Radio Free Geneva: Responding to “The Authentic Christian”

21 views

September 12, 2021

After noting the passing, on the same weekend, of two of my former debate opponents (John Shelby Spong and Bob Enyart), we dove into this presentation by three Church of Christ gentlemen on the subject of “total depravity.” We covered a lot of ground and hopefully you will be aided by the discussion! We hope to do another program tomorrow as well. Visit the store at https://doctrineandlife.co/

Comments are disabled.

00:03: I constantly hear people that are
00:17: Calvinist harp on this. God's sovereign, God's sovereign, sovereign, sovereign, sovereign.
00:23: They just keep repeating it. And they repeat it so much, you start to think it's a biblical truth. Jesus stands outside the tomb of Lazarus.
00:37: He says, Lazarus, come out. And Lazarus said, I can't, I'm dead. That's not what he did.
00:44: Lazarus came out. So you mean to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ? And then you take lessons from Judas White and Jeff Durbin.
00:59: It shows in this kind of sequential format. Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things?
01:17: Um, no. Calvinists, even pastors, very openly smoke pipes and cigars just as they drink beer and wine.
01:31: Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief.
01:52: You quote a verse like that to him, you know what it would sound like if he were listening to it? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
03:10: Well, greetings and welcome to Radio Free Geneva. Every single time I hear that, I still shake my head, especially
03:17: The Choice Meats and Steve Tassi. Both of those are just, wow. What can
03:23: I say? Anyways, if you're not familiar with Radio Free Geneva, this is a feature of the dividing line we do every once in a while, just because we have some really weird followers that get all excited and start playing air guitars, and they start getting a little twitchy if we don't do this program every few months.
03:39: So we have to do it just to keep them sane and keep them out of trouble.
03:45: Actually, it's an episode, a program where we address objections to Reform Theology, frequently bad objections to Reform Theology, but we've done good objections too, but most objections are bad objections to begin with.
04:01: So we deal with them on this particular segment. Before we dive into today's program, if my information is correct and I'm not on the second individual,
04:14: I don't have a specific date, but I'm going with what I've got. September 12th was an interesting day because on September 12th, yesterday, two individuals that I have debated in person in the past, passed, as in passed away, left this earth.
04:40: The first was Bishop John Shelby Spong, who
04:46: I debated in Florida over a decade ago, and we debated the subject of homosexuality in the
04:53: Bible. I'll never forget that. Like another well -known individual who also interestingly has passed away.
05:03: I've debated a lot of people that are dead. That just means I'm getting old. But both times that I've done the subject is homosexuality consists of biblical
05:14: Christianity. The person I debated didn't bring a Bible to the debate, and John Shelby Spong did not bring a
05:21: Bible to our debate. Of course, it's because he didn't believe it was a divine revelation. I listened to Albert Moeller talking about Spong today, and I guess they did a radio or television debate once, and he went through all the things that John Shelby Spong denied in his lifetime.
05:42: And it was every single element of the Christian faith, including the existence of a personal
05:48: God, let alone judgment, the divinity of Christ, resurrection, the existence of the supernatural.
05:55: I mean, talk about a blight on the name Episcopalian. I've actually met believing
06:01: Episcopalians. I don't know why they're still Episcopalians, I'll be honest with you. But I've met some. But Spong, wow.
06:10: You can go online and watch that debate, and it was self -evident which side won that debate given the thesis title.
06:22: So John Shelby Spong now does know there is a personal God and that there is life after death and judgment after death and what the standard of that is going to be.
06:32: But then I got a text and I have only seen one thing verifying this, but haven't seen much online.
06:42: But I've been informed that Bob Enyart passed away on Sunday as well from COVID. And Bob Enyart, not nearly as well known as John Shelby Spong.
06:54: Well, I suppose in some circles he was better known now to think about it. He had been involved with that John Bonnet Ramsey thing up there in Colorado.
07:05: And when he and I debated, we debated the issue of open theism. He had a very strange, unusual perspective on it.
07:14: But it is strange that if it was the same day, and the one thing
07:19: I saw, I couldn't absolutely verify it was Sunday, but yesterday or the day before or today or something.
07:27: Anyway, to have two individuals that you have debated pass away so close to one another is most interesting and noteworthy.
07:39: So you can find those debates online and I think you'll find them to be useful.
07:45: Our subject today on Radio Free Geneva is, I was sent,
07:50: I won't get the person who sent me the video in trouble by mentioning it.
07:59: But I was sent a video of three gentlemen, Church of Christ individuals, doing a, and it's, you know, they've got a nice, they've got a real nice studio.
08:16: And I thought the quality of the presentation was good, technically speaking, not theologically speaking, but technically speaking.
08:26: Not much of an audience. I think when I first saw it, there was like 320 people had seen it, something along those lines.
08:31: But, so we're going to help them out here because I'll obviously link to it. So we'll help them make it at one of their bigger episodes.
08:39: But they are having a discussion about the subject of Calvinism.
08:46: And so there were so many standard misrepresentations, straw men, errors, eisegetical mistakes.
08:54: And I got mentioned a few times just for the fun of it. So it made it worthwhile listening to.
09:00: And so we're going to run through it here on Radio Free Geneva. I am very thankful to note that the program that I have used a few times before, not a whole lot of times, but I have used it a few times before called
09:18: Note Studio, continues, unlike many programs these days, to improve.
09:26: And so I'm using that and we'll use the nice big screen over here to play these portions from the discussion.
09:35: But I'm able to have them time indexed and go straight to them. And the program is doing well.
09:42: It really is. I appreciate when programs are doing things like that.
09:48: All right. So I want to start off with right at the beginning, their discussion was on the topic of total depravity.
09:58: But there's a little bit of a problem in how they define it.
10:03: So let's listen right here at the start. I want to talk about original sin. Some groups would call this total depravity.
10:11: It's actually a really popular teaching in a lot of churches. A lot of people may go to a church that teaches it, and they may not even know that their church teaches it.
10:20: Now, I couldn't hear that, but I'm thinking, hoping anyways, that what he said at the beginning was original sin or the doctrine of total depravity.
10:31: And there was a lot of confusion throughout the program where these gentlemen do believe, they do make the assertion that total depravity and original sin are the same doctrine.
10:45: Now, while they are obviously very, very closely related, they are not the same thing.
