Radio Free Geneva and Radio Free Damascus

A mighty fortress is our God. A bulwark never failing.

I don't like Calvinists because they've chosen to follow John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. I have a problem with them. They're following men instead of the Word of God.

Our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.

On top of my feet, standing on a stump and crying out, he died for all. Those who elected were selected.

For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe. His craft and power are great and armed with cruel hate.

Well, first of all, James, I'm very ignorant of the Reformers.

On earth is not his equal.

I think I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves Calvinists.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever.

Were not the right man on our side, the man of God's own choose.

Ladies and gentlemen, James White is a hyper-Calvinist. Now, whatever we do in Baptist life, we don't need to be teaming up with hyper-Calvinists.

You ask who that may be, Christ Jesus it is he.

I've said the other day in class that I don't understand the difference between hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism. It seems to me that Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist. Right, I don't think there is typically any difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.

Lord, swallow his name. Read my book. From age to age the same. And he must win the battle.

Radio Free Geneva and the Calvinism Debate

And now, from our underground bunker, hidden deep beneath Liberty University, where no one would think to look, safe from those mutter-Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re-read George Bryson's book, we are Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say to his own eternal glory.

And welcome to Radio Free Geneva, a 45-minute version of Radio Free Geneva, followed by another Radio Free Damascus today on The Dividing Line, making a total of a jumbo dividing line, or something like that.

That's how it all works together. You know, over the past 24 hours, 48 hours, I've been pretty busy. I've got a book that is way overdue. And there's just so many things getting in the way of my getting it done, unfortunately.

But I've been making progress over the past 48 hours. I've been spending my time, for example, today, I was fighting with Word to get it to properly italicize the transliteration of Arabic words. It takes time!

If I just wouldn't bother with that stuff, I could probably write it a lot faster. But I was fighting with that, and I discovered something today. I discovered something today. I took the time to find out exactly how many words there are in the Quran, and then make comparisons with how many words there are in the Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament.

And did you know that the Quran is 56 the length of the New Testament? And it's 18 the length of the Old Testament. You know, you've got to do important stuff during the day. But we were looking for that information.

But anyways, I've been keeping pretty busy and answering emails, things like that. During that same time period, during that same time period, a man that I just, I don't quite understand. Oh yes, oh yes, we must.

Spent his time putting together a pitiful little seven minute long jumble of quotations from our last Radio Free Geneva. And you know, it's been a long time since we've heard from old Petey. Good old Petey.

You know, I had sort of forgotten about Petey a little bit. I mean, I thought about him a little bit while I was teaching for Golden Gate back in January. And you know, he had always, and in fact, even in his article today, questions whether I've ever actually done that.

Which is just like, what color is the sky in your world? I mean, he's just so disconnected from reality, it's sort of sad. But anyway, good old Petey Lumpkins, who got molerized at the Southern Raps convention recently, and is still reputed to have a nervous tick as a result.

Anytime Al Moeller's name is mentioned or a microphone is anywhere near him, one of the two. Good old Petey Lumpkins put up a YouTube video. Last time I looked at it, it had five views. You realize that when we post something on our YouTube channel, it has five views within five seconds.

It's just like, boop, it's there, yes.

I have to correct you on that, because, okay, the five views? Yes. I accidentally hit it twice. Well, I did too. Micah hit it once, and Mark hit it once. Okay, that's it. And of course, Pete probably hit it once when he posted it, right?

Anyway, he put up a video. And what he does is he takes some of my comments. They're not in order. They're all chopped up, so it sounds like it's all, you know. Remember, we have documented Petey Lumpkins' ability to edit things in the past to make you say the opposite of what he actually said and things like that.

And then he gets pictures of me from the Internet. He's got one from years ago when I first tried on a kilt in Glasgow. He puts a different face on it for some reason. It's not me. Why, I have no earthly idea, unless he didn't realize that and somebody else had done it.

I don't know. But I'm just sitting around going, what kind of a life is it when you spend your time putting something like this together? I look at what I was doing, and I was doing some fairly pedestrian things because I'm writing a book, Whatever Christian Needs to Know About Islam.

And wasn't this the guy that defended the guy that turned out to have actually grown up in Ohio and he wasn't born in Turkey and all the rest of that stuff that he'd actually claimed? Yeah, same guy. It's okay.

