The Potter's Freedom Part 3

I want to introduce to you our in -studio guest today, Pastor Jeff Neal.

Pastor Neal is the pastor of Emanuel Covenant Church. I'm looking at their brochure right now, a very well -done brochure.

Emanuel Covenant Church, standing in a distinctive Reformed and Protestant tradition, recognizes the

Westminster Confession of Faith as a doctrinal statement. Our ultimate authority, however, is the

Word of God, to which all matters, including creeds and confessions, must be subject.

Welcome to the Dividing Line today, Jeff. It's good to be here, Rich. All right. And listening in, James, where are you?

I'm sitting here with the windows open, and it's about 67 degrees and breezy, and I'm in, actually,

Mill Valley, California, on the campus of the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. I'm teaching a...

They call this an intensive summer course, and they decided this year to make it as intensive as it could be. It's only four days, eight hours a day, so Thursday and Friday I was teaching from 8 a .m.

to 5 p .m., and I really cannot vouch for the orthodoxy of anything

I've said past 3 o 'clock in the afternoon. I really can't. But we're up here teaching a class on Christian philosophy, really, it's a

Christian apologetics course, in essence. We, yesterday, for example, listened to the classic

Bonson -Stein debate on the existence of God, and took that apart.

And so I'm up here over the weekend trying to get some work done.

James, when you say you took that apart, which side did you come down on, the theist or the atheist side? Well, you know, we took it apart in the sense of trying to figure out what it must have been like to be

Gordon Stein, so they're going, what is this guy talking about? Right. Because you could tell that Dr.

Stein had not run into the transcendental argument for the existence of God before, but anyhow, it's been useful,

I think, to the students. They seem to have enjoyed it so far, and they keep asking me to come back each year, so I enjoy my time up here.

Of course, last year I moved during the two weeks I was up here, and the weekend between, and then flooded the house out, so it's a little less stressful this time around to be up here.

But we've been looking at a book that I happen to have sitting here in my little studio apartment up here, by Dr.

Norman Geisler, entitled Chosen but Free, A Balanced View of Divine Election, and when

I first started reviewing this, I gave Jeff a call and said, man, I think you might want to know something about this book and about what is being said.

And part of the reason was that back when Jeff and I both had more hair than we do now, in fact,

I suppose I should just say that Jeff was the man that everyone in first -year

Greek when I took it looked up to, because he was in second -year Greek, and that meant that he knew all things, and so we ran over to Breein Christian Bookstore all the time where he worked to ask him questions about Greek that we didn't understand, and we didn't want to fail

Dr. Barrett's Greek class, and we figured he knew all the answers. So that's how Jeff and I got to know each other, and a couple years later, he disappeared and went off up to the northern part of the

United States, northwestern part, and lo and behold, while we were both separated from one another, we both came to the same conclusions about certain theological subjects, namely the validity of the

Reformed view of salvation, and we got back together again, lo and behold, we had that in common as well, so I knew that he'd be interested in the book, but more so than that,

Jeff and I also went to Fuller Theological Seminary together, please don't hold that against us at all, and in the process,

I saw some work that Jeff did on the subject of Calvin and his view of the

Atonement, and as I was reading Dr. Geisler's book, I was again struck with the fact that that is a subject that needs to be addressed because of the fact that Dr.

Geisler, as I have mentioned over the past couple of weeks, redefines this entire debate in this book, and what

I mean by that is Dr. Geisler calls himself a moderate Calvinist, and identifies

R .C. Sproul and John Gerstner and Jonathan Edwards and Charles Haddon Spurgeon and so on and so forth as extreme

Calvinists, even though, when you boil everything down, Dr. Geisler is in fact a moderate

Arminian, an Arminian who believes in eternal security, in essence, and so now we have the moderate

Arminians are actually the moderate Calvinists, and the actual Calvinists are now extreme Calvinists, and the whole basis for Dr.

Geisler's assertion that myself and Pastor Neal would be considered extreme

Calvinists is because of his assertion that John Calvin did not believe in particular redemption, or specifically, to use the term he uses, limited

Atonement, and let me read from page 160 of the book so we can see exactly what we're saying, "...whatever

else Calvin may have said, to encourage extreme Calvinism's tulip, he certainly," and that's his word, not mine, "...he

certainly denied limited Atonement as they understand it. For Calvin, the

Atonement is universal in extent, and limited only in its application, namely, to those who believe."