10:52: You have to differentiate between the two of them. The Roman Catholic Church believes in original sin, but they don't believe in total depravity.
11:02: So one does, I think, necessarily follow from the other, but they are not the same doctrine at all.
11:10: It was interesting that we had this little section in the beginning of the program as well.
11:19: That's what we're going to talk about in this episode. Right here, Calvinism. Now, at least on YouTube, whoever posted on YouTube did fix things, but you always sort of have a little bit of a sense of where somebody's coming from when they misspell
11:40: Calvinism. It's sort of hard to think that the people involved have done a whole lot of reading.
11:47: Now, of course, the guys doing the talking, they probably didn't do the post -production and stuff like that. But it was interesting to note that particular aspect of things.
11:59: And so we continue on with the clips. Popular denominational pastors like John MacArthur, James White, Jeff Durbin, John Piper, most of these big names that people see in the world,
12:12: Vadibachum, all these guys are. I'm not sure who Vadibachum is. I'll be preaching right before Vodibachum at G3 in a couple of weeks.
12:24: So I'll ask him if he has a brother named Vadi that has the last name of Bachum. But the point being, of course, that you have these denominational pastors.
12:37: I'm not sure exactly which denomination Jeff and I are supposed to be representing outside of just general
12:44: Reformed Baptist, Reformed perspectives, things like that. But they're at least right that all of the people that they named would preach total depravity, the deadness of man and sin, the federal headship of Adam and the federal headship of Christ.
13:05: We would believe that man is dead in sin and is inveterately opposed, hostile to God.
13:14: And we would believe what Paul taught in Romans chapter eight, that those who are according to the flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God.
13:23: Jesus put it very clearly. If you continue my word, then you're my disciples. Indeed, you should know the truth.
13:29: Truth shall make you free. And as soon as those men heard him make that statement, they became offended, offended at the idea that they had to be set free.
13:38: That's the problem with man is he definitely promotes, as these gentlemen do, the vaunted free will of man.
13:47: And of course, being in the Church of Christ, they did finally at the end of the episode get to Acts 2 .38.
13:55: I've never met any Church of Christ person that wouldn't eventually get to Acts 2 .38.
14:01: I first sort of encountered Church of Christ folks as a young person. And literally the old style
14:09: Church of Christ folks, a lot of them didn't have instruments and things like that.
14:18: But their whole reason for being was Acts 2 .38. I mean, they could literally have three night debates over Acts 2 .38.
14:27: Now, personally, it doesn't take more than 15 minutes to lay out what the context of Acts 2 .38
14:34: is. And talk about the Old Testament backgrounds and move along from there. But they'd make a whole week out of it and just keep going around and around and around.
14:46: So repeating stuff, very popular amongst Church of Christ. But again,
14:52: I got quoted a couple of times. We've got another one here that we'll be looking at. But at least there is a correct identification of the fact that Reformed theology has a number of exponents.
15:09: I wish they showed a recognition of the fact that it's Reformed theology that gave Europe its freedom from Roman Catholicism.
15:17: I wish they'd understand that it's their theology that shares the key core elements with Rome against the
15:26: Reformation. They are not a part, they may have come out of certain movements that had their roots in the
15:34: Reformation, but they are against Luther. They are against the Reformation in their view of mankind and grace.
15:42: And they're very much in Rome's camp on all those things. And they don't like to say that. A lot of the old style
15:47: Church of Christ folks are very strongly anti -Romanist. But when it comes to the key issues of man's will and the concept of synergism, they are smack dab on with them.
16:00: They just have a shorter list of things you gotta do to get yourself saved than Rome does. But as far as, no,
16:08: God cannot save any individual in and of himself, they're smack dab on with Rome at that particular point.
16:15: There are a number of citations that sort of were said very quickly.
16:22: And by the way, I always mention this and I forgot. I am playing, and this is,
16:28: I'm not sure if the previous version had this or not, but I am playing the video at 10%, 110%.
16:39: So about 10 % faster than normal, just so it doesn't take so long to get through everything.
16:47: I could play at 150%, but that's a little bit on the extreme side, especially since some of you listen to this program and you speed it up anyways, then it would be really rough for you.
16:56: But there are a number of little comments that are made along the way. And I wanted to catch it. Didn't catch all of them.
17:03: Couldn't do it all. I mean, we want to try to get this done at some point, but we do want to catch a few of them.
17:09: Romans 3, all these different passages that I think are out of context, but that's what they would quote. Romans 3, out of context.
17:17: Context Romans chapter 3 was the demonstration of the universal sinfulness of man in Romans chapter 1, the continued sinfulness of the
17:26: Jewish people in Romans chapter 2, tied together in Romans chapter 3 with the resultant conclusion being that all men are held accountable for God.
17:37: That's the context of Romans chapter 3. And that catena of passages beginning in verse 10 that Paul puts together, that is the contextual message.
17:48: Is man's inability. There is none that seeks after God, not even one. There is none that understands. There is none that does good.
17:55: All their throats are an open grave. The poison of ass was on their lips. There is no fear of God before their eyes.
18:01: Paul is drawing from all sorts of different texts and his conclusion is the universal sinfulness of mankind,
18:10: Jew and Gentile together. And once that's established, now we can talk about the gospel.
18:16: That's the context of Romans chapter 3 for anybody who wants to really take a close look at what is being said there.
18:25: So I think that is self -evident. Not only ours, but also the whole world.
18:31: Those are non -Christians and they would explain that passage away. But they would say this. They would say if...
18:38: Actually, that was where he was quoting me and that was a little bit behind where I wanted it to be. 1
18:43: John 2 talking about explaining texts away as if we don't enter into dealing what the context is.
18:53: We don't deal with how that text is related. First and foremost, in its own context.
18:59: One of the things these guys do. These guys don't have any problem just simply stringing verses together, whether they're in the same book, same author, same topic, same context, anything.
19:09: Just string them all together and call it good. It is a way of doing things that is very, very, very susceptible to eisegesis and to making the text say things that it actually is not saying.
19:30: It sends him the Holy Spirit. It's irresistible. He can't do anything but accept it. He'll be regenerated. And then
19:35: P is perseverance of the saints, which is also called once saved, always saved. Although some people have an issue with the definitions and they say, you know, well, if you are truly elect, you'll persevere.
19:46: And they, you know, I've got, like I said, I know a Baptist pastor named Sam Harris. I don't know him, but I've read his writing.
