Sola Scriptura, Dave Hunt and Charles Spurgeon

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 and 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 welcome to The Dividing Line, my name is

James White. Don't bother with the phone call, I'm afraid. We are recording this about two hours before we'll be making it available.

We hope to have the live broadcasting issues worked out someday, but we don't yet.

And so here we are with the infamous dead cast. Yes, indeed, the dead cast, where I have to imagine that someone's actually listening to me.

Other than Rich and Warren, of course, but they don't really count. Well, they do, but they've got other things to do. They can't really sit there and go, cool, you know, things like that.

So anyways, today on the program, responding to two published attacks upon yours truly that are recent.

One I have not yet obtained the photographic evidence of, but I had an individual provide me with a summary thereof.

It is in the current This Rock magazine. And James Aikens, Senior Staff Apologist for Catholic Answers.

That is the organization in San Diego that claims to be the largest and most trusted apologetics organization in North America.

The largest and most trusted apologetics organization in North America for the Roman Catholic Church, anyways.

And the same organization that has been the recipient of a debate challenge from yours truly.

The last time they debated was 1993. And no one who is currently a part of the staff of Catholic Answers has ever debated me outside of James Aiken.

And he did that once on a radio program on KIXL a number of years ago.

As I mentioned last week, he has bagged out of two debates that he said he would do. And yet you would think some people might say, well,

OK, if they don't do debates, then fine. Well, they do do debates. They just are very selective as to who they're going to do debates with.

And they will not debate with individuals who seemingly can call their bluff, but they will talk about these issues in their publications, which seemingly, to me anyways, gives the indication to the people that they want to support them that they are still involved in these things when in point of fact they are not.

They will not debate those folks who can truly challenge them. And so Mr. Aiken is talking about in the current issue of This Rock magazine,

I believe it's the August 5th issue, the debates and debate errors that people make.

And when I was informed that he mentions me by name, I even predicted exactly what was going to be said.

For example, the individual who was telling me about these things said, under debater's trick,

Aiken talks of a trick often pulled by the debater, taking the affirmative is to reject the burden of proof.

And before then he said anti -Catholic apologist. And so from now on, James Aiken is an anti -Baptist apologist because, well, because he is.

I mean, if they don't have to give a rational reason why they call me that, I don't have to give a rational reason why I call him that. Anti -Protestant, anti -Reform

Baptist apologist James Aiken, that's where he's been known as from now on. Anti -Catholic apologist

James White is notorious for this, notorious for this, once he was supposed to argue that the

Bible teaches sola scriptura. And before the rest of this quotation was given to me,

I wrote, ah yes, I can guess this one. I .e., when defending sola scriptura, make the Protestant try to prove universal negative, even though it is we

Roman Catholics who are asserting the existence of a divinely authoritative, non -scriptural source, end quote.

And then, after I said that, he went on, but he refused to shoulder the burden of proof, saying that he was being asked to prove a universal negative.

He argued that to prove this he would have to do something impossible, so instead he tried to put the Catholic understanding of tradition on trial.

Now this goes back, interestingly enough, to the 1993 sola scriptura debate with Patrick Madrid.

That was the last debate the Catholic Answers did. I had to really do the full court press to get them to even do that.

And the reason for that was I had challenged them since 1990 to debate, and the only person that would do so was

Jerry Matatix, and of course he left Catholic Answers under somewhat of a cloud of dispute.

And when the Pope came to Denver in 1993, I debated Jerry Matatix, and I had written to Catholic Answers and said,

I know you're going to be at the World Youth Day in 1993 in Denver. We're going to be there. Let's debate the issue of the papacy.

Well, we don't feel that this is a time for debating when the

Holy Father is coming. It's a time for celebration. Why don't you get Jerry Matatix? And so we did.

We set up a two -night debate, and you can hear those debates. I'm not sure if we've MP3'd those yet, but they've been available for quite some time, about seven, seven and a half hours of debate over two nights, the first night at Denver Seminary, the second night at a

Presbyterian church in Denver, and it went very, very well. But then, interestingly enough, as soon as Catholic Answers found out that I was scheduled to debate

Jerry Matatix, they then scheduled a debate with Bill Jackson and Ron Nemec at a

Baptist church in Denver on the very night that I would be debating Jerry Matatix, the second of the two evenings.

They came the first night themselves, and it was a wipeout. It was a complete and total wash.

The Protestants that were involved should not be debating. They did not know their own theology or Roman Catholic theology with near enough knowledge to be able to do a decent job.

It was a wipeout. Now, the thing is, both Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid, who did that debate, knew they could have never used the arguments they used in that debate against me.

They know that, and that's what I can't understand. I could not do what I do if I used arguments with certain people that I knew

I couldn't use with other people. That's dishonest. That's intellectually dishonest. I don't understand how people can think that way.

I really don't. And so it was very upsetting for me to listen to this debate and realize the horrible job not only that the

Protestants had done, but that the Catholics had done. And yet they came out smelling like roses, and so I really put the full court press on and said, hey, let's debate this issue.