And so, on the basis of that assertion, and saying that an R .C. Sproul or a

John Gerstner or myself, if we believe in particular redemption, if we believe that Christ died savingly in behalf of his elect people, then that makes us extreme

Calvinists, and this is the basis upon which Dr. Gerstner comes up with this new nomenclature, shall we say.

It's really interesting, James, that even on page 55 of that same book, Mr. Geisler wrote an extreme

Calvinist, and this is somewhat of an odd statement, "...an extreme Calvinist is someone who is more Calvinistic than John Calvin."

Now, that's very much like that funny but false statement that Mick Jagger looks more like a fish than a fish.

I mean, that's not true, necessarily, but the point comes across, but it is an odd statement, somebody being more

Calvinistic than Calvin himself. John Calvin, right. Well, obviously the assertion is that there has been some sort of a development since the time of John Calvin, that the foundation he laid, we've gone beyond that.

Now, first and foremost, obviously, and you and I have talked about this, Jeff, one of the reasons

I want to address this is because I want to clarify this issue and I want to demonstrate that the use of the term, certainly, by Dr.

Geisler is simply unwarranted, but more importantly than that,

I want the listener to understand that for both you and I, and I think for any person who has read more than five words of Calvin's writings, what

John Calvin believed on anything, and I think John Calvin would say this with great strength and vigor on his own part, what

John Calvin said on anything is unimportant unless what he said is in harmony and in line with the

Word of God. That's exactly right, James. The ultimate issue, the ultimate authority for believers is Scripture, not

Calvin, and it's remarkable that this whole debate came to my attention while I was at Fuller Theological Seminary by a professor who, he told me he's invited to speak at the various annual

Calvin seminars. Now, that's an odd thing, too. Some Christians look at this and say, wow, why would you spend so much time reading

Calvin? What's the big deal? Admittedly, the authority of Scripture is primary.

However, this professor said that he's invited all the time to these Calvin annual conferences, and he speaks, and the majority of scholars today are convinced that Calvin never taught a limited atonement, and the

Calvinists that follow him, they made that up, and that's a fancy on their parts. Now, I'm going to admit here that this is odd also because anybody thinking about this would say, wow, there's actually an annual conference, or every other year there's a conference where people get together and study

Calvin. That's kind of, it sounds governmental because the government's always applying studies to study things that have been studied.

So it is a little bit odd, but James, I really appreciate you saying that the ultimate authority here is Scripture, and inasmuch as Calvin reflects

Scripture, becomes a doorman to us to open up the door so that we may understand Scripture. In that, we want to hear

Calvin and what he has to say. However, Geisler has set the foul lines. He has set the boundaries, stating that Calvin never taught these things, and if you're teaching these things and attempting to claim

Calvin's support, you're not only way off, you're whacked and way off. Well, there's something strange, I think, really, in wanting to claim the name.

I mean, when we look back over church history, you look at Augustine, when you look at the high water marks, who are the individuals who had the greatest impact on the teaching and preaching of the church after them?

Obviously, Augustine is first and foremost, but then when you ask, does anyone else approach that level?

Does anyone else approach that kind of impact? One of the few other names that can possibly be suggested is

John Calvin, and most people would admit, just simply on a historical level, that the

Institutes of the Christian Religion and the form of church government and church theology that was established in Geneva probably had the greatest impact of any of the

Reformers on Western Christianity, specifically Protestant Christianity, obviously, and in fact,

I would argue, even in a negative form, in the sense that the Jesuits recognized that the strongest challenge to their position was not

Lutheranism that followed the Langton, but Calvinism that followed John Calvin.

That's where Molina comes in, and the Molinism, and Middle Knowledge, and all the rest of that stuff, specifically designed to try to find a way around the emphasis upon the sovereignty of God in John Calvin.

So, just simply from that perspective, at least we can understand why someone might want to call themselves a

Calvinist, but if we're going to be honest as Christians, if you're going to use that terminology, there needs to be some consistency in regards to what

Calvin taught on the issues that you claim to be in harmony with. That's right. You know, James, I have found as I've been involved with this discussion over the decade, the last decade plus, that there seems to be two approaches to this.

There's the one that we're familiar with and discussing today, that is Norman Geisler's position that Calvinism today is not what

Calvin taught, but there is another one that's intimately related to what you just mentioned, and that is the whole discussion of the extent of the atonement, the whole question of double predestination, the whole question of specificity in God's plan of redemption, is an anachronism, is something that didn't apply to Calvin's time.