19:53: He said a depraved sinner cannot do anything without the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit. Okay, now obviously a depraved sinner can do all sorts of things without the miraculous operation of the
20:03: Holy Spirit, but he cannot do that which is pleasing in God's sight. As Paul says in Romans chapter 8, those according to flesh can not do what is pleasing to God.
20:15: They cannot submit themselves to the law of God. Paul said it, if you don't like it, deal with it from that perspective.
20:23: But once saved, always saved is not the perseverance of the saints. They're not the same thing, obviously.
20:29: There is a huge difference there. And one of the repeated errors throughout this presentation was this idea that total depravity means that mankind cannot do anything.
20:42: Mankind can do all sorts of things. Those who are outside of Christ or in rebellion against God continue in their rebellion against God.
20:52: They purposefully choose the means and methods by which they will rebel against God.
20:59: The issue of depravity is not that man is as evil as he could be, but that the entirety of man's being has been touched by his rebellion against God.
21:12: And so the assertion is, the issue is, is can unregenerate men do what is pleasing to God?
21:21: Is faith and repentance pleasing to God? Of course they are. Can unregenerate men in and of themselves come to Christ?
21:27: Jesus said they cannot, John 6 44. He gives a three second attempted jump around that one, which we'll take apart later on.
21:38: It's the standard error that we've refuted for decades and had been refuted for decades before we came along, that's for sure.
21:45: Centuries, millennia, if we really want to get technical about it. But Jesus said no man has that ability.
21:55: Paul said that those who are crying the flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God. These are biblical teachings in a biblical context of soteriology, salvation.
22:05: That's specifically what is being addressed. And in fact, that's specifically what offended the Jews in John 6, not only 37, 44, but 65 as well.
22:15: Jesus repeated a number of times. But I think it is very, very important to differentiate between a non -reformed, one saved, always saved, which is a, you got your ticket punched, go into heaven, doesn't matter.
22:31: Versus the perseverance of the saints, which is simply the assertion that if God the father has decreed the salvation of his elect people, the son has died to bring about the foundation of that salvation.
22:44: The spirit has come and makes application. And if the father's will for the son is that he'd be a perfect savior,
22:52: John 6, 39, then that's a divine work. And therefore that divine work will be accomplished, which means that those thusly called will persevere to the end.
23:04: That's very different than got your ticket punched. You can do whatever you want now. One saved, always saved, doesn't really have room for the recognition that it's
23:14: God's intention. In the salvation of his elect, that they live holy lives, that they reflect the glory of Christ in their lives, that they submit themselves to God's will in their lives, et cetera, et cetera.
23:28: So there is a vast difference between those two. Now, this next one, this whole discussion and all the verses that were used very much in the way that this is, we've said this over and over and over again in Radio Free Geneva for decades now, because we started doing
23:53: Radio Free Geneva before we came to this location. I remember we were in which office
23:59: I was in at the time that we did our first one. And we have pointed out that if you do not start with the proper foundation, there'll be no meaningful way to accomplish this conversation in any consistently biblical fashion.
24:19: And so if the only place someone is willing to start in this conversation is with man, then you will only end up with a man -centered way of salvation and reformed theology isn't man -centered.
24:35: And so you're not going to come to those conclusions. There is no discussion in this entire video of the reality of God's sovereign decree.
24:47: Though God is said to be sovereign, there is no discussion of how God has knowledge of future events, whether God has a sovereign decree, what
24:57: God's purposes and intentions are in creation, the existence of evil, any of these things.
25:04: There's just absolutely positively no discussion of any of that stuff in this video whatsoever.
25:12: And so you start at the wrong place and you end up at the wrong place.
25:18: And this is seen in this next section where it's basically asserted that, well, the very foundation of Calvinism is total depravity.
25:29: It's not. No meaningful reformed presentation of this doctrine would ever, ever, ever say that that's the foundation.
25:40: The foundation obviously is the sovereign decree of God that gives form and function that guarantees that the entirety of soteriology itself, the very act of salvation has a purpose and an intention on God's part, that there is an end in line for all of these things.
26:01: So that's a real error. But here we go. I gave you more than you wanted. So total depravity,
26:08: I would say a lot of Calvinism hinges on total depravity, because if we are totally depraved and we can do nothing but evil, then we couldn't choose
26:19: God if that was true. But if I'm not totally depraved, if I'm born a moral free agent that can make a choice, good or bad, and I have free will to choose
26:29: God and God gave me that ability, then I don't need unconditional election. Now, OK, so please notice, even given that, notice the man centeredness of this.
26:41: If man is thus, then I don't need total depravity.
26:47: I don't need the entirety of the idea of God's election and all the rest of this type of stuff, because basically he's a new
26:55: Adam. And if you want to hear Pelagianism in its modern form, listen to what is being said here, because that really is what you're getting.
27:05: You're getting Pelagianism in its modern form. These individuals will eventually argue that we have to be just like Jesus was.
27:17: And if Jesus had a sin nature, Jesus didn't have a sin nature, so we don't have a sin nature.
27:22: We have to be just like Jesus was. The argument is going to go backwards from that, but we'll show where the error is when we get to it in a moment.
27:30: But the point is that this whole concept is very much focused upon reasoning from what you conclude about the nature of man upward to the nature of God.
27:45: That's what Provisionism is. That's what Pelagianism is. That's what Synergism is. All of them share that same man centeredness.
27:55: Reformed theology is above all of that because it doesn't share that heartbeat.
28:03: The heartbeat of Reformed theology is who God is, what he's accomplishing in this world, his final glorification, and man's role within that greater scheme of things.
28:18: But man is just one part of the creation. He is not in of himself sufficient to reason from man upward to true conclusions about God's nature and God's purposes.
28:32: So once again, the vast difference between man centeredness and God centeredness in an examination of biblical texts and scriptures and things along those lines.
28:44: And so this is very much the Leighton Flowers provisionist idea.
28:51: If you can argue that man must have an autonomous free will, then the result of that is
29:00: God can't be what Reformed theology presents him as being, and that is the
29:06: God who does all things according to his perfect counsel. So you can get rid of Romans 8 and 9, you can get rid of Ephesians 1, you can get rid of all of,
29:17: Nebuchadnezzar was wrong in Daniel 4. All that stuff can get buried under a huge number of analogies and examples and everything else to try to elevate man's will to a position that it does not have in the text of scripture itself.