And so we did in San Diego in 1993. James Aiken was there. Patrick Madrid did the debate. We make that tape available.

You can listen to it yourself. My understanding was that we were supposed to limit ourselves solely to does the

Bible teach its own sufficiency, and that's what I focused upon. It was a little different than, for example, the 1997 debate with Jerry Matitix on Sola Scriptura, where we had a little bit of a broader basis.

I wanted to focus upon Patrick Madrid's constant assertion the Bible never teaches its own sufficiency.

In the process of that debate, I pointed out the common error of Roman Catholic argumentation.

There's an article that I wrote, and I wish I had the URL. It might be in our

Roman Catholic section now that I think about it. But I wrote an article for an online journal last year that really hammered away on this very issue in regards to Sola Scriptura and the

Roman Catholic argumentation about it, because I don't know about the rest of you, but you may have noticed Rome hasn't come up with anything new on this.

Now, Roman Catholics have been arguing against Sola Scriptura in this new era of Catholic apologetics, using the same arguments.

Now, we've responded to them, and in fact, we've demonstrated the errors of these, but we don't hear them going to the next level.

We just hear the same old, well, it results in all these denominations, and it's unworkable, and nobody in the early church believed it.

And when we disprove each one of these things, what do we hear happening? The same thing. Have you noticed that we have an open invitation.

If James Aiken would like to come on this program, we'll have him on. We'll discuss these things. We'll have Karl Keating on,

Patrick Madrid on. But I've never gotten an invitation from Catholic Answers to be on Catholic Answers Live.

And it seems to be that way with all these groups. Remember back when we did the stuff on King James Onlyism? We invited them to be on our program.

We're not invited to be on their program, and they won't come on our program. There's this, obviously from my perspective, if you're going to go into the public realm, if you're going to name names, if you're going to make challenges, then how about stepping up to the plate and taking a swing?

And this is something that Catholic Answers will not do. Since 1993, we have challenged them to debate over and over, and they won't do it.

Anyways, back to the 1993 debate. So in the course of that debate, I brought out the fact that it was

Mr. Madrid who's making a positive assertion. He is saying, no, the

Bible is not sufficient because there is this tradition. That's a positive assertion.

And if you're going to say, well, no, the Bible is indeed a rule of faith, and it is an inspired rule of faith, but it's not the only rule of faith because there's another rule of faith, well, you're making the positive assertion.

And I pointed out, you're trying to put the Protestant in an impossible position of proving a universal negative.

That is, you're making the positive, but you don't want to defend the positive. You want to try to win by just making the

Protestant say, well, the Bible denies that Roman Catholic tradition is binding. It denies that Mormon tradition is binding by name.

Show me the verse. You hear it over and over. Show me the one verse that mentions indulgences for people.

Show me that one verse that denies these things, as if the Bible is meant to have every single possible false teaching that could ever be created by the mind of man listed in it and denied.

That's obviously not the case at all. So, anyways, I just brought this issue out. I was not in any way, shape, or form dodging the affirmative.

I was defining it, and it's interesting. After that debate, I specifically made reference in a...

I forget what forum it was in. I still have the specific email from Carl Keating, where I pointed out that the definition of sola scriptura that Patrick McTrude is using is not a

Protestant definition. It is not an accurate definition at all. And I remember very clearly

Carl Keating's response. He doesn't have to use your definition. Now, I'm the one making the affirmative.

I'm the Protestant, but he doesn't have to use my definition. In other words, turn it around. If I was debating Patrick McTrude or Carl Keating or James Aiken on the

Immaculate Conception, I can define that any way I want to. I don't have to use their definition. Well, of course I have to use their definition.

So it was an amazing thing, and that's what he was making reference to. Now, if you want to read more about this debate, that is the debate that prompted the big hit piece in This Rock magazine against me, that I responded to.

I couldn't believe I came back from the debate. I really didn't give it much thought, and that was in September.

So in December, this big, long article that just grossly misrepresented the debate and grossly misrepresented what was argued in the debate appears in This Rock magazine.

And so there's a link that you have to sort of scroll down to the bottom of the list, because it's a little bit old now, getting toward what?

I would have posted that in late 1993. My goodness, we're going to be seeing the 10 -year anniversary of some of these things in the not -too -distant future.

And a very long article just going through each and every assertion made in This Rock magazine and taking those things apart.

In fact, you may have noticed there are numerous articles in the Roman Catholic section on our website that refute

Catholic answers articles. You're not going to get a whole lot of that kind of response from them, but there are certainly plenty of those.

Yeah, 20 -year anniversary of Alpha and Omega Ministries next year. Wow, that's true. I hadn't even thought about that.

Goodness gracious. Well, we're all getting old. Anyways, well, that's my response to Mr.

Aiken. Mr. Aiken, let's debate. Mr. Aiken, let's debate these. Let's do some stuff no one else will do.

It's been a long time since I've done anything on Mary, and Mary is the test case for Roman Catholic authority.

It is the test case for the very functioning of tradition within Roman Catholicism.

If you want to say that you go with Scripture and tradition, then let's look at Mary and see the dogmas you've defined at the base of that.