And you've mentioned Augustine, and James, I know that you've taught church history before. You're very familiar with Gottschalk as well, who was, matter of fact, condemned for such statements as this,

Christ died only for the elect. Right. And beaten, in fact. In matter of fact, publicly beaten and sentenced to life in prison.

So, I'm thankful. Aren't we glad we can talk about these things? I mean, we may have a few people treat us that way theologically, but at least they don't get to do it physically.

That's right. So, anyway, Gottschalk is a loud voice in the panorama of church history that speaks on this, but you're also aware of the scholastics, the schoolmen, those famous for studying everything under the sun.

They were the ones to whom Calvin referred to as saying, referring to 1 John 2, 1 and 2, the schoolmen, the scholastics are the ones that say

Christ died sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently for the elect. Now, Calvin says that that's not applicable, the 1

John 2, 1 and 2, but Calvin's aware that the schoolmen were aware of the issue. But shockingly, a contemporary of John Calvin was actually more specific than Calvin himself.

And this may shock many people, and even, well, this I will present much to the chagrin of many a

Lutheran today, but Martin Luther, in his lectures on Romans and Luther's works, commenting on Romans 8 .28,

made the most specific statement of the day regarding the specificity of those for whom Christ died.

And I'll quote, I'm picking up mid -quote here, for in an absolute sense,

Christ did not die for all, because he says, this is my blood which is poured out for you and for many.

He does not say for all, the forgiveness of sins. Luther said, for in an absolute sense,

Christ did not die for all. So when somebody says that the whole issue is anachronistic, the whole issue wasn't even a matter of discussion in Calvin's day, what they've done is they've shown their lack of familiarity with church history, and they've, in a sense, insulted

Calvin, who was a master of understanding the fathers in church history. And certainly, if it was

Calvin's intention to assert a universal atonement in the way that Dr. Geisler presents it, or others do, he had many an opportunity to do so in specific contexts, and yet when you go to the scripture passages that are universally used by those who want to present a universal atonement, in each place

Calvin very specifically limits the work of Christ to the elect. But I think before we go that direction, and Rich, I am watching the clock there,

I'm sure you're watching it as well, so I'll try to be sensitive too when we're coming up to our break.

There are a lot of folks that may not really understand exactly what we're talking about as far as what we're talking about when we talk about particular redemption, unlimited atonement, limited atonement.

I wanted to take just a few moments here, sort of before we continue with Calvin and his particular position, to help people understand what we're talking about.

And I was, I brought with me some reading material to keep myself busy here over the weekend, and I'm not sure if you've picked it up yet,

Jeff, but there is an excellent new systematic theology out by Robert Raymond. No, I have not.

And Dr. Raymond, in fact, Pastor Fry at the Phoenix Informed studied under Dr.

Raymond, and I've been reading through it. It's an excellent work. And there's a section here, it's specifically under the section on decrees, it's not even the section on what

Dr. Raymond calls the crosswork of Christ, but he has just mentioned, and I found this rather fascinating, a citation from the

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology by Armenian theologian J. Kenneth Greider, who in speaking about Arminianism says this, a spillover, notice the term spillover, from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades.

Thus many Arminians, whose theology is not very precise, say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.

Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism. That is, the concept of substitutionary atonement is, as this

Arminian theologian recognizes, a spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism.

The Arminian view of the atonement is the governmental theory, not the substitutionary theory. And yet, most

Arminians today speak of Christ taking our place, but have not thought through what exactly that means.

I'd like to, if I could, for just a few moments here, read what Dr. Raymond says, so people will understand exactly what the issues are in regards to these two viewpoints and why this is so very, very important.

When it urges that the Bible teaches that both by divine decree and in history, Christ's death, represented by it as unrestricted regarding its reference, was intended to save all men without exception.

That is, the doctrine of unlimited atonement. Amaraldianism, which is what we would call four -point Calvinism, must necessarily join forces with Arminian Universalism, which, as we have seen, shares this aspect of its vision, and turn away altogether from a real substitutionary atonement, quote, which is as precious to the

Calvinist as is his particularism, and for the safeguard of which, indeed, much of his zeal for particularism is due, end quote.

That's a quote from B .B. Warfield. But this is to wound Christianity as the redemptive religion of God, fatally, at its heart.

For, unless one is prepared to affirm the final universal salvation of all men, one cannot have an atonement of infinite intrinsic saving value, and at the same time, an atonement of universal extension.

