you just figure that if you are sarcastic about something, then the people you're trying to keep listening to you are going to sort of follow along with what you're saying.

But it's not actual argumentation in any serious form. And so, how about dealing with the meaning of the word world in John? How about going through 1 John and talking about not loving the world? Does that mean every single individual, you said it, isn't that what it means?

Aren't you going to be consistent? Jesus talks about his elect coming out of the world, and he separates them from the world. I thought the world was every single individual. There's just, it's just so basic.

There's no respect for the word of God in this kind of tradition-based, quote-unquote, preaching. Now, keep in mind, I'll go right back. In just a moment, he's going to start into the Spurgeon quote.

And on the blog today, I posted a link. It will take you directly to my response to Dave Hunt. And if you want to read along with him, you can right now follow that link off the blog. And you can read, as he's going to read, the exact same section of the exact same Spurgeon sermon that Dave Hunt misrepresented in What Love Is This? saying that Spurgeon unequivocally denied limited atonement.

So, if you want to follow along, go on over there and follow along. You'll find it to be very, very interesting. A generic term.

And they'll say that it means the world in general. It does not mean every individual. I beg to differ. Let me tell you something, dear friends. Had you been the only person in all the world, Jesus would have died for you.

And when he died on that cross, he died for every individual, from Adam right on down to the last, last person who will ever be born. Okay?

But, watch this now. Now, that's wonderful, but did you notice there was no scripture there? It was just simply assertion. It's bully preaching. There's no attempt to respect either your opponents or your own listeners by providing them with a meaningful foundation upon which to accept what you're saying other than your simple authority.

That should bother everybody. That should bother any Baptist. Because aren't Baptists committed to this concept of the individual priest or the believer? Doesn't that mean you should respect those individuals as an elder, as a preacher?

And this is, by the way, one of those reasons you should have a plurality of elders, because I honestly think when you have a plurality of elders, this is not as easy to do. Your fellow elders, the fact that they're sitting there listening, I think it holds you to a little higher standard, but be that as it may, isn't it showing respect for these individuals who are sitting in front of you who are image bearers of God, and if you believe that they're believers, then you also believe that they are fellow members of the household of God, that they are believer priests, aren't you going to give them a basis in the word of God outside of just simply your own claimed, self-professed authority?

I would think so, but that's not what takes place.

In limited atonement, and I've also found this, I've asked people, are you a Calvinist, and they say yes, but when I come down to limited atonement, they say, well, I don't agree with that. You're not a Calvinist then.

That's one of the first things that I've actually agreed with in this sermon so far. I would agree that you probably shouldn't use that terminology of yourself, at least without great explanation, if you hold a different viewpoint at that point.

I would agree with that.

Calvinists say that one point builds upon the other, and if you don't believe all five points, the whole system is destroyed. Destroy? Well, it ought to be. Amen? That's right. Limited atonement. Calvinists teach limited atonement.

This is what limited atonement means. Listen carefully. That the precious blood of Jesus Christ, His atonement, is limited only to that so-called elect.

You know, I love when people talk about the so-called elect. What happens when he starts reading through 1st and 2nd Timothy? He runs into Paul saying, I endure all things for the sake of the elect. When he reads through Romans, and they're called the called, the elect, the chosen ones.

What does it do in Romans 8? God has, you know, for the sake of the elect. What does he do with that? Do you just hope that the people no longer remember the mocking language that he used in the previous sermon?

Do you just hope that for most folks, what you said in your last sermon disappears by the time they get to Sunday dinner? Again, there's no respect for anyone, including the hearers who would agree with him, at this particular point in time.

That's very, very bothersome that this would be the case. And, of course, when we're talking about particular redemption, limited atonement, we know that Dr. Oakwyn limits the atonement far more severely and far more importantly than the Reformed person does.

Because we've just heard him say, Jesus died for every single individual. What that means, then, is Jesus' death is insufficient to save every single individual. There's something more that is needed.

Substitution doesn't do it. Substitution may propitiate your sins, but for some odd reason, it doesn't really propitiate your sins. So, he limits the atonement. He just limits its effect rather than its scope.

And, again, if we were being respectful to the hearers, we would raise these issues, but we're not being respectful to the hearers.

...that God elected before the foundation of the world. Now, I want to read to you. I'm going to make a...

Here we go. I told you earlier, we're about to start the Spurgeon misrepresentation. Here it goes.

...statement about that. I want to read Charles Spurgeon, because Spurgeon was favorable. Because he was criticized. He was favorable in some of their views, but he was very much criticized because he gave gospel invitations.

And I read the other day where he said that he was criticized by his Calvinistic brethren because he gave a gospel invitation for everyone to come and receive Christ.

Let's once again point out the tendency on the part of modern writers to ignore the difference between hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism. Something they like to just pass over without even really mentioning it, but there you have an example of it.