So anyway, evidently what got me to get back on old Petey's radar was what we're doing right now. And that is we've been reviewing, started reviewing, Ronnie Rogers' book, Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist, The Disquieting Realities of Calvinism.

And of course he says I'm misrepresenting him and stuff like that. And as we're going through this, of course you chop up what I'm saying and don't let the context flow. I guess it's easy to say I'm not saying anything you want.

But evidently I was correct because I noted there were a couple places in this book where Rogers makes the assertion that I don't know how a Calvinist could sign the Baptist faith and message because of its statement that God treats all of his creatures in a fatherly way.

As if that's all it said, and as if that means there can't be such thing as election. And my response to that was, well, how can a synergist, especially Ronnie Rogers' viewpoint, sign it when it clearly indicates that regeneration precedes faith as well?

I wonder how that works. Maybe it's because it's actually meant to be signed by a wide variety of people and not answer all the questions. That might be it. But I did find it interesting that because I would dare to respond to this and point out that Ronnie Rogers was not a Calvinist, I didn't bother going back into the introduction.

But he himself specifically said, and by the way, just so I can quote that, this is location 588 in the... I don't know why Kindle hasn't gotten around to actually making pages mean pages yet. But sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Depends on the book, I guess. It says, Now, of course, a Calvinist can understand that in regards to common grace and all sorts of things like that, but that doesn't actually end up getting mentioned, unfortunately.

It would be helpful if in fact it was mentioned, but it wasn't. But anyways, I also noted in my Marx some of his Molinistic comments. And Petey said, hey, never call himself that. Yeah, but if you use that as your means of getting around things, there's lots of folks who propose Molinism as the answer to the question of God's knowledge and man's freedom without knowing anything about Molina or the Reformation or any of the things related to it.

And in fact, among Southern Baptist circles, people are just starting to repeat this stuff. And they don't know anything about Molina, but they grab hold of it and, well, God knew what men would do and all that kind of stuff.

And I noted some of that as well. But it is interesting to note his statement that he is, in fact, he was a four-point Calvinist. He was not a full-born Calvinist. And of course, as I said, as I pointed out, almost every four-pointer I've ever pushed on, their objection was actually not to particular redemption, but to the concept of unconditional election and other things related there, too.

So anyway, we go back to our review in the first portion of the program, and we were looking at the concept of real choice used by Pastor Rogers. I affirm that God's sovereignty is not minimized because he sovereignly chose to provide a real—and real is italicized—choice for everyone to accept or reject the gospel.

This includes deliverance from eternal hell, men's just dessert for anyone and everyone who acts in concert with his grace enablement. Now, may I stop here and point out what this means? When you say, who acts in concert with his grace enablement, let me see the hands in the audience.

What does that mean? What is the term that we use all the time being described by the phrase, everyone who acts in concert with his grace enablement? Yes, I see those hands. I see those hands. Yes, you're right.

That is the term synergism. Yes, synergism, the joining together of two forces, neither of which in and of itself can possibly bring about the actual desired for result. And so you have grace enablement, but grace enablement cannot save anyone because everybody gets grace enablement.

And man's acting in concert can't save himself. He needs the grace enablement. So neither one can actually be fully salvific. So it has to be a joint effort. This is the very essence of synergism. This is the issue.

It is the dividing line. It would be a much, I think, more accurate discussion if we always used that kind of language rather than Calvinist, Arminian and all the rest of that stuff. Reform, non-reform, those are not necessarily going to communicate to us the real dividing line when it comes to the doctrine of salvation.

The issue is the difference between monergism and synergism. And here is a statement of synergism. This includes deliverance from eternal hell, man's just desert, for anyone and everyone who acts in concert with his grace enablement and follows Christ.

The means of this grace enablement include, but are not limited to, and then we started working through this last time. We actually got down to the discussion of John chapter 12 and John chapter 6. And if I recall correctly, we finished up by pointing out, and we had someone in channel this morning that we need to explain this to, to them as well.

If you are going to take John 12, 32, which is a completely different context, and again, if you'd like to hear a little bit more exegesis on this, you're listening at a later time, you go to Sermon Audio, go to the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church portion of Sermon Audio, look at the Sunday school lessons for June, late June, early July of 2012, you will see that I'm dealing with that subject at that particular point.