29:39: And so there you go. Now, this one I'm going to play for a little while because if I don't, it really won't make much sense.
29:50: So let's listen here. Ephesians 2 .3 is the one we'll go to first.
29:57: Ephesians 2 .3 says, among whom also, this is Paul writing to the church in Ephesus, among whom also we, so Paul's including himself and the church in Ephesus, we all once conducted ourselves in the lust of our flesh.
30:09: He says, the way we lived, we were living after our lust, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature, children of wrath, just like the others.
30:18: And so they say, by nature means, that word nature means your natural order, like the way. Now, I'm going to let him continue on, but I just want to point out that when
30:27: I first heard this, I was like, well, wait a minute. Okay. Yeah. That's true in a sense.
30:35: But didn't you notice what else is being said here?
30:45: Because talk about missing the context. Ephesians 2 .3
30:51: comes after these words. And you were dead in your trespasses and sins in which you formally walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince, the power of the air of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
31:08: So this is being addressed to the Corinthian believers, the ones who have received grace in Christ Jesus, the ones who were chosen before time.
31:18: According to Ephesians chapter one, they get around that doing the class election thing. Well, there's in Christ, but the direct object of the verb is the persons, not
31:27: Jesus. You can't get around. It's that's a facile that would never survive cross -examination.
31:33: Okay. Which is why we normally don't get people to do the cross -examination. So here's this context of Ephesians.
31:40: Among them, we too, all formally lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature, children of wrath, even as the rest.
31:54: So realize what the context is. I'll let him finish the point, but realize what the context is.
32:00: We're born, right? It can mean that the Greek word sarks, flesh.
32:07: I think that's what by nature. I think so. Actually, I could be wrong. Can you look up the Greek word there? Yeah. Sarks means flesh.
32:13: I don't know that that is. No, it's fucis. Nevermind. You don't have to look it up. It's fucis. Fucis is the word.
32:19: Now, sometimes that can mean natural order of birth, but also sometimes it can mean the regular established order of things, which is a
32:26: Greek lexicon that talks about that. So basically it would mean the way you've been living. Like I said,
32:31: Joe is just he's a drunk. That's his nature. I don't mean Joe was born a drunk. I mean that Joe through the course of his actions, the things he chose to do, he became a regular habitual drunk.
32:41: Right. And I would say that you have to use that definition in certain contexts, because if you get a
32:46: Romans 2 14, it says for when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having a law, are a lot of themselves.
32:56: So by nature, Gentiles follow God. Right. Well, I mean, does that mean that from the time they're born, they automatically born, they automatically follow
33:04: God. I mean, if you're going to be consistent with your definitions, you have to say that basically they make a choice.
33:11: Gentiles who don't have the law, Moses can choose to do the things in the law. Right. But if you're going to say that word, nature always means birth, then
33:17: Romans 2 14 disproves total depravity right off the bat. Well, not even close.
33:22: This is, this is eisegesis. And it's always good to explain why it's it is eisegesis rather than exegesis.
33:30: Exegesis drawing the meaning out of the text, eisegesis reading it in. And the Romans 2 citation is in the context of Paul explaining the guilt of the
33:43: Jews who possess the law, but they break the law.
33:49: So they, they possess the written word and yet they still sin.
33:56: And they do things that the Gentiles don't. And so when he says by nature, look, there are certain things that God's law says.
34:05: We, we recognize that an unregenerate men can recognize that we have to have order in society or society will fall apart.
34:15: Look at what's happening to us now. We're missing that very reality, but there have been many times in history when mankind, including unbelievers, have recognized that we can't have people running around killing other people and have any type of society.
34:32: And so God's law says you shall not kill. And the vast majority of human beings have gone through their lives without killing.
34:42: Now, Jesus was, would argue right in the sense of not having pulled a trigger on somebody, but many of us have committed murder in our hearts.
34:53: So he zeroed in on the, on the, on the real issue. But the point is that the
34:59: Gentiles are not doing what is good for pure and holy reasons.
35:04: They're doing what the law says because the law is actually good for us. The law protects private property.
35:11: And so we don't even, even heathen nations have rules against theft and everything like that.
35:18: He's not arguing that the unregenerate person can do what is pleasing before God, but that by nature, by the natural order of things, we know that we should not go around murdering our neighbors.
35:34: And that is a part of God's revelation within the conscience. And so actually the statement that Paul makes in Ephesians 2 is by nature, we were children of wrath, even as the rest.
35:49: And there, you need to understand their argument is we are not children of wrath by nature, which means fundamentally that when you think about Ephesians 2,
35:59: Paul is saying to all the Ephesian believers that that's where they were. Why all, Paul?
36:04: Aren't you leaving open the possibility that there would be those since they don't have a sin nature, since they are not,
36:11: Adam is not their federal head. There is no such thing as total depravity. There's no such thing as original sin in the sense of this fallen nature that is communicated to us from our relationship to Adam.
36:25: So since none of that is true, how do you know there weren't Ephesian believers who hadn't committed sin? That has to be a possibility, isn't it?
36:35: If it's not a possibility, why isn't it a possibility? Those would be some of the questions that we would ask.
36:42: But it is very plain that in Ephesians 2, that is exactly what
36:47: Paul's point is. Among them, we too, all, not most of us, all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh.
36:56: To be freed from the power of the lusts of our flesh is a work of grace. It is a powerful work of the spirit of God.
37:03: You can't free yourself from that by yourself. And you can't free yourself until your heart is changed to desire the things that are not the lusts of the flesh.
37:14: Indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature children of wrath.
37:21: See, what they want to say is no, we were by choice children of wrath. Well, both are true. But the nature is what results in the choice.
37:33: They have to cut that in half and say, no, not by nature, but solely by choice.
37:39: And we do choose. They want to try to say, you're saying that you never chose.
37:45: No, that's why all their analogies they use, they're going to use this horrible and even worse than Norman Geisler's analogies.
37:51: If you can do that, but they're using these analogies about children being chained to poles and they want to run to their father, but God doesn't allow them.
38:03: Totally missing the point, totally and completely missing. Notice indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind.
38:09: We are active, not only in our suppression of the knowledge of God, Romans chapter one, katakantom, pressing down, holding down the knowledge of God.
38:18: That's something that we do. We do it in many different ways. That's something that we do, but indulging the lusts of our flesh.