Let's debate that. Everyone listening to this, James Aiken has a standing debate.

I will come to San Diego. You name the place. It can be next door to your house if you'd like.

You can run a string to your house, a wire to your house. You can have a speaker system so you can hear what's going on at your house if you want to.

You don't have to go anywhere. You can wear your slippers if you want to. I don't care. We can debate these issues there in San Diego, and we will see if the senior staff apologist of Catholic Answers will be able to defend those things rather than picking and choosing the people he will debate.

Speaking of the second of our interesting discussions here, everybody's contacting us because Dave Hunt is at it again.

I thought Dave was going to let this issue lie for a while because we're writing this book.

I'm almost done with my opening presentations. I've got a number of them done this week. I've got a couple more to go.

I will be done this week. Lord willing, I have to be done very soon.

In the current brie and call that was just posted, and you can read this online, under the

Q &A you have the following section. Question. James White has caught you red -handed misrepresenting

Spurgeon in your book. You claim that Spurgeon rejected limited atonement. You support that assertion with a quote of rejection of any limit to the merit of the blood of Jesus.

Yet you admitted clear statements in the very section from which you quote, that quote, the intent of the divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering.

We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are forever damned. End quote. Anyone who knows anything about Spurgeon knows that he taught limited atonement.

How much longer do we have to wait to see in print your admission of your inexcusable misrepresentation of Spurgeon? Now that's a fairly decent question.

What I wish was pointed out here was, Dave didn't just misrepresent

Spurgeon. He said Spurgeon unequivocally denied limited atonement.

Now what does that word mean? That means without confusion, without hesitation, and yet ever since I've pointed this out, his entire defense has been based upon trying to make

Spurgeon's statements equivocal. He's the one who said unequivocally, I didn't.

That's right there in the book. Go get Dave Hunt's book. Look at the page. You will see. This is in the open letter. It's still the main page article on our website.

I'm sorry. I'll try to get something up there eventually. I've been very, very busy with other things. It's right there.

He makes a statement that Spurgeon unequivocally denies limited atonement. Well, how does he respond to this?

The only honest way would be to say, yep, you're right. I blew it. I didn't read it. It would have really helped, and I may add this to future discussions of this.

Do you know what the chapter is titled? The chapter from which this quotation that Dave takes is titled?

Page 180 of the Autobiography of Spurgeon, chapter 16.

You know what it's called? Defense of Calvinism. Defense of Calvinism. Dave doesn't mention that, but here's the answer that Dave offers.

Spurgeon was torn between what he called hyper -Calvinism and the word of God. Let me stop right there.

No, he wasn't. Spurgeon rejected hyper -Calvinism. Hyper -Calvinism and Calvinism are not the same thing,

Dave. I continue. In the quote I give, he very clearly says, in Christ's finished work,

I see an ocean of merit. My plummet finds no bottom. My eye discovers no shore. Once, admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question.

End quote. He then goes on to deny that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom

God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in hell when Christ, according to some men's account, died to save them.

The intent of the divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.

End quote. Spurgeon seems to be contradicting himself, and I'm going to stop right there. No, he's not,

Dave. He's perfectly consistent. It is only your misreading of him that makes him contradictory.

It's only in your mind. None of the rest of us see any contradiction. I continue. How could the merit of the atonement be unlimited unless Christ died for all?

If he paid the penalty only for the sins of the elect, then the merit of his death is finite, being confined to a definite number.

What did he really mean? I think I have good reason to believe that this is just another case of what one historian explained as, the old

Calvinistic phrases were often on Spurgeon's lips, but the genuine Calvinistic meaning had gone out of them.

I think we find the key to Spurgeon's real beliefs in his opposition to what he called hyper -Calvinism. His preaching sparked the duty -faith controversy in which he was accused of holding

Arminianism. The controversy raged in England for some years and took its name from Spurgeon's teaching that it was the duty of every person to have faith in Christ.

If Spurgeon believed in particular redemption, as the quote above seemed to indicate. Oh, it seemed to indicate that?

I thought it unequivocally denied it, Dave. As the quote above seemed to indicate, it was a peculiar kind.

Yeah, the Calvinistic kind, Dave. That's your problem. He pressed this upon all his hearers, the duty of believing the gospel.

Read, write, print, shout, him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. Great Savior, I thank thee for this text.

Help thou me so as to preach from it that many may come to thee and find eternal life. End quote.

Well, Dave, that's what we all do. Spurgeon claimed, I have all the Puritans with me without a single exception.

Even the Synod of Dort had declared, as many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. God seriously promises eternal life and rest to as many as shall come to him and believe on him.

That hardly sounds like the particular redemption elsewhere taught by Dort. No, that's your misunderstanding of it,

Mr. Hunt. The one that many people have tried to help you with over and over and over and over and over again and you refuse to listen to anyone?

Such are the contradictions inherent within Calvinism which tries to maintain that God offers salvation to all, even those whom he has predestined to eternal doom.