One can have one or the other, but not both. You see, if Christ, by his death, actually propitiated

God's wrath, reconciled God, and paid the penalty for sin, which is what I mean by an atonement of infinite intrinsic value, and if he sacrificially substituted himself for, on behalf of, for the sake of, and in the stead and place of sinners, then it follows that for all those for whom he substitutionally did his crosswork, he did all that was necessary to procure their salvation, and thus guarantee that they will be saved.

But since neither Scripture, history, nor Christian experience will tolerate the conclusion that all men have become, are becoming, or shall become

Christians, we must conclude that Christ did not savingly die for all men, but for some men only, even

God's elect. If, on the other hand, Christ did his work for all men without exception, and if he did not intend its benefits for any one man, in any sense that he did not intend it for any and every other man distributively, since, again, neither

Scripture, history, nor Christian experience will allow the conclusion that all men are saved, it necessarily follows that Christ actually died neither savingly nor substitutionarily for any man, since he did not do so for those who are saved, anything that he did not do for those who are lost.

And the one thing that he did not do for the lost was save them. It also follows, necessarily, since Christ, by his death, actually procured nothing that guarantees the salvation of any man, and yet some men are saved, that the most one can claim for his work, and this is very important, is that he in some way made all men salvable.

And that is the exact term, by the way, breaking from the quotation that Dr. Geisler uses in his book, that Christ's death makes us savable, but does not actually save.

Very important issue, picking up the quotation again. But the highest view of the Atonement that one can reach by this path is the governmental view.

This view holds that Christ, by his death, actually paid the penalty for no man's sin. What his death did was to demonstrate that their sin deserves to, at the hand of the just governor and judge of the universe, and permits

God justly to forgive men if, on other grounds, such as their faith, their repentance, their works, and their perseverance, they meet his demands.

And I break the quotation again just to emphasize that in Chosen But Free, Dr. Geisler even includes appendices to nail home his point that both faith and repentance are not gifts from God, but are within the capacity of every man.

It is our faith, our repentance, so on and so forth. Just a little bit of the quotation left. This means, of course, that the actual salvation of those who are saved is ultimately rooted in, and hangs decisively upon, something other than the work of him who alone is able to save men, namely, in something that those who are saved do themselves in their own behalf.

But this is just to eviscerate the Savior's crosswork of all of its intrinsic saving worth, and to replace the

Christocentric view of Scripture with the autosatiric vision of Pelagianism.

End quote. Pages 478 and 479. I couldn't say any better, which is why

I let someone else say it, but that really places the two viewpoints side by side, and really this issue directly goes back to whether God is the one who saves and does so perfectly, or whether God is the one who makes salvation possible, but leaves it up to the creature man to determine whether he will or will not be saved.

It's interesting, James, because Galatians 3 .13 is a good passage to look at.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, for it is written, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.

Clearly, the substitutionary view is present in the text of Galatians 3 .13.

First of all, there's something that's very actual here. The text says Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law.

There's not Christ provided redemption. Or made us redeemable. Right. He made us savable, made us likable.

It says that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law. How did he do this? By being in the place of those he came to save.

By becoming a curse for us. And if he has taken the penalty of that curse in our place, then the big question that constantly has to be asked is, if I, by my quote -unquote free will, do not accept this gift, upon what basis can

I then be judged by God? If Christ has substitutionarily taken my place and born in his body upon the tree, the penalty due to all of my sin, not just some, but all of my sin, then upon what basis can

God then justly condemn me? This is an issue, again, that I don't find very many people who address the issue of limited atonement and reject it out of hand.

I don't find many people who have actually thought that through and come to a meaningful conclusion in regards to that particular issue.

Most of the rejection, I think, and this is probably your experience as well, Jeff, most of the rejection that I encounter in regards to this is due to unfamiliarity and tradition, not due to a situation where they've sat down, they've thought through these things, they've wrestled through these things, and come to the opposite conclusion.

That's right. And actually, the consistency of Scripture, it begins to thunder, it begins to scream, and by the way, that's a knock that so -called extreme

Calvinists, according to Geisler, have received over the years, and that is, oh, your system is logical. Okay, that, right, and the sin in that is,

I'm not sure about that, but that's been one of the charges leveled against Calvinism, that once you begin to see this, once you determine that God is sovereign over everything, and that He has determined the election of those whom

He has determined to save, and that He has applied Christ to them, that the Spirit of God has applied the work of Christ to them, you see that consistency throughout

Scripture, then they stand back and say, oh, well, you're just being logical. You're just being consistent. Very, very consistent, and of course,

I don't think that God is illogical or irrational. In fact, I think when we think rationally and logically, we're thinking

God's thoughts after Him. That is an important issue to be addressed there. In Chosen but Free, there is a section, actually there's a number of chapters called

Avoiding Extreme Calvinism, and it's very interesting, beginning on page 74,

Avoiding Extreme Calvinism's View of Limited Atonement. The very first section presenting

Calvinistic verses in support of the doctrine is based on Matthew 121.