38:25: These are actions that we undertake. These are things that we want to do. These are not innocent people sitting around going, oh,
38:33: I don't want to indulge the lust of the flesh, but big mean Calvin God is making me do it.
38:39: That's that's what they want to try to present. It has nothing to do with what we actually believe, but that's that's what's being presented.
38:48: And the whole point of Radio Free Geneva is to expose that kind of that kind of error.
38:55: So let's press forward here if I can find the need to get a bigger mouse.
39:01: Choose that. Yeah, I mean, Tucker, you're an Ecclesiastes guy. You know, there's a passage in Ecclesiastes that talks about God making man what?
39:13: 729? Ecclesiastes 729? Oh, yeah, down here. God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.
39:21: Yeah, God made man upright. And that word man, I believe, I believe. I didn't check this like today. I believe it's plural.
39:26: So it's not saying God made Adam upright, and they've sought out many schemes. God made all of mankind upright, but they've sought out many schemes.
39:33: OK, he's an error again. Adam is singular there, but the verb is plural.
39:40: So what is being said is God made man upright, but they have sought out devices.
39:47: They have sought out ways of perverting that. So that's what the Bible teaches. God made man upright in Adam, but they have sought out many devices and sought out many ways of expressing their rebellion against God.
40:01: And so you can try to get around it by saying, well, even other translations say men or mankind.
40:08: Yeah, it is talking about mankind, but it's not saying that each individual person is a new
40:14: Adam. Adam was upright, humanity in him.
40:20: But this whole issue of federal representation, federal headship, has to be addressed. That's what we got to get to.
40:27: And hopefully we'll hear fairly quickly, because that's what's missing in the theology of these gentlemen.
40:36: Talk about that. My thing, the Bible says if you die with sin, you what? You're going to hell. You're going to hell. That's why
40:41: Jesus had to die. If you can be saved without sins being forgiven, why did Jesus have to die? The blood of Christ washes away sins.
40:47: Now, I have always gone back to 2 Samuel 12, because 2 Samuel 12 is where David has a boy who dies.
40:55: I think he's seven days old. And after the child dies, David says this, while the child was alive,
41:00: I fasted and wept. This is 2 Samuel 12, 22. And I said, who can tell whether the
41:05: Lord will be gracious to me that the child may live? But now he is dead. The child had died. Why should I fast?
41:11: Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. David knew where his seven day old child was.
41:18: He knew he was in paradise. You know, he was on his way to heaven. I mean, so. Okay, so not going to spend a whole lot of time on this.
41:26: We've extensively discussed the issue of infant mortality. Once again, if you are attempting to address soteriology by going to not only emotional, but texts that are extremely obscure rather than to the direct texts where God gives you entire chapters on his sovereignty and his will and his predestination and stuff like that, you know, like Ephesians 1, we're not sure about, but we can go over here to 2
41:57: Samuel 12. And then miss the whole point of what David's saying. David is not saying that his son is on his way to heaven.
42:08: David is saying that I will go to him. This is standard Old Testament language of going to Sheol, going to the place of the dead.
42:16: He's saying my son has died. There's no more reason to be beseeching the Lord for this.
42:21: And I will go to where he is. I'm going to die too. That's all he's saying. Trying to expand that out and to see there's the foundation.
42:29: This shows how little there is in scripture to go on with these things. That's why any type of doctrine of discussion of infant mortality, the purposes of God and everything else has to be based on overarching conclusions you've made about the character of God and his purposes in this world.
42:46: Not texts like this, because using texts like this is abusing texts like this.
42:51: That's not what they're referring to. That's not what they're talking about. In regards to, I mean, obviously this gentleman feels that this is an extremely strong argument, mainly because it's purely emotional.
43:05: It has nothing to do with any text where you're talking about what God's actual purposes are.
43:12: It's interesting that when God addresses these things, he gives us his priorities.
43:18: For example, in Romans chapter nine, the making known of his power. When we have a man -centered idea, we decide that the best way to deal with this is to talk about dead babies.
43:31: Tells you everything you need to know about difference between man -centeredness and God -centeredness in regards to the doctrine of salvation.
43:41: I do think this is building up to what you're about to go to. It's like, if babies are born with sin, what about Jesus when he was a baby?
43:48: Bingo. That to me is the one that I have never had answered well, because, okay, they teach, this idea teaches, when you're born, you are given a sin nature.
43:59: R .C. Sproul, James White, MacArthur, they all would say, they would say you have free will, but they would say, but that free will is in the confines of I think
44:08: MacArthur or Sproul says in a prison. Like you can only make decisions inside that depraved will. So you -
44:13: Well, allow me to, since my name was used, the only meaningful utilization of the phrase free will is that we do what we desire to do.
44:25: And our desires are determined by our nature. And as Ephesians 2 said, we're children of wrath.
44:33: We are rebels against God. We are at enmity with God. We do not submit ourselves to the law of God, neither are we able to do so.
44:42: And those who are according to flesh cannot please God. Direct, contextual, on the topic statement of scripture.
44:52: And so if you understand that, then you understand that mankind, there are many times when
45:02: God interferes with our free will. He limits our rebellion and our sin. He keeps us from sinning against him to accomplish his purposes.
45:13: He kept the Jews from stoning Jesus. Because it wasn't yet his time.
45:20: Oh, that's just in Jesus' life. Actually, it happens all through time. Think about all of the people.
45:27: Think about the prophecies concerning how the Messiah was to come. How many times were there
45:34: Roman soldiers just in the decades before Joseph and Mary who might have killed
45:41: Joseph or might've killed Mary, but they were kept from doing so because God's accomplishing his purpose.
45:47: There is a divine decree that's being fulfilled. There needed to be a Judas. Judas needed to do things in a certain way, at a certain time, in a certain place.
45:56: Because God's sovereignty determined that this is how it would take place. So man acts according to the desires of his will, of his nature.
46:05: I'm sorry, according to the desires of his nature. It's fallen nature. Children of wrath, Ephesians 2, which you actually cited, which is important.
46:14: And so, yeah. Make a decision, but it can never be good to follow God. It'll always be sinful. So what they say is, when we were born, we were depraved.
46:22: The only things we could do is choose not God, choose sin, right? So basically, that will made me sin.
46:29: Looks like it froze up there. So let me click on the next one. And it pretty much goes to the next verse anyways.