But the contradictions were more apparent in Spurgeon's preaching, contradictions which were regarded among many of the particular

Baptists as symptoms of defection from Calvinism. His chief opponent was James Wells, referred to privately by Spurgeon as King James, who for 30 years had been the most popular and powerful particular

Baptist pastor south of Thames until the arrival of Spurgeon at New Park Street. He pressed his attack to prove that Spurgeon was an

Arminian with such damning quotes as this from his sermon, Future Bliss. Oh, dear souls, if you believe, in your

Christ you are elect. Whosoever puts himself on the mercy of Jesus shall have mercy if he come for it.

Wells argued that such words quietly set election aside and rest the whole matter with the creature. That is simply untrue.

That is untrue. Wells was wrong. Spurgeon refuted all that. But of course, Dave doesn't know that.

So here is the final answer from Dave Hunt. Am I caught red -handed misrepresenting Spurgeon?

I don't think so. This truly amazes me.

And so what I'm going to do today is I'm going to read you chapter 16. Now, that's going to take a little while.

But some of you don't have it. I'm going to let you ask yourself, has

Dave Hunt done his homework? Or is

Dave Hunt absolutely, without a doubt, unwilling to admit an error?

I make errors. Everybody makes errors. But Dave Hunt doesn't seemingly make errors.

And are we to believe that the same man who told me on the air in August of 2000 he'd never read any of the Reformers is an expert on Charles Haddon Spurge?

Chapter 16, The Defense of Calvinism, starts with a quotation from Spurge from someplace else. We've heard this one many times.

Many of us use it. The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach today, or else be false to my conscience and my

God. I cannot shape the truth. I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel.

That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again. That's how the quotation begins the chapter.

I don't want to have to break this up. So I'm going to go ahead and we're going to take our break and then come back with chapter 16,

Spurge's Defense of Calvinism. Did he unequivocally deny particular redemption?

Did he contradict himself? Or should Dave Charles Haddon Hunt admit his error?

That's what we'll find out right after this. The history of the

Christian church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation, the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine.

In his book, The God Who Justifies, theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of, understanding of, and dedication to the great doctrine of justification, and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel. In today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute,

James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith.

Dr. J. Adams says, I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates.

This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout, an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God Who Justifies by Dr. James White. Get your copy today at aomin .org.

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils.

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements. And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the

Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book,

The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatory and indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomin .org.

A large portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning

Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45. Evening services are at 6 .30

p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805

North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.

If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

And welcome back to Dividing Line.

We are listening to, or about to listen to, the words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Allow him to speak for himself.

Dave Hunt has attempted to besmirch the great preacher by accusing him of constant, how shall we put it, lack of consistency, constant self -contradiction in regards to this issue because Spurgeon preached.

Well, Dave, we all do. And I know you don't understand that. It's not that you can make a decent argument against it.

You just don't understand it. You refuse to. I mean, I've listened to you on the air so many times. I've explained it to you. I've listened to other people explain it to you.

It's not just me. It's everybody. We've all tried. But you think that's contradiction.

Well, it isn't. And I think everyone should listen to what Calvin actually, Calvin Spurgeon actually said about himself and about his beliefs.

And so this is chapter 16, Defense of Calvinism. It is a great thing to begin the

Christian life by believing good, solid doctrine. Some people have received 20 different Gospels in as many years.

How many more they will accept before they get to their journey's end it would be difficult to predict. I thank God that he early taught me the

Gospel and I have been so perfectly satisfied with it that I do not want to know any other. Constant change of creed is sure loss.

If a tree has to be taken up two or three times a year, you will not build a, you will not need to build a very large loft in which to store the apples.

When people are always shifting their doctrinal principles, they are not likely to bring forth much fruit to the glory of God. It is good for young believers to begin with a firm hold upon those great fundamental truths which the

Lord has taught in his word. Why, if I believe what some preach about the temporary, trumpery salvation which only lasts for a time,

I would scarcely be at all grateful for it. But when I know that those whom God saves, he saves an everlasting salvation.

When I know that he gives to them an everlasting righteousness. When I know that he settles them on an everlasting foundation of everlasting love and that he will bring them to his everlasting kingdom.

Oh, then I do wonder and I am astonished that such a blessing as this should ever have been given to me.

Pause my soul, adore and wonder. Ask, oh, why such love to me? Grace hath put me in the number of the

Savior's family. Hallelujah, thanks, eternal thanks to thee.

I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally inclined towards the doctrine of free will. I can always say that mine inclines as naturally towards the doctrines of sovereign grace.

Sometimes when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done.

I have thought, if God had left me alone and had not touched me by his grace, what a great sinner

I should have been. I should have run to the utmost lengths of sin, dived into the very depths of evil, nor should

I have stopped at any vice or folly if God had not restrained me. I feel that I should have been a very king of sinners if God had let me alone.

I cannot understand the reason why I am saved except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why

I should be a partaker of divine grace. If I am not at this moment without Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have his will with me, and that will was that I should be with him where he is and should share his glory.

I can put the crown nowhere but upon the head of him whose mighty grace has saved me from going down to the pit.

Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it all was of God, of God effectively.