This text affirms that she, the Virgin Mary, will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.

Along with this, there are several other verses used to imply that Jesus only died for believers, and then he lists these. Here to love has no one than this, and he laid down his life for his friends,

John 15, 13. I laid down my life for the sheep, John 10, 15. He shepherds the church of God which he bought with his own blood,

Acts 20, 28. Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, Ephesians 5, 25. He gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good,

Titus 2, 14. And he who did not spare his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies, Romans 8, 32 -33. Now, these are, in my opinion, some of the most important verses that present this truth, especially

Romans 8, because of the direct connection there, not only between God's sovereign purpose and the elect, but also in Christ's intercession for his people.

The response to this entire listing of verses is a grand total of three paragraphs.

The first paragraph is one sentence, the second is two, and the third, I believe, is three. The entire thing could be read in a matter of moments here, and we're almost out of time before the break, but specifically what it says is, to put it in...

this is the concluding paragraph. Finally, the Testament plainly states that God does love all, and that Christ did die for all,

John 3, 16 is quoted. 1 John 2, 2 is quoted, and then 1 Timothy 2, 4 is quoted, and that is the entire substantival response to the presentation of these passages.

So, it is difficult for us to spend much time refuting Dr. Geisler's argumentation on limited atonement, since we are offered almost no meaningful interaction with the specific ways in which the

Reformed people have emphasized why we believe in a limited atonement, and why it is so consistent with God's decree.

So, when we come back from the break, Jeff, I'd like to talk about a couple things.

One of the things is, and this is never mentioned in the book, and that is the relationship between Christ's atoning work on the cross, and his intercessory work.

And the fact that John Calvin very clearly taught that the intercessory work and the atoning work of Christ were very much connected with one another, very important parts of Christ's work as prophet, priest, and king, so on and so forth.

And hopefully look at some of those scripture passages a little more in -depth, and see exactly how these things all fit together.

And after the break, we're going to be taking phone calls. And welcome back to The Dividing Line. We've got a special treat for you today.

We are talking with James White. Dr. White is in San Francisco, or Mill Valley, California, as it were, enjoying the beautiful weather over there, teaching at Golden Gate Theological Seminary.

And in studio with me here is Pastor Jeff Neal of Emanuel Covenant Church. And just pass it right back off to you,

James, to pick up where you gentleman left off. Well, you know, I was looking at a quotation from Jonathan Rainbow, where he says, quote, the evidence that Calvin was a limited redemptionist is far more extensive than the few quotations offered by writers like Murray and Helm would indicate.

There is a wealth of explicit and unambiguous statements in Calvin to the effect that Christ died only for the elect.

I think from talking with you, Jeff, you would tend to agree with Rainbow's conclusion.

Overwhelmingly. It's remarkable when an author, a scholar, a theologian comes forward and says that, well, it's clear that Calvin never taught any limitation of God's electing grace, any limitation of the work of Christ to the elect.

It's just remarkable that when one does go ahead and read Calvin, one, first of all, Calvin's very readable.

He's very easy to read. But secondly, the passages are so numerous.

What I thought maybe I could do, James, is offer somewhat of a guide to cutting through the brush of Calvin to show how people may, by referencing

Calvin, see these constant passages about the limited intention and extent of the atonement.

And the first thing people could look at is Calvin's systematic approach to theology. When he took a look at a topic, be it the sacraments or the ordinances of the

Church, or whether he, when he looked at the Trinity, the unity of the Godhead, or even the nature of faith as a gift from God, you find throughout passages, throughout passages that indicate that Christ's atonement was particular.

But you could also take a look at just some specific passages where Calvin makes some comments to that regard, and I'd be happy to quote some of those.

Yes, please. As a matter of fact, let me give you a couple of them here. Many people are familiar with Jesus's high priestly prayer, the true

Lord's Prayer in John chapter 17, where so often people who hold to a limited atonement will go to verse 9, where it says that Christ himself says,

I am not praying for the whole world, but only for those you've given me. When Calvin introduces the high priestly prayer,

John 17, 1 and 2, his comments on those passages, it's remarkable to see how specific

Calvin is. Listen to this statement. This is Calvin's comments on John 17, 2.