46:36: So I'll keep that in mind. In all points like as we are. Okay, where is that?
46:44: Hebrews 4 .15. Hebrews 4 .15 says that Jesus was what? In all points, tempted like we are, yet never sin.
46:54: Right? How could it be like us if he was like us and we did have a sin nature from birth?
47:01: Bingo. That would mean he would have a sin nature. That's right. If Jesus had a sin nature, and a sin nature makes you sin, then what should
47:07: Jesus have done? Yeah, if you've never been put in a position where you can't choose anything but evil.
47:14: Every choice you make is going to be the wrong choice. There's no word on what you can say. So connect it with Jesus.
47:19: Yeah, there's no word on what you can say. Well, Jesus was tempted in all points like as you are. So didn't face that.
47:24: So what they're saying, what there's true. Yeah. So let's connect the dots. Anyone that's born that has a sin nature has to sin.
47:31: That's what makes you sin. You don't have a choice but to choose sin. But Hebrews 4 .15 says Jesus was tempted in all points like we are yet never sin.
47:38: If he was tempted like I was, he has to have a sin nature. Or else if someone says he doesn't have a sin nature, which is what they say, then he wasn't tempted like I am.
47:44: If my sin nature makes me sin, then Jesus either had one or Hebrews 4 .15 is wrong. Yeah, and obviously
47:50: Hebrews 4 .15 is not wrong. That's right, Hebrews 4 .15 is not wrong, but it's painful to listen to you torture scripture in the way that you're torturing it.
48:00: Notice what would have to be true if this argumentation held. We would all have to be new
48:06: Adams. We would all have to be Adam without any fallen nature.
48:14: And that's what these guys are saying. This is full on, you're listening to full on Pelagianism. And that's how you end up with the perversion of grace that you get from this perspective.
48:26: So the problem is the assertion that Hebrews 4 .15 is saying what they're saying.
48:32: They're trying to say that, well, if Jesus is tempted in all ways as we are, then of necessity, the result of that must be that we don't have a sin nature.
48:48: Let's note very briefly anyways, therefore, since we have a great high priest, verse 14, who has passed through the heavens,
48:56: Jesus, the son of God, let us hold fast our confession for we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses.
49:06: So he is able to sympathize. It's actually a transliteration. It's sympathy in Greek.
49:13: So that's where we get sympathize, is able to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who is tempted, in all things as we are yet without sin.
49:32: Now their interpretation is in every single way. Is that what is demanded by the text?
49:38: In no way. And it's very easy to demonstrate how this is a complete misreading of the text.
49:46: I mean, we know the author of Hebrews has already said right there without sin. So he's already accepting
49:52: Jesus in that way. But how many times, all
49:58: I got to do is give one counterexample and this position collapses. One way in which
50:04: Jesus is unique because I'm saying in the ways that we are tempted, not in every single way that we are tempted,
50:12: Jesus was never tempted to watch online porn. Duh, right?
50:19: There's all sorts of modern temptations that Jesus never, he didn't, didn't have one of these.
50:26: No, didn't have one of these. I didn't have any of these screens over here. Was never tempted to road rage.
50:35: None of that stuff. But leave the modern element aside. This is an easy one.
50:41: How many times do we sin because we have already committed that sin in the past?
50:50: How could Jesus ever be tempted to repeat a sin?
50:57: And yet how often is that our greatest adversary? The point of Hebrews 4 is not to say that Jesus experienced every temptation that we experienced, but that since he has been made like his brethren, he has truly entered into human existence.
51:21: Not as a new Adam. He is the second Adam. Notice there's only a first Adam, a second
51:27: Adam. These guys have got billions of Adams. They don't have a first and second. They've got billions.
51:35: Biblically, there's first Adam and there's a second Adam. And you're going to be in one of the two.
51:41: That's what we're going to see in Ephesians, Romans chapter five. The point in Hebrews is he is made like us.
51:48: He has truly entered into human existence. Not so that he has experienced sin or experienced every temptation there is to be experienced, but that he is truly the
52:04: God man. And as such lived a faithful life in obedience to his father.
52:12: But he was never tempted to commit a second sin.
52:18: He was never tempted on the basis of how the first sin went.
52:25: It's not possible. So all it takes is one example. And that interpretation has to be set aside, which is why we should and why most people do set aside that misinterpretation of what's being said in Ephesians four.
52:40: And the conclusion has nothing to do with the natures of man or anything like that. The conclusion of verse 16 is, therefore, let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
52:54: He is the one in control of that throne. He is the one who stands before the father. He is our representative.
53:00: And he represents us perfectly because he was the God man. That's the point. The point is about Jesus.
53:06: It's not a to turn this into some type of an argument about sin natures or anything else when that's not what is being discussed is one of the real problems that we have going on here.
53:23: I think I'm going to skip that one because I already did just talk about that. And I can't believe that we're almost at an hour already.
53:29: And I should have known that. Let's skip over to this one so we can try to get as much done as we can.
53:36: I choose to say, obviously, inherit from. Yeah, go to Romans five, because we need to cover this passage. So somebody will say, well, why did
53:43: Adam sin while he had free will? Well, did he have a signature? No, he just chose to sin. So Adam had free will.
53:49: He was tempted. He chose to sin. And that sin was basically brought spiritual death to him.
53:55: Why can't I be the exact same way? That's what Romans 512 actually says. Romans 512 through 19 is a section we won't have time to go all the way through.
54:02: Now, I hope you caught that. Why can't I do the same? They're literally presenting the idea that each one of us is a new
54:10: Adam. That is exactly the essence of Pelagianism.
54:16: That's what it's all about, is we are each a new Adam. But Romans chapter five, verse 12.
54:22: Therefore, just as, pay attention to the as, just as through one man sin entered the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, how?
54:31: How? Why did death spread to all men? What's the last part of that verse say? Because all sinned. Because all sinned.
54:37: Just as Adam chose to sin and he had spiritual death. Now, physical death was introduced to the world through that too, but it's about spiritual death.
54:44: Just as through one man sin entered the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because what?
54:51: All sinned. Whenever I sin, I am in a state of spiritual death, right?
54:57: We're not going to have time to go through every single one of these, but look at verse 15. All right.
55:03: For the free gift is not like the offense. If by one man's offense, offense, whatever, many died.
55:09: So he says, if by Adam's sin that many died, right? How? Well, because they sinned.