I took no torch with which to light the sun, but the sun enlightened me. I did not commence my spiritual life.

No, I rather kicked and struggled against the things of the Spirit. When he drew me for a time,

I did not run after him. There was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good.

Wooings were lost upon me. Warnings were cast to the wind. Thunders were despised. And as for the whispers of his love, they were rejected as being less than nothing in vanity.

But sure I am, I can now say, speaking on behalf of myself, he only is my salvation.

It was he who turned my heart and brought me down on my knees before him. I can in very deed say with Dodridge and Toplity, grace taught my soul to pray and made my eyes o 'erflow.

And coming to this moment, I can add, tis grace has kept me to this day and will not let me go.

Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the doctrines of grace in a single instant. Born, as all of us are by nature, an

Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit and did not see the grace of God.

When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself. And though I sought the

Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I did not think the young convert,

I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths into my own soul.

When they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart is with a hot iron and I can recollect how

I felt that I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man. That I had made progress in scriptural knowledge through having found once for all the clue to the truth of God.

One week night when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon for I did not believe it.

The thought struck me, how did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the

Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment. I should not have sought him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek him.

I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, how came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the scriptures.

How came I to read the scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then in a moment,

I saw that God was at the bottom of it all. That he was the author of my faith and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me and from that doctrine

I have not departed to this day and I desire to make this my constant confession,

I ascribe my change wholly to God. I once attended a service where the text happened to be, he shall choose our inheritance for us and the good man who occupied the pulpit was more than a little of an

Arminian. Therefore, when he commenced, he said, this passage refers entirely to our temporal inheritance.

It has nothing whatever to do with our everlasting destiny. For, said he, we do not want Christ to choose for us in the matter of heaven or hell.

It is so plain and easy that every man who has a grain of common sense will choose heaven and any person would know better than to choose hell.

We have no need of any superior intelligence or any greater being to choose heaven or hell for us.

It is left to our free will and we have enough wisdom given us sufficiently correct means to judge for ourselves and therefore, as he very logically inferred, there was no necessity for Jesus Christ or anyone to make a choice for us.

We could choose the inheritance for ourselves without any assistance. Ah, I thought, but my good brother, it may be very true that we could, but I think we should want something more than common sense before we should choose a right.

First, let me ask, must we not all of us admit an overruling providence in the appointment of Jehovah's hand as to the means whereby we came into this world?

Those men who think that afterwards we are left to our own free will to choose this one or the other to direct our steps must admit that our entrance into the world was not of our own will, but that God had then to choose for us.

What circumstances were those in our power which led us to elect certain persons to be our parents? Had we anything to do with it?

Did not God himself appoint our parents native place and friends? Could he not have caused me to be born with the skin of the

Hottentot, brought forth by a filthy mother who would nurse me in her crawl and teach me to bow down to pagan gods quite as easily as to have given me a pious mother who would each morning and night bend her knee in prayer on my behalf?

Or might he not, if he had pleased, have given me some profligate to have been my parent from whose lips

I might have early heard fearful, filthy, and obscene language? Might he not have placed me where I should have had a drunken father who would have immured me in a very dungeon of ignorance and brought me up in the chains of crime?

Was it not God's providence that I had so happy a lot that both my parents were his children and endeavored to train me up in the fear of the

Lord? John Newton used to tell a whimsical story, and laugh at it too, of a good woman who said in order to prove the doctrine of election,

Ah, sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else he would have not seen anything in me to love afterwards.

I am sure it is true in my case. I believe the doctrine of election because I am quite certain that if God had not chosen me,

I should never have chosen him, and I am sure he chose me before I was born, or else he never would have chosen me afterwards, and he must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why he should have looked upon me with special love.

So I am forced to accept that great biblical doctrine. I recollect an

Arminian brother telling me that he had read the Scriptures through a score of more times, and could never find the doctrine of election in them.

He added that he was sure that he would have done so if it had been there, for he read the word on his knees.

I said to him, I think you read the Bible in a very uncomfortable posture, and if you had read it in your easy chair, you would have been more likely to understand it.

Pray, by all means, and the more the better, but it is a piece of superstition to think there is anything in the posture in which a man puts himself for reading, and as to reading through the

Bible twenty times without having found anything about the doctrine of election, the wonder is that you found anything at all.

You must have galloped through it at such a rate that you were not likely to have any intelligible idea of the meaning of the

Scriptures. If it would be marvelous to see one river leap up from the earth full grown, what would it be to gaze upon a vast spring from which all the rivers of the earth should at once come bubbling up, a million of them born at a birth?

What a vision would it be! Who can conceive it? And yet the love of God is the fountain from which all the rivers of mercy, which have never gladdened our race, all the rivers of grace and time and of glory hereafter take their rise.

My soul, stand thou at the sacred fountainhead and adore and magnify forever and ever God, even our

Father, who hath loved us. In the very beginning, when this great universe lay in the mind of God, like unborn forests in the acorn cup, long ere the echoes awoke the solitudes, before the mountains were brought forth and long ere the light flashed through the sky,

God loved his chosen creatures. Before there was any created being, when the ether was not fanned by an angel's wing, when space itself had not an existence, when there was nothing save God alone, even then in the loneliness of deity and in that deep quiet and profundity his bowels moved with love for his chosen, their names were written on his heart and then were they dear to his soul.