Once again, there's no competition in the Godhead. The son doesn't argue with the father, the father doesn't say, now here, son,

I want you to do this and you need to do it. It's not like that at all. Calvin goes on. Very clearly.

Here's another passage in the Institutes. Here's another passage out of the

Institutes. This we must believe, and this is Calvin's comments on Jesus's words in John 13, 18, when

Jesus said, I know whom I have chosen. Calvin wrote, this we must believe. When he declares that he knows whom he has chosen, he denotes in the human genus a particular species distinguished not by the quality of its virtues, but by heavenly decree.

It's not remarkable then when you come across the passage in Book 3 of the Institutes, Chapter 22, Calvin says this.

Hence it is clear that the doctrine of salvation is falsely debased when presented as effectually profitable to all.

That's pretty clear, isn't it, James? Well, it is very clear, and specifically in regards to the issue of his blood and his death.

Now, there is an article that you and I have both read in the Westminster Theological Journal.

Anyone who wants to look it up, it's in Volume 47, Number 2, Fall 1985. This is by Roger and Nicole on the subject of John Calvin's view of the extent of the

Atonement. Nicole would agree with you and I that Calvin's view is that of a particular redemption.

He presents a number of citations. What are some of the most famous in your perspective, the clearest in regards to the specificity of redemption, the shedding of Christ's blood?

Well, this was one that actually jumped off the page during my time of interaction with this in seminary, and it's regarding the sacraments, or Calvin would actually engage the

Eucharistic debate of his day. It was a lifetime engagement for Calvin. Matter of fact, he has written so much on this topic it could blur the eyes if somebody was to sit down and say,

I'm going to spend this month reading it. It's amazing. First of all, for Calvin, the Lord's Supper was a badge of belonging.

Calvin would have known the classical Latin term sacramentum, which meant a badge or an oath. For somebody to be involved in the sacraments for Calvin was to belong to Jesus Christ, to have an interest in his covenant.

So the Lord's Supper, baptism, would be a badge of belonging for Calvin. It's interesting that Calvin even states this in a short treatise on the

Lord's Supper. The Lord's, excuse me, the Supper is an attestation that, having been made partakers of the death and passion of Jesus Christ, so there's something in the

Supper, we're referring to the Eucharist here, we're referring to the Lord's Supper, it's a participation in the death and passion of Jesus Christ.

This is why when Calvin debates the Lutheran, Tylemon Hesuzius, by the way,

Hesuzius did believe in an unlimited atonement. Hesuzius, as a Lutheran, would have held that just by merely partaking of the elements of the bread and the wine, you all of a sudden got this wonderful, saving, forgiving benefit.

Well, Calvin was debating that, and he asks this question of Hesuzius, and this is the kicker,

I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ, which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.

That's Theological Treatises 285, and I think what's fascinating is that that citation is found on page 160 of Dr.

Geisler's book, immediately above the assertion that he certainly denied limited atonement, and the only comment that is made is the introductory subtitle which says,

Christ's blood received in communion is not for unbelievers. Well, that's amazing, because Calvin's whole, if one was to read the entirety of Calvin's position on the sacrament of the

Lord's Supper, Calvin does not deny that unbelievers do partake, he denies the efficacy, the benefit, what the

Westminster Confession of Faith would call the means of grace, the grace that's conveyed through God's ordained means.

Calvin says, yeah, unbelievers partake of it, it doesn't make them saved, it doesn't put them in a more blessed position.

He says that the sacrament is beneficial when it's joined with faith, therefore it's beneficial for believers, and that's of course the work of God.

On the immediately preceding page, it amazed me, when I started looking through this,

I pulled my commentary on 1 John 2 .2, Calvin's commentary, down and I turned to 1

John 2 .2, and on page 159 of Chosen but Free, Calvin's comments are provided on 1

John 2 .2. However, at the end, the comment that is given is, note,

Calvin clearly denies universalism, and affirms the sufficiency of Christ's death for the whole world, even though he denies this particular passage can be used to teach this.

Now when you go back, Dr. Geisler has put in italics what he wants you to see as emphasized, and the one point that is most important isn't put in italics.

Let me just read this to you, and I'll tell you what's in italics, I'll say italics start, italics end, so you can see what's here.

1 John 2 .2, he says, he put this in for amplification, that believers might be convinced that, italics begin, the expiation made by Christ extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel, italics end.

