March 11, 2004

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll-free across the United States.

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

Introductory Remarks and the Day's Topic

And good morning and welcome to The Dividing Line. It's a Thursday morning, 11 a .m. out here in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona. Not going to be quite as hot today, thankfully. Only 81 degrees at the moment.

We are continuing today with the response we started. Hopefully, next Tuesday, going to have something else to discuss that I can't really go into yet. Because, well, if I did, then we wouldn't be discussing it next week, of course.

But we began a response on the last Dividing Line after our big announcement concerning the upcoming conference, national conference. All this information is on the cruise link. If you want to click on aleman .org, the national conference on new issues regarding the doctrine of justification.

We announced a debate with Douglas Wilson on the nature of the new covenant and especially the issue, are Roman Catholics a part of the covenant via Trinitarian baptism? And obviously, my understanding there that outside of the gospel, no one outside of the true gospel of grace is in the covenant that Jesus Christ creates in his own blood.

That is just, to me, so completely and totally foreign to the New Testament that it is certainly worthy of bringing to everyone's attention. And so that's going to be what the debate is on. But we discussed that last time.

My headphones are disappearing on me. And so today we continue with, I have 14 clips, only got to 10 last time, so we're going to have to really pick up the pace a little bit. We have been listening to a recent sermon, if we can call it that.

Whoa, hello, now they're completely gone. And, oh, now they're back. A recent sermon from Adrian Rogers on the subject, well, it's not on the subject of Calvinism because he never says it. We are just some people.

We are just folks. There are some who believe, but obviously he's talking about Calvinism and he is warning his people against it. He doesn't want it in his church. He won't allow it in his church. He says it's detrimental, kill evangelism, because Dr. Rogers does not understand it.

And he has given clear evidence of the fact that he has no idea what it actually teaches and is intent upon staying in that position. The last thing we had listened to was his demanding one verse on the subject of particular redemption.

We pointed out the inconsistencies in his theology, and we'll see more of that today. But if we're going to get through it all, we need to get at it. So here we go.

John the Baptist and the Scope of Christ's Saving Work

I'm still waiting on a verse. Friend, listen. The Bible teaches that Christ died for all. Let me give you some verses. Jot them down. John 1, verse 29. The next day, John, this is John the Baptist, sees Jesus coming unto him and says, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.

That's what John the Baptist said. Can you imagine John the Baptist standing there on the banks of Jordan saying, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the elect? No, the sin of the world.

And, of course, we've pointed out the error that is found here specifically in regards to the fact that Dr. Rogers will not deal with the issue of what the term world means within the context in which it is used, that from a Jewish perspective, the world was Jews and Gentiles, that the Bible itself defines the extent of Christ's salvific work as being that of redeeming men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

They will not touch these passages. They will not raise them. They will not even let their people know they're there. They seriously hope their people will never ask these questions and that they will never encounter a little itty-bitty webcast like this that will cause them to ask these questions because, quite honestly, my experience, I remember going back to a Founders Conference that I was speaking at a number of years ago, and students at a fairly well-known Baptist university were talking to me there, and they were saying, You know, we are not allowed to discuss these things.

We are not allowed to. If we even ask these questions, it is considered to be, in essence, an act of rebellion. It is grounds for being removed from our classes and from this school to even ask these questions.

One side is open to discussing all these things. One side will play with what the other side says. One side will deal with these issues. One side will not because one side has an exegetical leg to stand on, and the other does not.

John 12, verses 46 -48.

Now stop here just for a moment. I need to say, in regards to John 1, the other question, the other issue, of course, there is, does he or doesn't he? Does he bear the sins of the world? What we are going to hear later on is that Dr. Rogers, and he may not even be aware of this, he may not even be aware of just how completely inconsistent his position makes systematic theology, and he may not even feel that it is relevant.

But if he bears the sins of the world, then he is forced to believe that God punishes, because he says, he very clearly says, Christ bore the sins of all the world, every single individual. He bore the wrath of God and placed those sins.

That means that God must engage in double jeopardy. But when that issue comes up, he says, no, no, no, you have to believe. Okay, but still, did Christ bear those sins or did he not? This theoretical atonement, this atonement that only makes men savable, but doesn't actually bear the wrath of God, this is part and parcel of what the man is promoting to his people.