Jesus loved his people before the foundation of the world, even from eternity, and when he called me by his grace, he said to me,

I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee. Then, in the fullness of time, he purchased me with his blood.

He let his heart run out in one deep gaping wound for me, long ere

I loved him. Yea, when he first came to me, did I not spurn him? When he knocked at the door and asked for entrance, did

I not drive him away and do despite to his grace? Ah, I can remember that I full often did so until at last, by the power of his effectual grace, he said,

I must, I will come in. And then he turned my heart and made me love him.

But even till now, I should have resisted him had it not been for his grace. Well, then, since he purchased me when

I was dead in sins, does it not follow as a consequent necessary and logical that he must have loved me first?

Did my savior die for me because I believed in him? No, I was not then in existence. I had then no being.

Could the savior therefore have died because I had faith when I myself was not yet born? Could that have been possible?

Could that have been the origin of the savior's love towards me? Oh, no. My savior died for me long before I believed.

But, says someone, he foresaw that you would have faith and therefore he loved you. What did he foresee about my faith?

Did he foresee that I should get that faith myself and that I should believe on him myself? No, Christ could not foresee that because no

Christian man will ever say that faith came of itself without the gift and without the working of the

Holy Spirit. I have met with a great many believers and talked with them about this matter, but I never knew one who could put his hand on his heart and say,

I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. I am bound to the doctrine of the depravity of the human heart because I find myself depraved in heart and have daily proofs that in my flesh there dwelleth no good thing.

If God enters into covenant with unfallen man, man is so insignificant a creature that it must be an act of gracious condescension on the

Lord's part. But if God enters into covenant with sinful man, he is then so offensive a creature that it must be on God's part an act of pure, free, rich, sovereign grace.

When the Lord entered into covenant with me, I am sure that it was all of grace, nothing else but grace.

When I remember what a den of unclean beasts and birds my heart was and how strong was my unrenewed will, how obstinate and rebellious against the sovereignty of the divine rule,

I always feel inclined to take the very lowest room in my Father's house, and when I enter heaven, it will be to go among the less than the least of all saints and with the chief of sinners.

The late lamented Mr. Denham has put at the foot of his portrait a most admirable text, Salvation is of the

Lord. That is just an epitome of Calvinism. It is the sum and substance of it.

If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, he is one who says, Salvation is of the

Lord. I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this.

It is the essence of the Bible. He only is my rock and my salvation. Tell me anything contrary to this truth and it will be a heresy.

Tell me a heresy and I shall find its essence here that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock truth.

God is my rock and my salvation. What is the heresy of Rome but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ, the bringing in of the works of the flesh to assist in our justification?

And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here.

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified unless we preach what nowadays is called

Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works, nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God and His dispensation of grace, nor unless we exalt the electing, unchanging, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah.

Nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which

Christ wrought out upon the cross. Nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus.

Such a gospel I abhor. If ever it should come to pass that sheep of Christ might fall away, my fickle, feeble soul, alas, would fall a thousand times a day.

If one dear saint of God had perished, so might all. If one of the covenant ones be lost, so may all be.

And then there is no gospel promise true, but the Bible is a lie, and there is nothing in it worth my acceptance.

I will be an infidel at once when I can believe that a saint of God can ever fall finally.

If God hath loved me once, then He will love me forever. God has a mastermind.

He arranged everything in His gigantic intellect long before He did it, and once having settled it,

He never alters it. This shall be done, saith He, and the iron hand of destiny marks it down, and it is brought to pass.

This is my purpose, and it stands. Nor can earth or hell alter it. This is my decree, saith

He, promulgated, ye holy angels, rend it down from the gate of heaven, ye devils, if ye can, but ye cannot alter the decree.

It shall stand forever. God altereth not His plans. Why should

He? He is almighty, and therefore can perform His pleasure. Why should He? He is the all -wise, and therefore cannot have planned it wrongly.

Why should He? He is the everlasting God, and therefore cannot die before His plan is accomplished. Why should

He change, ye worthless atoms of earth, ephemera of a day, ye creeping insects upon this bay leaf of existence?

Ye may change your plans, but He shall never, never change His. Has He told me that His plan is to save me?

If so, I am forever safe. My name from the palms of His hands eternity will not erase.

Impressed on His heart it remains, in marks of indelible grace.

I do not know how some people who believe that a Christian can fall from grace manage to be happy.

It must be a very commendable thing in them to be able to get through a day without despair. If I did not believe the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints,

I think I should be of all men the most miserable, because I should lack any ground of comfort. I could not say whatever state of heart

I came to, that I should be like a wellspring of water whose stream fails not. I should rather have to take the comparison of an intermittent spring that might stop on a sudden or a reservoir, which

I had no reason to expect would always be full. I believe that the happiest of Christians and the truest of Christians are those who never dare to doubt

God, but who take His word simply as it stands and believe it, and ask no questions, just feeling assured that if God has said it, it will be so.