But here the question may be asked as to italics, how the sins of the whole world have been expiated, italics end.

I pass over the dreams of the fanatics who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate, and even to Satan himself.

Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that, italics begin,

Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but effectively only for the elect, italics close.

This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools, and I break from the quotation to note that that's what you mentioned earlier,

Jeff, that he was well aware of this. But going back to the quotation, although, italics, I allow the truth of this, italics close,

I deny that it fits this passage, no italics. For John's purpose was only to make this blessing common to the whole church.

Therefore, under the word all, he does not include the reprobate, no italics here, anywhere, but refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth.

For as is meet, the grace of Christ is really made clear when it is declared to be the only salvation of the world.

So Calvin's point is very clear. It is almost unmistakable. And yet, when

Dr. Geisler comments on this at the end, he simply says, Calvin clearly denies universalism and affirms the sufficiency of Christ's death to the whole world, that was actually what the schoolmen were saying, even though he denies this particular passage can be used to teach this.

What he denied the particular passage could be used to teach was the distinction the schoolmen made. He himself says that John is not including the reprobate in this statement.

And yet, throughout the book, he will quote 1 John 2 -2 as if it preaches an unlimited atonement, and then say this about Calvin's citation.

It's an amazing use of material from Calvin that just blew me away when

I first read it. That's amazing. We're getting close to a break, Rich. Okay. It's interesting in all of this,

James, another passage, well, let me just go back to that 1

John 2 -1 -2 passage. Calvin mentions the reprobate, right? Right. Throughout Calvin's theology, and I know this is hair -raising, and it freaks out a lot of people, but Calvin did believe in a double predestination.

Calvin in no way, in no place ever pitted

Christ's atoning work against the Father's election to life and the determination of reprobation.

So even in that very quote you just read, Calvin's referring to reprobation, and I know it's a scary passage, but it's all the way through Calvin.

Now, by the way, it would be an incredible inconsistency in Calvin for Calvin to say, oh no, Christ died for everybody, even those that the

Father had determined would be damned, would be reprobate. You know, it was interesting.

You were talking about Calvin there for a moment, and there is a very useful section of Chosen but Free.

There is a selection of passages beginning on page 166 from Augustine, demonstrating his extreme

Calvinism. And one of those is from Enchiridion 100, where we read, quote, "...as

the supreme good, he made good use of evil deeds for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment, and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace."

Demonstrating the element of double predestination in Augustine's teachings as well. And a number of quotes here, "...true

freedom lost in the fall, God creates a new heart in us, God makes us act by efficaciously exerting power on our will, faith is the gift of God, even our free choice is a gift of God."

All these things are quoted from Augustine. And so there is a useful section there.

Unfortunately, it's just primarily offered to us to say that this was the later Augustine, and by the way, the assertion that is made is the reason he came to believe that was because he came to believe it was okay to persecute the

Donatists and to use force to make people come into the Church. I do not believe that, in point of fact, that was what the connection is at all.

In fact, I would agree with B .B. Warfield in writing that the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the victory of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the

Church. And I think there was an inconsistency in Augustine at that point, and his doctrine of grace was inconsistent with his doctrine of the

Church, and it's his doctrine of the Church that was formed out of the Donatist controversy, not his doctrine of grace.

So, I totally disagree with Dr. Geisler's interpretation of that as well. James, I'd like to ask you something about the

Geisler book. In the reading that I have done, I have found two pivotal areas, two areas that, let's just call them hinges, two hinges for this door, and it seems as if so much of Dr.

Geisler's argumentation is built upon these hinges. The first one is that God's love is unfettered, that God's love is non -discriminatory, that there's no discrimination in God's love.

And the second area that we've been kind of dealing with all the way through is that free will is unfettered, or that man can believe on their own, they can just crank up their will like a jumping jack and believe according to their own desires, and believe in such a way as to please

God. But that first one, that God's love is non -discriminatory, this is an area that I think has stumbled, has caused many people to stumble.

I'm going to read from Dr. Geisler, I believe this is page 48, 49.

In fact, if God is one indivisible being without any parts, as classical

Calvinists believe, then his love extends to all of his essence, not just part of it. So once we got this all -loving

God, and every Christian wants to concur, right? He goes on. Hence, God cannot be partly loving, but God is all -loving, then how can he love only some so as to give them and only them the desire to be saved?

It's almost as if Geisler wants to say God's love has no distinction, no discrimination, that God's love is the same no matter how you slice it.