But if you're going to ignore the context of John chapter 12, ignore the fact you have Greeks coming to Philip, Philip being a Greek name, Jesus never meets with them, he hides himself from them, and yet this is the context, the launching pad from which the discussion then takes place, and Jesus actually talks about judgment coming upon the earth and God blinding eyes and all that stuff in John chapter 12.

But if you're going to ignore the fact that in John 12, 32, you have a different person doing the drawing than you have in John chapter 6. That is, in John chapter 12, I will draw. In John chapter 6, the Father will draw.

Now there is a difference when you have two different persons of the Trinity and their action, their roles in salvation. I would hope that Pastor Rogers and those who adopt this synergistic viewpoint would recognize that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit take different roles in the doctrine of salvation and in the accomplishment of salvation.

Certainly it's the Son who dies upon the cross, it's not the Father, it's not the Spirit. By means of the Spirit, the drawing takes place, but it is based upon the sovereign decree of the Father. It all is a Trinitarian activity, but there are distinctions that are drawn for us there.

But beyond that, the drawing is not the same thing. And if it is, as we explained to the fellow who came into channel this morning, if the drawing of John chapter 12 is of every single human being, if you read that into John chapter 6, verse 44, it is of necessity that you become a Universalist.

And we were explaining that right at the end of the program last time, why that is. Why is it that we would say, of necessity, you must be a Universalist? Well, it's rather simple. When you look at John 6, verse 44, no one is able to come to me, so no one has the capacity, to come.

Unless the Father who sent me draws him. Ḥa-pem-sas-me-hel-ku-se-al-tan. Hel-ku-se is the word that Pastor Rogers mentions. He says the same Greek word for draw, hel-ku-o, is used in both verses.

It is, but it has a different meaning in both, because of the different context in both. Unless, the Father, the one who sent me, hel-ku-se, draws him. Now, him is the direct object of the verb. And, immediately after al-tan, and remember, of course, in our modern Greek text, we have a comma following al-tan.

There wouldn't have been, in the original writings. In fact, there wouldn't have been a space, even, after al-tan. Just would have been one long line of letters. Me-hel-ku-se al-tan, ka-go, ana-steso al-tan.

Now, there's only two words. Now, you could, I guess, say ka-go is actually ka-ego together, but it's only one word as far as its meaning goes, and our understanding of it. So, you have two words between al-tan and another appearance of al-tan.

The second al-tan is the direct object of ana-steso. I will raise him. So, you have the father drawing, but you have Jesus raising him up, and then es-ka-te-he-mera, on the last day. Now, hopefully, I don't have to go through too much of the context to demonstrate that to be raised up by Jesus on the last day is to receive eternal life.

If you just follow the context of John 6, 37 and onward, you will see that that is the case. And so, what the synergist has to do is the synergist has to hypothesize a huge gap. We might call it the gap theory, but that probably would be confusing.

But they propose a gap theory. There's a huge gap between the first al-tan and the second al-tan, and that is the one who is drawn, the direct object of hel-ku-se, That's a different group. That encompasses a different number of people, a different identity of people, than what you have in the second al-tan.

And I will raise, even though kago, the kai element of kago, would not be disjunctive in the Greek language, it would be conjunctive. They have to assume it's actually disjunctive. And so, unless the father draws him, and I will raise somebody else, I will raise a subgroup.

I will raise a subgroup up on the last day. And the fellow who visited the chat channel this morning said, well, yeah, it's the one coming. It's the one coming. Now, there isn't any one coming in John 6, 44.

If you want to see the one coming to me, you have to go back up in the context to John 6, 37. All the father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out. So you do have tan er kamanam pros eme, the one coming to me.

But interestingly enough, as we have pointed out so many times before, that's in the middle of a sentence. And we want to be very careful that we do not interpret sentences without looking at all of the sentence.

And John 6, 37 begins by saying, all that the father gives to me will come to me. All that the father gives to me. So the father is the one who is giving a certain ha, pan ha dudasinmoy. All the father gives me, heksai, will come to me.