I bear my willing testimony that I have no reason, nor even the shadow of a reason, to doubt my

Lord, and I challenge heaven and earth and hell to bring any proof that God is untrue. From the depths of hell

I call the fiends, and from this earth I call the tried and afflicted believers, and to heaven

I appeal and challenge the long experience of the blood -washed host, and there is not to be found in the three realms a single person who can bear witness to one fact which can disprove the faithfulness of God or weaken

His claim to be trusted by His servants. There are many things that may or may not happen, but this

I know shall happen. He shall present my soul, unblemished and complete, before the glory of His face with joys divinely great.

All the purposes of man have been defeated, but not the purposes of God. The promises of man may be broken, many of them are made to be broken, but the promises of God shall be fulfilled.

He is a promise -maker, but He never was a promise -breaker. He is a promise -keeping

God, and every one of His people shall prove it to be so. This is my grateful personal confidence. The Lord will perfect that which concerneth me, unworthy me, lost and ruined me.

He will yet save me, and I, among the blood -washed throng, shall wave the palm and wear the crown and shout loud victory.

I go to a land which the plow of earth hath never upturned, where it is greener than earth's best pastures and richer than her most abundant harvest ever saw.

I go to a building of more gorgeous architecture than man hath ever built. It is not of mortal design.

It is a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. All I shall know and enjoy in heaven will be given to me by the

Lord, and I shall say when at last I appear before Him, Grace, all the work shall crown through everlasting days.

It lays in heaven the topmost stone and well deserves the praise. I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit to the blood of Jesus.

If my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot,

I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in my mind. It seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work

I see an ocean of merit. My plummet finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore.

There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ if God had so willed to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their

Maker's law. Once admitted finity into the matter, and limit is out of the question.

Having a divine person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value.

Bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice. The intent of the divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.

Think of the numbers upon whom God has bestowed His grace already. Think of the countless hosts in heaven. If thou were introduced there today, thou wouldst find it as easy to tell the stars, the sands of the sea, as to count the multitudes that are before the throne even now.

They have come from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south, and they are sitting down with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob, in the kingdom of God.

And besides those in heaven, think of the saved ones on earth. Blessed be God, His elect on earth, and 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. The Father's love is not for a few only, but for an exceeding great company.

A great multitude which no man could number will be found in heaven. A man can reckon up to a very high figure, set to work your

Newtons, your mightiest calculators, and they can count great numbers.

But God, and God alone, can tell the multitude of His redeemed. I believe there will be more in heaven than in hell.

If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer because Christ, in everything, is to have the preeminence. And I cannot conceive how

He could have the preeminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in paradise. Moreover, I have never read that there is to be in hell a great multitude which no man could number.

I rejoice, know the souls of all infants, as soon as they die, speed their way to paradise. Think what a multitude there is of them.

Then there are already in heaven unnumbered myriads of the spirits of just men made perfect, the redeemed of all nations and kindreds and people and tongues up until now.

There are better times coming when the religion of Christ shall be universal, when He shall reign from pole to pole with illimitable sway.

When whole kingdoms shall bow down before Him, a nation shall be born in a day, and the thousand years of the great millennial state, there will be enough saved to make up all the deficiencies of the thousands of years that have gone before.

Christ shall be master everywhere, and His praise shall be sounded in every land. Christ shall have the preeminence at last.

His train shall be far longer than that which shall attend the chariot of the grim monarch of hell.

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 the cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died.

If the doctrine be true, then 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 burneth 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. To think that my

Saviour died for men who were or are in hell seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain.

To imagine for a moment that He was the substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of divine justice.

That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which

Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, and to the goddess of the thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities.

God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good.

There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do.

If any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answered, I wish to be called nothing but a

Christian. But if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views that were held by John Calvin, I reply,

I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me to even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within our walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views.

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians.

I can only say concerning him that while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself

I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan. And if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve,

I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.

The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self -sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God.

He lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one of whom the world was not worthy. I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or at least cannot see them in the way in which we have put them, who nevertheless have received

Christ their Savior, and are as dear to the heart of God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of heaven.

I do not think I differ from any of my hyper -Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe.

I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and I think a little more of the truth revealed in the

Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines by which we can steer our ship north, south, east, or west, but as we study the

Word, we shall begin to learn something about the northwest and northeast, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points.

The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two, and no man will ever get a right view of the

Gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one book of the Bible, The Spirit and the

Bride say, Come, and let him that heareth say, Come, let him that is athirst come, and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Yet I am taught, in other part of the same inspired Word, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.

I see in one place God in Providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free will.

Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven to the very near to atheism.

And if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so overrules all things, that man is not free enough to be responsible,

I should be driven at once into antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly.

They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If then I find taught in one part of the

Bible that everything is foreordained, that is true. If I find in another scripture that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true.

And it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon an earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity.

They are two lines that are so nearly parallel to the human mind, which pursues them farthest, will never discover that they converge, but they do converge.