And just to share with you how dangerous this is, Donald Blesch in his book

Essentials of Evangelical Theology has taken a similar line with God's mercy. If we say that God's mercy is non -discriminatory, or God's grace is non -discriminatory, let's look at what happens.

You may fall out of your chair, James, be glad it's nice and cool up there. I'm going to quote you from Blesch, which is a similar thing, and I'm not saying

Geisler holds to this, but I am saying, look what happens when you say God's love shows no discrimination,

God's justice shows no discrimination, God's mercy shows no... Blesch writes, and this is on the topic of heaven and hell, we affirm,

Blesch writes, that the punishment in hell is both punitive and remedial, though the latter must be understood in terms of preservation rather than purification.

We do not wish to build fences around God's grace, however, and we do not preclude the possibility that some in hell might finally be translated into heaven.

By the way, remember the title of this book is The Essentials of Evangelical Theology. The gates of the holy city,

Blesch continues, are depicted as being open day and night, and this means that access to the throne of grace is possible continuously.

The gates of hell are locked, but they are locked only from within. He continues, we must maintain a reverent agnosticism concerning the workings of God's grace which are not revealed in Holy Scripture.

We can affirm salvation on the other side of the grave, since this has scriptural warrant, and he attempts to prove it.

Later on that's down the page, hell is not outside the compass of God's mercy. See there, God's mercy is just this ever -flowing stream without a single ripple or a change or a distinction in application.

Hell is not outside the compass of God's mercy nor the sphere of his kingdom, and in this sense we call it the last refuge for the sinner.

My concern, James, is this, when you begin to look at God's love and say that there's no distinction, that God loves all people the same, you must ask the question that Christians have have propounded for centuries, that Calvin asked, it shows that Calvin's human and not some pointy -chinned

Ichabod Crane freak trying to bother people, but why is it that not all people are saved?

Why is it that not all people have the benefit of Christ's death applied to them? So that's one of the first areas,

James. What'd you think about that? Did you find that in... Oh, it was a constant drumbeat, and I didn't, I didn't even, in typing up the quotations

I can respond to, didn't even type up half of them that I could have. There were a number of illustrations given where he attempts to defend this concept that God's love is totally indiscriminate, and you know,

I'll be very blunt, that makes him less than we are. We discriminate in our love.

We discriminate in the sense that I love my wife and my children in a way that I do not love someone else's wife and someone else's children.

And if someone says, oh, that's a loving view, no, there are different kinds of love. I mean, the idea that there is supposed to be a vanilla flavor of love and that there is no special love that God has, and the same thing is true of his mercy and his grace.

What it's basically saying is if God is to be gracious, then God cannot be free with his grace.

God must give his grace to every single person in the exact same way, or he cannot give his grace to anybody.

Well, let's take a look at that with, in about one minute. Okay, well, it's been stated that Luther wrote, one time wrote to Erasmus, your thoughts of God are too human.

We tend to do the same thing with free will, and I found Geisler doing something very similarly. We want to maintain the fortress of free will for man, but yet what we want to do is we want to deny that for God.

We want to say man has a free will, but God doesn't. And so, as somebody can read the Institutes, here's a thematic idea.

You can find Calvin referring to potters in the place of God, or he could ask the question, whatever happened to the will of God?

The question must be asked, why is it that we deny God an attribute that we demand for ourselves, such as free will?

The whole book, and this is something that I saw many, many times, and I'm watching the clock very closely here,

Rich. Something that I saw many, many times as I read through the book was the fact that the constant drumbeat is the protection of the freedom of man, the protection of the autonomy of man, but that's not a word that is used.

The idea is that man cannot be man unless he has this attribute. Now, of course,

I find it inconsistent that he then believes in the perseverance of the saints or eternal security, and it is interesting to see him attempt to explain that, that somehow in eternity we will not be free to sin or something along those lines, but the point is there's this constant drumbeat in regards to man, but never do you find that drumbeat in regards to God's freedom to give his grace and his mercy as he sees fit.

If he gives it to one, he has to give it to all. An illustration I've used many times is of the governor who can pardon those who are on death row.

Well, if the governor pardons one, does that mean the governor has to pardon everyone else that's there?

From Geiser's perspective, yes, because the governor does not have sovereign freedom, but that is not the case in regards to God whatsoever.

Well, our time is just about up, and I'm looking forward to getting back. Thank you so much, Jeff, for taking the trip down there and joining us.

The time goes very quickly, but I'm very thankful that you're able to join us, and thank you, Rich, for making sure it all happens.