They will come to me. So what is the ground of the coming? What action comes first? And grammatically there's no question here. In either English or Greek, it is the giving of the father to the son that results in the coming of the one so given.

It is not the coming that determines the giving of the father, which is the synergistic perspective. The synergistic perspective has to turn John 6, 37 on its head. So the reality of the text is that the giving of the father results in coming to the son.

And the one coming to me I will never cast out. So now you have the sovereignty of God in giving a particular people unto the son. And the result of that is in time, in time, those individuals come to Jesus Christ.

They are the ones coming to him. So what this person in Channel did was said, well, yeah, it's the one coming. Except the one coming is determined by the giving of the father. And that's not even in John 6, 44.

But it is in the context, and it is in the context of anyone who's coming to the son is coming to the son because they have been given to the son by the father. The choice of the father determines our coming to the son.

That is then borne out very clearly in the next few verses. Because I have come down out of heaven, not in order to do my will, but the will of the one who sent me. And what is the will of the one who sent the son?

This is the will of the one who sent me. In order that, This is the will of the one who sent me, in order that of all which he has given to me, group taken as a whole using the singular neuter, of all which he has given to me, I lose none of it.

The Altu would be referring back and again referring to the group. But raise it up on the last day. So the father's will for the son, the father's will for the son is that he be a perfect savior. That he lose none of that which is given to him.

That none of it perish. Now again, unless you're a universalist, then the it cannot be every single human being because we know from scripture that there will be those who perish. Even if you're a conditionalist, you believe that.

Only the universalist believes that that's not going to happen. And so this bears out exactly what was said in verse 37, which really the topic begins in verse 36. Jesus is explaining why it is that these individuals are not believing.

I said to you that you have seen me and you are not believing. You are not believing. Why are you not believing? Because all the father gives him will come to me. And the one coming to me, I will never cast out.

Why will I never cast him out? Because I'm coming out of heaven not to do my own will, but the will of the father. And what's the will of the father? Of all he's given me, I lose none of it, but raise it up on the last day.

Now remember, this is the beginning of the very presentation Jesus is going to make that's going to result in all of these people, except for the twelve, walking away from him. They are not going to be following him anymore.

They are going to be fulfilling the reality of what Jesus is saying here. And that is, it's the drawing of the father that results in someone truly coming to Christ. And that just because you see miracles, and you eat some food, and you like how Jesus talks, that's not the same thing as coming to Christ.

The one coming is a present tense participle, the one who's always coming. He who endures the end shall be saved. He who is always coming to Christ, he is saved. That's a description of the work of the Spirit of God in someone's heart.

That's not something we can work up. That's one of the dangers of synergism, is it fundamentally underestimates the divine nature of faith that will actually persevere unto the end. When you say that faith is something that we can do in and of ourselves, I'm not saying God believes for us.

I am saying that saving faith is the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the regenerate person. It takes a new nature to have a faith that will endure to the end. And how much damage has been done to the people of God?

Because of teaching that faith is not, in fact, the work of the Holy Spirit. It is something that you can work up within yourself. How much damage has been done? So when we look at John 644, the argument that we made to our visitor and channel this morning is, if you're going to be consistent, if you're going to take one meaning of John 12, cram it six chapters earlier into John 6, ignore the flow of the text, then you are stuck with universalism, because there is no basis for differentiating the two autans in John 644, the two hymns, the two direct objects of Helcuse and Anastasio.

Now it is, I think, a beautiful thing to see, and sometimes we are so focused upon defending this divine truth that we don't stop and just praise God for the beauty of this, but do you notice what John 644 is saying?

Who is the one who does the action of Helcuse? To draw. It is the Father. Who is the one who raises up on the last day? The exact same people. It's the Son. The unity of the Father and the Son, and then this is the very Gospel of John, which is going to explain to us in chapters 14 through 16, how does he accomplish this?

How does the Father and the Son even make their abode with us? Through the power of the Holy Spirit. Here is the Trinitarian Gospel yet once again, and this is why we can rejoice in the certainty of our salvation and in a perfect Savior, because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, they accomplish exactly what they decreed to accomplish in eternity past, and we are trampling on holy ground, my friends, when we seek, because of our traditions, to insert ourselves into that which is the very glorifying mechanism of the Holy Trinity and our God.