55:15: But Calvinism says automatically. Adam sinned. He's our federal head. Automatically, everybody else died spiritually, right?
55:20: Listen to the next parts of the verse. Much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of one man,
55:26: Jesus Christ abounded to many. Sometimes the language is hard to understand what he's saying, but what he's saying is
55:32: Calvinism teaches that Adam sinned, and so death automatically spread to everybody. If that's your logic, then whenever Christ basically saved people, what should have automatically happened to everybody?
55:43: Saved. Saved. If you're consistent in your logic, which they're not. But if you say, okay, Adam sinned, death came in the world, and everybody who sinned became lost.
55:52: Then Christ comes in the world. Christ makes it available to save people, and everybody who does what? Goes to him for salvation, makes that choice.
55:59: Like you made a choice to sin, you make a choice to follow him, then you'll be saved. That's what the New Testament teaches. Romans 5, 12 through 19 is not teaching inherited sin.
56:11: Okay, we have done entire programs on Romans 5, and in fact, if I recall correctly, at some point, someone,
56:19: I think, excised that particular portion, and I've linked to it in the past, or something along those lines, as I recall.
56:27: And it does take some time to run through it, and we are running short, but you'll notice that he hopped, skipped, jumped all through it.
56:34: And there's a reason for that. There is a bunch of stuff there, it just doesn't simply fit in what he's saying, especially that last conclusion.
56:43: But let's at least point some of the basics out here. Verse 15, But the free gift is not like the transgression.
56:53: For if by the transgression of the one, the many died, why would that be?
57:02: Well, they say, well, because they sinned, but that's not what Paul's saying. He's saying, if by the transgression of the one, the many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift of the grace of the one man
57:12: Jesus Christ abound to the many. See, what they don't seem to understand is unless you see two humanities here, unless you see the humanity in Adam, and the humanity in Christ, first Adam, second
57:25: Adam. If you don't see that, none of this is gonna make any sense. And the only conclusion you could come to is universalism, which they don't believe.
57:35: Because notice it's by the transgression of the one, the many died.
57:41: They're saying, oh, no, no, it's because they sinned, but that's not what he says. Oh, Augustine messed all that.
57:46: But Augustine understood this. If by the transgression of the one, the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, the second
57:59: Adam, Jesus Christ abound to the many. The many who?
58:05: In him. You're either in Adam or in him. The only way you can read
58:10: Romans chapter five and not end up as a universalist, if you recognize the two humanities.
58:18: The gift is not like that, which came through the one who sinned. The one who sinned. One, one, not the many, one.
58:26: The gift is not like that, which came through the one who sinned. For on the one hand, the judgment arose from one transgression.
58:35: See why I skipped this part. One transgression resulting in condemnation.
58:41: But on the other hand, the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
58:49: Many transgressions? Yes. Laid upon the substitute. All who are in him, their sins are laid upon him.
58:55: This is actually an implicit argument for particular redemption, but we don't have time to get into that right now. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one,
59:08: Adam, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, those who were in Christ, will reign in life through the one
59:20: Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression, there resulted condemnation to all men.
59:27: One transgression, Adam, condemnation, all men, original sin, no way around it.
59:33: Even so through one act of righteousness, the cross, there resulted justification of life to all men.
59:41: So either you see the two humanities and you recognize that the all men in Christ and the all men is
59:47: Adam, in Adam, or you are a universalist, there is no other way. There is no other way.
59:53: That's why he had to go, well, let's look at this. Oh, then look at that. You can't walk through it.
59:58: You can't follow it through because it's teaching one transgression in Adam.
01:00:05: And if you're in Adam, all you can get from Adam is condemnation. One righteous act of Christ, what you get from Christ is justification.
01:00:14: And it's interesting. They have such a hard time with this idea of federal headship.
01:00:20: That's just not fair. You're right. And that's why it's not fair that anyone receives the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
01:00:31: I didn't live a perfect life. I didn't die in obedience to the law upon the cross, but I receive all the benefits.
01:00:40: Funny how we'll accept that. But on the other hand, when God deals with us in our federal head,
01:00:46: Adam, oh, that's not fair. We're not talking about fair. We're talking about mercy and grace. You want mercy and grace.
01:00:53: You don't want categories of fair. That's, yeah, no. Okay. I think
01:01:03: I can probably do this in 15. Hopefully we'll try to. I just don't want to come back to it.
01:01:08: So let's try to. I'm going to say something at the end.
01:01:14: I don't mean this mean. I know we're over time, but I want to say it. I really think that the devil loves this doctrine.
01:01:21: And I don't mean that in a mean way to somebody, maybe that's watching this. But think about this.
01:01:27: If you're the devil and you're the one to introduce sin into the world. Yeah, of course, God's omniscient. God knew it was going to happen and God had a plan to save people from it.
01:01:34: There's probably a reason that God's going to explain to us one day and we go, oh, wow, I didn't think of that. It's funny, the scriptures give us those answers in his electing plan.
01:01:46: They're laid out for us, but we don't want to believe them. The answers are even given to us and they direct us to the glory of God in Christ, the triune
01:01:57: God bringing about salvation perfectly, a perfect Savior who saves his people perfectly.
01:02:03: But the devil loves this doctrine and that's, I understand these men really don't understand what they're talking about, but still words
01:02:15: I wouldn't want to have to be responsible for. I just, I don't buy it. The Bible says God's not a respecter of persons, right?
01:02:21: Right. And yet Calvinism teaches that. Okay, now, if you give an analogy, you have to refute the analogy, but God's not a respecter of persons and yet what they're teaching is that he is.
01:02:33: Because see, if you believe in unconditional election, God does not elect based upon what you've done. He is not a respecter of persons, but in your position, he saves you based upon who of you is better.
01:02:44: Isn't it better for you to submit to God, to repent, to be baptized? Isn't that what a better person would do?
01:02:51: So he's respecting persons. They actually, it's amazing how many people reverse that and they just heard it so many times.
01:02:57: They don't realize, yeah, I'm the one that's saying that God actually saves based upon respecting persons and what they've done because it's in the man.
01:03:05: It's not in his sovereign will. We're the ones that are saying, has nothing to do with me.
01:03:12: Wasn't anything, nothing to me that drew his grace or mercy.
01:03:18: So it's interesting that they would miss that. If I'm going to make an analogy, let's say you have a parent. All four kids have done the same thing and the parent chains two of them to a pole.