And he may not want to discuss it, he may not want to think about it, but that doesn't mean his people aren't going to, and his people are not going to be going out into the world, they are going to be dealing with people in false religions, they are going to be dealing with people who have other theologies, and by refusing to engage this subject fairly and honestly, he is placing his own people in a dangerous position.

He is making their theology inconsistent, and hence opening them up to being deceived. That's what happens when you do not handle or write the word of God from the pulpit, and when you're afraid of dealing with these issues, and that's exactly what's going on here.

Now turn with him to this one, because this one blows me away. John chapter 12. Listen to, again, let's not look at a context, even if our life depends on it.

Listen to this one.

The Context of John 12 and Judicial Hardening

John 12, verses 46 -48. Jesus said, I am come a light to the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him. Nor I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him. The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Now what does he say? I've come as a light to the world.

It's very obvious. He's not talking about the world of the elect here, because he's talking about that world being judged. He died the world that he died for.

Now, what is absolutely amazing is that John chapter 12 is actually very, very much against his position. But let's read what he didn't talk about. Let's read the context that he's refusing to deal with.

Maybe not even aware, you know, he just, it is so clear that this is just simply grab chosen but free off the shelf, run through the pages, write out the text, it's the same old text without a context, without any work of exegesis, just throw it out there, get the emotions going, and keep your people from listening to what Reformed theology is about.

That's right, it preaches good, that's all that really matters, let's not worry about the issue of the truth here. And, you know, he may not even intentionally know any of this stuff. He may, every time you approach him, his eyes may glass over, I've seen it many times, and have no concept whatsoever of what's really going on here.

Go to John chapter 12, back up before where he started, because there's this little part here that I would love to hear him deal with, but I've never heard him deal with. John chapter 12, verse 36,. While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light.

These things Jesus spoke, and he went away and hid himself from them. But though he had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet, which he spoke, Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

For this reason they could not believe. Remember that Dr. Rogers had, just before this, eisegetically pulled a section about Christians, from Romans chapter 12, that said to each man a measure of faith has been given, and applied this to all men.

A measure of faith had been given to the Egyptian foot soldier, thousands of years ago, just as to a Christian today. That's allegedly what Paul was talking about in Romans 12. Pure eisegesis, a pure perversion of the word of God.

Again, possibly out of ignorance, don't know, but that's what's going on. Here, verse 39,. For this reason they could not believe. Let's try to figure that one out with the eisegetical misuse of Romans 12.

See, when you engage in eisegesis, based on tradition, you turn the Bible into mush. You turn it into an inconsistent conglomeration of contradictions. For this reason they could not believe. John 12, verse 39,.

For Isaiah said again, He has blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and be converted, and I heal them. These things Isaiah said, because he saw his glory, and you spoke of him, a very important passage, in regards to the identity of Jesus Christ, the Jehovah.

Verse 42,.

Nevertheless, many, even of the rulers, believed in him, but because of the Pharisees, they were not confessing him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue, for they loved the approval of men, rather than the approval of God.

And Jesus cried out and said, He who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in him who sent me. He who sees me, sees the one who sent me. I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me, will not remain in darkness.

And again, here, Dr. Rogers misunderstands a construction in the original language. He seems to understand that Pascha, plus a present tense participle, Pascha Pestuon, means there is no such thing as election.

Actually, it simply means that every single one who believes, who is believing, will receive eternal life. That's all the passage is saying. It has nothing to do with denying election. It has everything to do with affirming that no one can believe in vain.

True faith. Now, notice this very text. If you're reading along here, this very text points out the difference between true and false faith. Did you notice that? Verse 42, some believed in him. That's the heiress.

But the very next verse says, they loved the approval of men, rather than the approval of God. Is that true faith? Of course not. But then, in verse 46, everyone believing, that's present tense, the one believing.

That is the difference. Did you have the Gospel of John that's brought out all the time? It doesn't deal with that. Everyone believing in me will not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge them, for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Well, if that's the purpose of his coming, then what he has to say here, even though the context talks about God's judicial hardening of hearts and the whole nine yards, all of a sudden now we get to this, and what we're supposed to believe is that so-and-so here is meant to be theoretical.

I came theoretically, hopefully, to try my best to save as many people in the world as I can. That's not what it says. That's not what the cosmos is. This is a gross misuse of the term cosmos in John.

We really would like to think that the entire context would be brought into consideration in these passages. Unfortunately, obviously, it is not brought into consideration in these passages.

Here's one that these people have a great difficulty with. 1 John 2 .2.