We are truly playing with divine majesty when we do that. So that's what we're looking at in John chapter 6 and John chapter 12, and we see once again that the attempt to get around this text simply fails.

It is not possible. There are many people who try, but it just simply doesn't work. We continue on. About 115 passages, this is a quote, condition salvation on believing alone, and about 35 simply on faith.

Well, I have not run the numbers on that. I can tell you how many words there are in the Greek New Testament, but I didn't run the numbers on that one. It's 138 ,162, by the way, in case you're just dying to absolutely know.

But we certainly do believe that faith is the only thing that God has commanded of us. The problem is that people say, well, that means every single person must have the capacity of themselves to do this.

That does not follow. God's law demanded absolute perfection of obedience from us, and we couldn't do that either. And the very nature of saving faith requires, for the intimacy of the union with Christ that we profess to have, for that intimacy to exist, the faith we must have must be born of the Spirit of God.

For us to truly confess that we have been united with Christ, then the faith that is ours must be born of the Spirit of God. And so we do believe that God requires faith of us, but we also believe that unless we are freed from slavery to sin, we will never have the ability, capacity, or even desire to have that kind of faith.

Now, there's much more to be said about that. This would be a time where I'm tempted to go off into Romans chapter 8 and talk about the reality of the fact that he who is according to the flesh cannot do what's pleasing to God.

That kind of faith would be pleasing to God. Therefore, we can't be according to the flesh. We have to be according to the Spirit. And what does that mean? Well, that's regeneration, and there's just so many things we get into.

But at this rate, I will never, ever, ever get very far if we don't press forward. I am unfortunately boring some children in the audience. I just saw on channel, someone just said, Dad, turn this off and let's play Pokemon.

So I do recall those days in my own life, probably, where my... What? Oh, many years ago, yes. Oh, yeah, yeah. He's probably going to be mad at me for mentioning that now, but he admits it. He's gotten far enough away from it now that he admits it.

Anyway, I also affirm that the permissive will of God is a part of his decretive will that permitted sin to end of the world and for a time continue. Okay, I appreciate that. I'm not sure what permissive will means.

At least we have here decretive will. There is a decretive will of God. I've had a lot of Calvinists... I've heard a lot of people criticizing Calvinists, I'm sorry, for having multiple wills in God. But here you have...

I also affirm that the permissive will of God is a part of his decretive will that permitted sin to end of the world and for a time continue. Okay? Holiness is always God's standard. Well, actually, it's his essence and nature.

And therefore, sin is never God's perfect, immediate, or ultimate desire for his creation or man. Agreed. But within his sovereign decretive will, he has purposefully permitted it. I would say yes, and not in the sense that its certainty was not established by that decree.

His certainty was... The certainty of the existence of sin had to be... I mean, think about it. If you affirm that the cross is a certain element of God's decretive will, what logically must flow from that?

If the central means by which God is going to redeem himself is that self-giving act, then what is necessary for that self-giving act to be meaningful? Redemption has to be from something. That does not, again, require God to bring something into existence that didn't exist before in the sense of...

We seem to think of sin as an it, or a substance, or a thing, or a black rock or something like that, like God has to create it or something, rather than recognizing what sin really is in regards to a broken relationship, a lack of holiness, etc., etc.

Okay. He commands man to obey, but permits him the freedom to disobey. In a general sense, yeah. The choice to disobey God's commands results in man suffering the consequences of such choice. Okay? Thus, with regard to salvation, God desires that all come to salvation, 2 Peter 3 .9.

Well, I'm not sure how we jumped to that. Nothing that was said beforehand established any of that. And I know there are many people who interpret 2 Peter 3 .9 that way, but as we have demonstrated over and over again in our examination of the text, especially in the book The Potter's Freedom, there is a much more consistent, accurate interpretation of the text than that which is assumed.

And in all but, I think, two things I've ever read, it was assumed. That means, in everything else I've ever read by synergists, they just assumed a certain meaning of this text. They didn't bother to interact with what we were saying.

They didn't bother to interact with the counter-exegesis. They just assumed the text had a particular meaning. And since it has been repeated so many times that way, then people just say, oh yeah, that must be what it means.