He said, let them ridicule me and criticize me. He said, I'm going to continue to give gospel invitations. But this is what Spurgeon said about the third point of Calvinism, limited atonement. He said, I know there are some who think it necessary for their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus.

He said, if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the wind. Go boy, go. He says, now listen to this, he says, I cannot, he says, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind it seems so near akin to blasphemy.

He said, in Christ's finished work, I see an ocean of merit. He says, my plummet finds no bottom. My eye discerns no shore. He said, there must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ to save not only this world, but 10 ,000 worlds had they transgressed the law of God.

Did you catch that? Did you catch it? If you were following along, you caught it. And it makes me wonder. It really makes me wonder. Where's the... I'm moving my microphone around here.

Where did I put those things?

This is a musical interlude here. While I attempt to find my copy of What Love Is This? It used to be down there. I moved a bunch of books around. And I do not see where I put my original... Oh, there it is.

Let's see, how far can we... There it is. Got it. See, I've got to get the original, because the second edition does not contain the same thing. It's very early on here. It's like page 18. There it is.

Now see, he skipped that part. This is page 18, page 19. In What Love Is This? In Christ's finished work, I see an ocean of merit. My plummet finds no bottom. My eye discerns no shore. Then there's a dot, dot, dot, dot.

Probably because he saw this. And that would seem to indicate to me, now I just figured this out, that they're both pulling from the exact same source, which is Fisk. Because Hunt skips this part. And just goes, To having a divine person for an offering, it is not inconsistent to conceive of a limited value.

Bound and measure are terms inapplicable to divine sacrifice. But notice that O 'Gwynn goes, There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, dot, dot, dot. And what does he skip? If God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their maker's law.

Now isn't it just fascinating? Why did Spurgeon say, if God had so willed it? Well, we're going to find out, because I'm going to read you what he actually said. He said it because this is a sermon in defense of limited atonement.

That's why he said it. Now does O 'Gwynn know that? I don't know. I'd have to look, and I've got it somewhere, because I remember writing something about it. I'd have to look at Fisk to see if he included this.

Because then we could find out if the dot, dot, dot came from O 'Gwynn or came from Fisk. All we know is Hunt just took the whole section out because he didn't want to deal with it. Now listen to this.

Spurgeon said, he said, Once admitted infinity into the matter and limit is out of the question. He went on to say, he said, Having a divine person for an offering. Now let me pause right there. Spurgeon said, having a divine person for an offering.

Who do you think he's talking about when he said a divine person? Jesus. Okay, now listen. Spurgeon said, having a divine person for an offering. It is not consistent to conceive of limited value. He said, bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Let me tell you something else. You may want to write this down.

And there he goes from there. Now, if you haven't listened. If you don't, if you aren't aware. You know, here once again. You have an individual who stands before the people of God in a rather large context.

And I think such individuals have a responsibility to be accurate with their information. I have sent this information to Dr. O 'Gwynn. And I've invited him to correct the misapprehensions included in this sermon to his own people.

I would think you would want your people to know the truth. Because what was just given is a gross misrepresentation of Charles Haddon Spurgeon. If Dr. O 'Gwynn had taken the time to look it up, and it's not difficult to do.

This stuff's all on the web. You can track it down easily enough. On the very next page of that sermon, this is what we read. Blessed be God, his elect on earth are to be counted by millions. Oh, his elect?

Spurgeon talked about the elect. I'm sorry. Blessed be God, his elect on earth are to be counted by millions, I believe. And the days are coming, brighter days than these. When there shall be multitudes upon multitudes brought to know the Savior and to rejoice in him.

Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement. Because they say, it is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men. It commends itself, they say. To the instincts of humanity, there is something in it full of joy and beauty.

I admit there is. But beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption. But I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves.

If Christ, on his cross, intended to save every man, then he intended to save those who were lost before he died. If the doctrine be true, that he died for all men, then he died for some who were in hell before he came into this world.

For doubtless, there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has he been disappointed. For we have his own testimony.

That there is a lake which burned with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with his blood.

That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption.

End quote. How can you quote Charles Spurgeon from a sermon where he says that and say he denied the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption? It's a lie. It's a lie. How can people be so cavalier with the truth and stand before the people of God?

I don't understand it. We've got somebody in the channel who just doesn't seem to understand this. I'm quoting from Spurgeon. That's what Spurgeon said. Get a grip here, folks. My goodness. Oh. Wow. Just, just, just, just, just.

How can you... It is absolutely positively amazing to me. Absolutely positively amazing to me. Now, the point is, Dr. O 'Guinn now has this information. Let's give him, let's, you know, despite the fact that he's not willing to dialogue on these things, he's not willing to let a Calvinist, he's not willing to accurately represent Calvinism or anything, bending over backwards and saying he simply had Fisk's book, he had a mutilated quotation, he was very busy, you know, that week and didn't have time to check things out.