Where are these people, by the way? Hi, my name's these people. I'm the bald these people.

Here's one that these people have a great difficulty with. 1 John 2 .2. It speaks of Jesus as being the propitiation for our sins. That's a big double-jointed word. What does the word propitiation mean?

It means He is the satisfaction for our sins. God sees His sacrifice and is satisfied. God's justice is satisfied. He is the propitiation for our sins. Now, John is talking to the church. He's talking about Himself.

And He says, and not for ours alone, but also for the sins of the whole world. Jesus is the propitiation not just for those who are saved, but for the sins of the whole world. Now, those who die hard say, well, no, that means He's the propitiation for our sins and the sins of the whole world of the elect.

But He's not talking about the elect here. Go down a few verses now. 1 John 2, verses 15 and 16. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life is not of the Father, but is of the world. And that is the context in which He says He's the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

What He's saying is not the world of the elect, but the world of the lust of the eyes and the lust of the flesh, the pride of life. He died for that world.

What an amazing statement. What an absolutely amazing statement and amazing eisegesis. To skip down as if it's the exact same context. Actually, the topic has changed by the time you get down there, but if any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Remember John 3, verse 16? Remember this? This is the world being talked about here. This is the world God loves. This is the world Jesus died for. Really? The world that stands opposed to God.

See, what he's doing.

Is he's not recognizing. John uses the term cosmos in many different ways and that sometimes cosmos is not even talking about people. It's talking about a system of things that are opposed to God and people live in or outside of that.

The elect of God live in that world, obviously, and are given by the Father,.

The Son,.

Out of that world. Isn't that what John 17 says? I do not pray for the world, I pray for those you've given me out of the world. I mean, it is absolutely amazing to see the lengths and what amazes me most, and this is what amazed me about Norman Geisler, these folks know these things.

In any other subject.

On any other topic, if we were talking about justification, if we were talking about end times and resurrection and the deity of Christ or monotheism or any of these other things, they would not use this type of absolutely eisegetical hermeneutic.

It just would not take place. But what happens is, on this subject, their tradition is so strong and so deeply embedded that they cannot even begin to deal with the text as they stand. They cannot allow world to mean the world of Jews and Gentiles, the world outside of that small Christian community that existed at the time of 1 John.

Looking at that whole huge world out there, you can go out, you can proclaim the gospel because God is not finished. The work of propitiation is going to cover not just the sins that it's covered so far, but there are so many more God's going to gather in.

Can't even deal, I mean, he even says he knows what propitiation means. He knows what it means and then can turn around.

And say,.

Well, yes,.

Okay,.

Propitiation means the removal of the wrath of God.

Against sin.

Okay, then Dr. Rogers, why? If that is a universal propitiation of the sins of every single individual person.

In the world,.

How can you possibly say that you're not a universalist? I know you're not. You don't believe everybody's going to be saved. How can you then, in just a little while, say, well, the death of Christ makes salvation possible.

The wrath's either been propitiated.

Or it isn't.

When Christ died, he said it is finished, not it is theoretically established. We're going to hear some more about that a little bit later on, too, because even the Passion movie.

Gets involved in this one,.

If you can believe that. But that's toward the end. We're not going to get there.

If I keep preaching.

Particular Redemption, Propitiation, and the World

Put this scripture down. 2 Peter 2, verse 1. Peter talks about some wicked, vile men who denied the Lord Jesus and yet, Peter says, Jesus died for them. Let me show you. But there were false prophets also among the people.

These are not elect. These are false prophets. Even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privilege shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord. Now listen to this. That bought them.

Denying the Lord. That bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction. They had been bought, but they denied the Lord Jesus. Agorazo is the word that means to buy out of the slave market, to redeem.

But they denied Him. These are apostates, false prophets, teaching damnable heresies, but they have been bought with the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Well, there you have, again, this kind of interpretation. It just assumes, shows no evidence whatsoever. I mean, if Dr. Rogers has ever taken the time to listen to what anybody else says, it would show itself in his comments.

I mean, how many times, you all, if you're a regular listener, you've listened to me speak. Sometimes you may listen to sermons at prbc .org when I preach. I'll be preaching Sunday evening on the importance of exegesis.

I'll probably be repeating a few of these things then. You've heard me address these subjects, and you know that when I come across a passage like this, I will note, either by the way I present it, or just by openly saying.

Now, there are those who say this, and they say it in this context, and I will try to present it in the most accurate way possible.