But as we have pointed out in 2 Peter 3 .9, if you follow the pronouns, the Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any of who? Any of you should perish, but that all should reach repentance, who is the you?

In any other subject, if we were talking about the resurrection, if we were talking about justification, if we were talking about almost anything else in the New Testament, it would be an automatic exegetical question to ask, does Peter have an audience that he's directly addressing over against others?

And the reality is, it's true, he does. He refers to his fellow believers in the second person, but he also refers to others, to them. For example, 2 Peter 3 .3, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.

They will say, where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation. For they deliberately overlooked this fact.

Why does he say they? If what 2 Peter 3 .9 really means is that God desires the salvation of every single human being, that means He desires the salvation of every single scoffer. And so, it should say, but is patient toward all, not toward you, not wishing that any of the scoffers and any of anybody should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

That's what it should say, but it doesn't. And so, the text itself makes a distinction, and it's explaining why the parousia, the coming of Christ, has been delayed. Why hasn't it taken place as yet? Well, God is gathering in His elect people, and not one of them are going to repent.

And if that long suffering had not lasted for almost 2 ,000 years now, you would not have been gathered in either. So, to just blithely state, ah, see, what Peter's actually saying is there is no such thing as a decree of election, there is no elect people, is to completely ignore even what he himself said in his own book.

Which, it's always a bad thing when you just ignore what a guy says in his own book. But 2 Peter, this second epistle, what does he say at the beginning of the epistle? He says, Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, those who obtained a faith of equal standing with ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Who's that? Who obtains, lakousen is the term, faith. Is that the scoffers? Lakousen comes from lankano, which means to receive. Sometimes to cast lots. But it means to receive something. And so, what is it they've received?

Pistis, faith. By the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. I ramble sharp construction identifying Jesus as both God and Savior, by the way. So that's who the you is. That's who he's writing to.

It's those who've received faith. Another reference to faith as the sovereign gift of God, the work of the Holy Spirit. So we continue on. Accordingly, he enables man to be able to be saved. Catch that, folks.

Catch that. Listen to that. That is the language of synergism. Where do you ever find that language in the New Testament? I was just showing you how you can go directly into the original languages of the New Testament and what you hear is reformed.

To those who've received faith. John 6, All the Father Gives Me, etc. It's all right there. Where do you ever hear, accordingly, he enables man to be able to be saved. Is that all then? Was the Amorite High Priest enabled to be saved?

Was this grace enablement something that simply brought the Amorite High Priest to a moral neutral point so that he was no longer a slave of sin? When did that happen? Why would God do that? Why would he provide this grace enablement without providing the message of salvation?

Without providing the Gospel itself? Let's skip the Old Testament pre-Christ question. Go to the New Testament period. There were still many people for many centuries, even to this day in some remote parts of the world, that live and die without ever having heard of Jesus Christ.

Were they given this grace enablement? If not, why not? If not, how does that fit with your interpretation of John 12, 32? If they were, then why wouldn't God then provide the other needed element, and that is the proclamation of the Gospel.

These are just questions that have to be asked. These are things that we have to consider. So, this idea of synergism and salvation as a possibility, a theoretical possibility. He enables man to be able to be saved.

Remember, Norman Geisler, whose 80th birthday is coming up in like three days. Happy birthday, Norm. You're still wrong on this, and you're still completely wrong to be covering for Ergen Kanner, but happy birthday.

And a number of other things, but remember what Norman Geisler says. The death of Christ saves no one. It makes men savable. That's a completely different way of looking at the effectiveness of the sacrifice of Christ, is it not?

To say it makes something possible and to say it actually accomplishes something infallibly, those are not the same things. Those are not the same things. So, he enables man to be able to be saved and thereby permits him to freely choose to believe the Gospel or to reject His grace and to love and die in His sins.

I'm assuming that's love His sins and die in His sins. Well, is that the language of the New Testament? Is that what Jesus said in John chapter 8? He who sins is a slave of sin? Did Jesus say, he who freely chooses to be a slave will be a slave?

There's no language of slavery here. And yet that's the biblical terminology, that's Jesus' words. It seems that our synergistic friends, and there is a wide variety of them from Romanism all the way across the spectrum of compromised Protestants, our synergistic friends do not like the language that the Bible itself uses to describe man's state in sin.