Does he not now have a responsibility to explain to his people that he was wrong? That he gave them information that was not slightly in error. It wasn't just, you know, a little bit off, you know, just a slight misapprehension.

It was 180 degrees the opposite of the reality. Does he not have a responsibility? I mean, I faxed that quote that I just read to you to the church. I'm assuming that got to his desk. Now, I could be wrong about that, but why wouldn't it?

Does he not have a responsibility to his people? I mean, if you had it completely backwards, don't you have to say something about it? Shouldn't you have to deal with this? I think so. But I have an odd view of the responsibilities of the person who stands before the people of God.

That you need to tell the truth. And if you're shown that you were exactly backwards opposite. And this is the substance of his argumentation on this point, by the way. At least it was longer as far as substance went.

That's what we're going to get in the next one. You need to listen very carefully. Because the refutation of irresistible grace is just so compelling, but so fast. It's coming up here in a second. But just amazing to me.

Go to the blog. Go to that link. If you're listening to this later on, it's the blog entry for Tuesday, March 29, 2005. You should be able to find that. And you can just go to the Reformed Theology section of the website.

And you will find a fairly extensive documentation of Spurgeon's viewpoint on this. In opposition to Dave Hunt. And since Dr. O 'Quinn decided to make the exact same error that Dave Hunt did. Well, you can take a look at it there.

So, we press on.

Irresistible Grace and the Nature of Regeneration

Okay, no Calvinist.

I mean, you can tell he's in a lot of dialogue with Calvinists, right? So let's see what happens.

...that the atonement of Jesus Christ, his death, is limited just to the elect. They say yes.

Now, follow this, folks. This is the argument that I actually mentioned last week, and we didn't get to it. Because I thought it was coming right up. Listen carefully. Here comes the irrefutable argument from Dr. O 'Quinn that no Calvinist has ever been able to respond to.

Can we agree that Christ died for sinners? You know, Paul said, this is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus died for sinners, of whom I am chief. Can we agree that Christ died for sinners?

Oh, yes, yes, yes, I agree. Christ died for sinners. But, you say that his death is limited to the elect. Yes. I say, alright then, listen to this. If Christ died for sinners, that's who he died for, and we know that he did.

If he died for sinners, but his death is limited just to the elect, then only the elect are sinners. And you've got a problem with the whole fall of man into sin in the Garden of Eden. And liberals for years, we've been fighting them, liberals for years, have been denying the first 11 chapters of Genesis in order to deny the fall.

And, dear friends, when you say that it's limited to the elect, you affect the entire fall of man as taught in Genesis, just as the liberals did.

Um, how do you respond to such incredible illogic, to such basic level lack of understanding of the most simple forms of argumentation? In case you didn't catch it, if you wondered how in the world we got to the point where Calvinists, who are always being criticized for their teaching of total depravity, their teaching of the universal sinfulness of man, the fall of man in sin, man's incapacity to do good before God, and was being criticized by Dr. O 'Gwen for that, if you're wondering how we got to where the Calvinists are responsible for somehow attacking Genesis and the fall of man, the argument was this.

Christ died for the elect, Christ died for sinners, therefore, only the elect are sinners. Um, there's, there's sort of a... respond to that! It is so obvious! It is... Dr. O 'Gwen, um, you're sort of assuming something here, in your argument, that you're not putting into your argument, and that is that when it says Christ died for sinners, that that means he died for every single sinner, see?

If you just sort of bring that out into your argument, then we'd be able to see that it is grossly fallacious, and that if you tried to present that in Logic 101 at your local community college, you would fail Logic 101, uh, because your argument is absurd.

Utterly, completely, absurd. If the argument is Christ died for every single sinner, and Christ died only for the elect, okay, but you see, that's not the argument, is it? No. All the elect are sinners.

Christ died for sinners. That doesn't mean that all sinners are of the elect, does it? So there's this little point you have to prove to make your argument work, and maybe the reason Calvinists just stand there looking at you is because they can't believe you would make such a horrific argument that is so easily refuted on the first examination for logic, because there isn't any in it.

My goodness. Again, am I, why am I the mean person for thinking that if you're going to stand before the people of God addressing these issues, maybe you should have some, you know, knowledge of these things?

Does that make me mean to think you should respect the people of God at that level? I don't think so. I think it's really a matter of what's most important to you. Is it God's truth? Is it honoring God and God's truth?

Shouldn't we handle God's truth with some more respect than this is showing? I think that we should.

That's right. I'll tell you something, dear friends, that's a danger. How many of you here this morning have a Schofield? Any of you have heard of a Schofield Bible? How many of you have a Schofield Bible?

Okay, if you'll look just inside your Bible, your Schofield, you'll find a list of editors, contributing editors. One man is a man by the name of A .C. Gableine. And if you look there, you'll find him.