If Dr. Rogers has any idea.

That agorazo, he knows what the Greek word is, but then if he knows.

What the Greek word is,.

He should know that those who believe differently than he about this subject that he is so confidently denouncing, point out that when agorazo is used in a redemptive context, there's always a price attached, redeemed with the precious blood of Christ.

And since he knows that language, then he should also know that the term here, he just said the precious blood of Jesus. How does he know that? It's not kurios here,.

It's despotes.

Why does he just assume that that's about Christ? Why does he just assume these things? And then can he not then take this the rest of the direction and say, okay, look, that means that they have been purchased out of the slave market, and that means that it is not enough that Christ died.

Christ's death only accomplishes.

A portion of it,.

And now here's the rest of what you have to do. Why not just be open with that and say, here it is, here's the rest of it. Here's what you've got to do.

I don't know,.

But that's certainly the result of it. No interaction whatsoever. There's a tremendously lengthy article on our website dealing with 2 Peter 2 .1. Take a look at it. Go into all the details and all the arguments.

You'll see that one side, again, is willing to listen to what the other says and respond to it. One side, seemingly, just wants to have a monologue. Well, let's continue on with Dr. Rogers.

Let me give you another scripture. 2 Timothy 2, verses 3 through 6. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior. Now listen to this phrase. Who will have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth?

Who will have all men to be saved? For there is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself, listen, a ransom for all who will believe. For all to be testified in due time, rather.

Does that mean that everybody is saved? Of course not. The death of Jesus Christ.

Did you catch that? I hope you caught that. It's another one of those Matthew 23, 37 situations where people are always mis-citing it, where they're always missing what it actually says. Did you catch, for all who will believe?

That's not what it says. And we'll see why.

A ransom for all who will believe.

Who will believe.

Nope, that's not what it says.

For all to be testified in due time, rather. Rather. Does that mean that everybody is saved? Of course not. The death of Jesus Christ makes salvation possible.

Let me play that again. Let me play that again. Because, you know, this is where the rubber meets the road. And this is why this is important. Some people think, you guys have lost your balance. You talk about this too much.

Whether you believe the following statement will impact substantially, deeply, and permanently your proclamation of the gospel, the means of the proclamation, and what you believe about the church.

Makes salvation possible.

There's that word. Did you hear it?

Possible.

Possible?

Hypothetical salvation. Over against a finished atonement. That's what we're talking about.

The death of Jesus Christ makes salvation possible. Faith brings it to the heart and achieves it for those who believe.

Now, he's reading that. And even he stumbles over it. But there's the issue. Now, again, ignoring context, 2 Timothy 2, verse 4. 2 Peter 3, 9. Matthew 23, 37. The big three. Dealt with them in the potter's freedom.

Deal with them again today. That's why I even put on the blog, man, talk about a classical presentation of every a-contextless passage that you could possibly throw out there all in one sermon. That's why we're going to put these two together and we're going to advertise them.

Put them together. Let's respond to this and then refer people to it. This is just absolutely classic. Because, you see, he skips where the phrase all men is defined. And by the way, it's not 2 Timothy,.

In case you were wondering.

It's 1 Timothy. He had the wrong passage, but that's okay. Hey, you know, I've done the exact same thing. 1 Timothy 2, 1. First of all, yeah, I did it right there. First of all, then I urge that in treaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men.

For kings and all who are in authority. There's your use of all men. And it's immediately defined generically as kinds of men. Kings are kinds of men. Those who are in authority are kinds of men. So that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior who desires all men. Now, what in the text changed from kinds of men in verse 1 to a universal, every person who's ever lived never will live in verse 4?

Don't know, but that's the assertion. To be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men. The man Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all, not all who believe.

Ransom for all. Same context. The testimony given at the proper time. Now, I've gone over this many times before, but in case you haven't heard it before, you haven't looked at the power of freedom, very briefly, how, if you believe that somehow all men in verse 4 is different than verse 1, something changed, something in the context, altered it all, please explain to me the issue of verse 5.

Are you saying that Jesus Christ is the mediator for every single human being who has ever lived? Is Jesus mediating? Will Jesus be spending eternity mediating for the souls in hell and failing constantly?

Those who are currently under the wrath of God awaiting the judgment day, is Jesus somehow standing before the Father? Oh, Father, I've borne the wrath of those souls.

Please be merciful.