And they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth does spring. It is often said that the doctrines we believe have a tendency to lead us to sin.

I have heard it asserted most positively, those high doctrines which we love and which we find in the scriptures are licentious ones.

I do not know who will have the hardyhood to make that assertion when they consider that the holiest of men have been believers in them.

I ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion what he thinks the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitfield, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the systems of grace, or what will he say of the

Puritans whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been a count of the vilest heretic breathing, but now we are looked upon as heretics and they as the orthodox.

We have gone back to the old school, we can trace our descent from the apostles. It is the vein of free grace running through the sermonizing of Baptists, which has saved us as a denomination.

Were it not for that, we should not stand where we are today. We can run a golden line up to Jesus Christ himself, through a holy succession of mighty fathers, who all held these glorious truths, and we can ask concerning them, where will you find holier and better men in the world?

No doctrine is so calculated to preserve a man from sin as the doctrine of the grace of God. Those who have called it a licentious doctrine did not know anything at all about it.

Poor ignorant things, they little know, their own vile stuff was the most licentious doctrine under heaven.

If they knew the grace of God and truth, they would soon see that there is no preservative from lying like a knowledge that we are elect of God from the foundation of the world.

There is nothing like a belief in my eternal perseverance and the immutability of my father's affection, which can keep me near to him from a motive of simple gratitude.

Nothing makes a man so virtuous as belief of the truth. A lying doctrine will soon beget a lying practice.

A man cannot have an erroneous belief without by and by having an erroneous life. I believe the one thing naturally begets the other.

Of all men, those who have the most disinterested piety, the sublimest reverence, the most ardent devotion, who believe that they are saved by grace without works through faith and that not of themselves is the gift of God.

Christians should take heed and see that it always is so, lest by any means Christ should be crucified afresh and put to an open shame.

In my early Christian days, I remember seeing a man about to enter a place of worldly amusement. Though he was a professing

Christian, he was going to spend the evening in a dancing booth at the village fair, drinking and acting as other men did.

I called out to him just as he was at the entrance, What doest thou there, Elijah? Why do you ask me such a question as that?

said he. I asked again, What doest thou there, Elijah? Art thou going in there?

Yes, he replied with some sort of blush. I am, but I can do so with impunity. I am a child of God, and I can go where I like and yet be safe.

I could not, said I. If I went there, I know I should commit sin. It is a place of danger, and I should not go there without great risk of sinning against God.

Ah, said he. I could. I have been before, and I have had some sweet thoughts there. I find it enlarges the intellect.

You are narrow -minded. You do not appreciate these good things. It is a rich treat, I assure you.

I would go if I were you. No, I said. It would be very dangerous for me. From what I hear, the name of Jesus is profane there, and there is much said that is altogether contrary to the religion,

I believe. The persons who attend there are none of the best, and it will surely be said that birds of a feather flock together.

Ah, well, he replied. Perhaps you young men had better keep away. I am a strong man. I can go.

And off he went to the place of amusement. My soul revolted from the man ever afterwards, for I felt that no child of God would ever be so wicked as to take poison in the faith that his father would give him the antidote, or thrust himself into the fire in the hope that he should not be burned.

That man was an apple of Sodom, and I guessed that there was something rotten at the core, and I found by experience that it was so, for he was a downright centralist even then.

He wore a mask, for he was a hypocrite, and had none of the grace of God in his heart.

And thus ends the sixteenth chapter of Charles Haddon Spurgeon's work.

An incredible sermon, when you consider the words that were uttered there, and then

Dave Hunt's assertion, Dave Hunt's assertion, that Charles Haddon Spurgeon in that sermon, actually it's a chapter, but in those words, unequivocally denied limited atonement.

That is so false that to not immediately and with great apologies remove the statement from one's published work is simply unbelievable.

Absolutely, positively unbelievable. I believe that Dave Hunt's friends and acquaintances,

I don't care what your theological background, you can be an Arminian, I believe that if you are friends with Dave Hunt, you need to approach him and say,

Dave, you are absolutely, positively shooting your credibility in the head.

You need to come out and admit that you have made an error.

You need to come out and you need to admit that you were wrong, that it shouldn't have appeared in your book, that you'd never you should have never defended it.

Just admit okay, Calvin, I'm sorry, Spurgeon believed in limited atonement.

Just admit it. It is a fact of history. It is a fact of history.

Simple honesty demands that Dave Hunt stop deceiving people about Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

Quit misrepresenting him. The citations about the

Christian and Calvinistic doctrine of particular redemption is on the very next page from what

Mr. Hunt cited. Folks, that is as clear as it can possibly be.

Dave, admit it, retract it, apologize for it, and let's move on from there.

Folks, thanks for listening to The Dividing Line today. A little bit of a shorter edition than normal. Hope you enjoyed that section from Spurgeon.

Some powerful stuff in there. He was quite the speaker and writer, and I hope that it certainly cleared up the issue about his view of particular redemption.

Lord Willen will be back again next week, and we're of course continuing to work on providing live casting as we've done in the past.

We'll continue to work on it. Pray for us. God bless. ... ...

... ... ... 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.