I can't. They haven't believed. Is that what's going on? Seemingly, that's the demanded understanding of Dr. Rogers' theology, because his denial to God of the ability to have redemptive love, to have differentiation in his kinds of love, would follow that he, for some reason, wants to have an unhappy God.

A God who is unhappy throughout eternity, unfulfilled throughout eternity, who weeps and cries over the souls who stand upon the parapets of hell screaming their hatred of him throughout all eternity.

And it would seemingly fall, if that's what the Father's doing, that the Son should likewise seemingly be introducing some kind of disharmony into the Godhead itself, mediating for those the Father has not decreed to save or cannot save.

And when you hear that kind of terminology, cannot save, it should make your blood run cold. It should make your blood run cold. Cannot save them? Is that what's really going on here? If we deal with the text of Scripture, should we not allow all of the Scripture to speak?

I think we should. Let me finish this clip.

The death of Jesus Christ makes salvation possible, brings it to the heart.

Wow.

Keep that in mind, folks. Possibility versus finished. Theory versus accomplishment. Talk about an inconsistent foundation.

Now, I could give you other Scriptures. Let me give you a couple, and I've got to hurry on. Hebrews 2, 9. For we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man.

Can black print on white paper be clearer? Do these Scriptures teach a limited atonement?

Let's repeat this one more time.

Can black print on white paper be clearer?

Well, you know, that black print on white paper didn't stop there. But we do see him, who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely Jesus, because the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.

Why would he be crowned with glory and honor.

If he fails?

So that by the grace of God,.

Those who do not receive the grace of God.

Receive the wrath of God. He might taste death for everyone. Who's the everyone? For it was fitting for him...

The next sentence!

Dr. Rogers would never let anyone get away with this when they're talking about the deity of Christ. For it was fitting for him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

Their salvation. For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father, for which reason he is not ashamed to call them brethren.

My goodness.

Just read the rest of the text. Just read the rest of the text.

It goes on, verse 17. Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in all things so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest and things pertain to God. To do what? To make propitiation for whom?

The sins of the people. Upon what basis do you think that that people is every single human being? Matthew 1 .21. His name we call Jesus. Why? Because he will do what? Save his people from their sins.

Not try. Not make it just simply something that, well, I'm going to do my best. Oh, the context is so clear.

It is right there.

Someone says, oh, you're getting awful.

Awful uptight about it.

I don't like to see people who know how to handle the text refuse to do so simply because it violates their traditions to do so and to lead others, because they hear him rightly handling the text elsewhere, to refuse to see the truth here.

It's wrong.

I'm going to be preaching a series soon on Isaiah chapter 53. Isaiah 53, verse 6. Listen to it. All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way. And the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of how many?

Of us all. Of us all.

Who is us all?

Who is us all? What does the passage actually say? Well, there are these passages that didn't get read. That he was cut off by the land of living for the transgression of my people. What does it say? The Lord was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief.

He would render himself as a guilt offering. He will see his offspring. He will prolong his days, and to good pleasure the Lord will prosper his hand. As a result of the anguish of his soul, he will see it and be satisfied.

By his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant, will justify who? The many, as he will bear their iniquities. Dr. Rogers, this is the same mishmash of contradiction that you introduced into the text in Romans 8.

You broke apart the golden chain of redemption. So that there are some who are called, but somebody else who is justified. Look at verse 11. His servant will justify the many, as he will bear their iniquities.

If you say that the bearing of iniquities does not result in justification, you tear the text apart. How can the servant see his offspring? How can the good pleasure of the Lord prosper in his hand? If, as we are being told in this sermon, it is Christ's intention to save, he tries to save, and he fails to save miserably in behalf of millions.

That's not what Isaiah 53 says. This is not the time in our society for this kind of traditionalism. We need the exegesis of the text of Scripture that does not fear the face of men and does not bow itself to the traditions of men.

Romans 5, Romans 8, and the Meaning of Reconciliation

One last, and I must move on. Romans 5, verses 5 and 6. And hope maketh not a shame, because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us. For when we were yet without strength, in due time, Christ died for the ungodly.

That's who he died for. He died for the ungodly.

Yep, God did die for the ungodly. Every one of the elect was ungodly. So, so? What does that mean? The context is that the love of God has been poured out within our hearts. Isn't that believers? Has the love of God been poured out within the hearts of unbelievers?

So the Holy Spirit has been given to us? Who's the us? The recipients of the Holy Spirit. Do unbelievers have the Holy Spirit? Again, a man who would never miss.