01:03:28: The other two are chained. They're all four chained. They can't come and he says, come over here and give me a hug.
01:03:34: I'll punish you eternally. And all four children say, we can't come. We're chained to the pole and the parent goes over and clips two of the chains.
01:03:41: Now, two of those people can come get their hug, right? And the other two say, we want to come, but we can't.
01:03:47: I mean, Calvinist won't like an analogy, I think because it's emotional, but I think it's what scripture backs up.
01:03:54: That's horrific. That is just, like I said, I didn't think anybody could come up with a worse, more inaccurate analogy than Norman Geisler did.
01:04:04: But they just did. I remember Norman Geisler's, I spent a bunch of time on this in Potter's Freedom 20 years ago.
01:04:11: Well, yeah, over 20 years ago now. His analogy was a swimming hole. Remember where there's these boys and the farmer tells them, don't go swimming, the swimming hole.
01:04:21: It's dangerous. And they go swimming, the swimming hole. And they're drowning out in the middle of swimming hole. And the farmer comes along and he only throws a rope to certain of the boys and saves them.
01:04:33: But the rest of them, he leaves to drown. That was his analogy that he tried to make. And of course, this is just meant to be hyper emotional and even worse.
01:04:42: But all of it is meant to present God in this horrific light. And of course, to make light of sin, because these are just little kids that did something wrong and come get a hug from daddy or you're going to be punished eternally.
01:04:55: So it's just absurd categories, not even close to being honest or fair. And remember what
01:05:02: I gave is the counter analogy that if you actually let scripture speak and recognize that God has created man in his image, that man suppresses that knowledge, that man exchanges the truth of God for a lie, that man is a rebel against his creator.
01:05:20: He takes all of God's goods, gifts, and refuses to honor God as a result and seeks to trash
01:05:27: God's creation. The analogy I gave was of rebels against the king and they have taken over the king's castle and they are ransacking the castle.
01:05:43: They are destroying everything in it and they're burning it down on top of themselves. And the son of the king enters into the castle and gives his life to save certain of these rebel sinners.
01:06:04: He doesn't have to, he would be absolutely just, just nuke the whole place or let the whole thing burn in on top of them.
01:06:10: But instead the son takes on their nature and enters into that burning castle and saves these rebels by changing their hearts.
01:06:22: They have hearts of stone and he changes their hearts of stone into hearts of flesh and changes them from being
01:06:28: God haters to God lovers. That's the difference. These people don't believe that men are God haters. They're just, you know, you just need to give them a little more of an argument, you know, and love them a little bit more to Jesus.
01:06:45: That's not what the Bible teaches. And that kind of analogy isn't even close to what the scripture teaches.
01:06:51: That's why one fellow did what somebody did about Romans chapter three, because if you take
01:06:57: Romans chapter three seriously, then total depravity is obvious. It's clear.
01:07:04: And that's why they had to do what they had to do with it. I had to get to this.
01:07:12: All right, Rich, let's see if you're still awake. Let's see if you catch this one. Okay, a little test for, for everybody in the audience that you may be saved.
01:07:19: Matthew 23, 37, maybe Jesus says, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how long
01:07:24: I've wanted to gather you together like a mother hen gathers her chicks. But you were totally, no, he didn't say you're totally, he says you weren't willing.
01:07:32: I mean, y 'all catch it. Y 'all get it. I hope everybody in the audience has been listening to Radio Free Geneva.
01:07:41: I forget the first time that I pointed this out, but I even,
01:07:46: I even gave an example where R .C. Sproul misquoted it. So this is, I doubt, one of the most misquoted verses in all the
01:07:54: Bible and certainly synergists who are trying to find some way out of their unbiblical teaching.
01:08:02: This is where they do it, but he did it. As soon as I heard him, I started listening and went, there it is again.
01:08:10: How many dozens of times now have we documented Dave Hunt and George Bryson and all these people?
01:08:18: And now these guys misquoting Matthew 23, 37, totally changed the meaning of the verse. It's because their tradition has interpreted the verse for them.
01:08:27: They haven't, they haven't actually worked through the text. They've read the text.
01:08:32: They have their tradition. And this is why, this is why traditions are dangerous because I'm sure they think
01:08:38: Matthew 23, 37 teaches what they think. And if you've read The Potter's Freedom, you know, it was one of the big three.
01:08:45: Matthew 23, 37, 2 Peter, 2 Peter 3, 9 and 1 Timothy 4, 2 was where the big three that Norm Geisler quoted over and over and over and over and over and over again and never understood what it was saying.
01:09:00: Does not say you were not willing that God was trying to gather them. God was gathering their children and they, the rulers were not willing that God would gather someone else, which was their children.
01:09:17: This is a judgment oracle. All of Matthew chapter 23 is on the
01:09:23: Jewish leaders. So notice he didn't say that. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophet stones, those were sent to her.
01:09:30: How often I want to gather your children together. Not you. He said, you gather your children together the way a hen gathers chicks under wings.
01:09:39: But you were unwilling, unwilling for God to gather those over whom they had been placed.
01:09:45: They were standing in the way of the prophets. And now Jesus speaking to the people of the land.
01:09:52: It's a judgment oracle. That's going to end up resulting in AD 70.
01:10:01: So it's just amazing how often you hear people, they have their traditions and their traditions determine what they see and hear in the text, even what they remember it saying.
01:10:12: And it ends up changing the entire meaning because it would have to say how often I wanted to gather you, but you were unwilling.
01:10:20: That's not what it says. That's not what it says. You can't turn it into something that it does not actually say.
01:10:31: There was a quick ducking of John chapter six. It wasn't long enough. He did the John 12, 32.
01:10:37: Let's jump out of John six, grab this over here, bring it back. Pure eisegesis, again, all tradition would fall apart in any meaningful debate because you can't make a connection between two and you're missing the context of both texts.
01:10:49: And dealt with that many, many times before. Let me just get to one other, just one other quick thing here because this one right here,
01:11:00: I find this will connect us into something else we've talked about. So one last one, like multiple times in the last couple of weeks.
01:11:07: But what I'm saying is like, I care about your soul. I think you're caught up in something that's false that didn't exist for 1500 years till John Calvin came along and wrote institutes.
01:11:15: And you can get some things you see from Augustine. But I just think that you're following something that's not biblical, not manmade. He meant to say something that's manmade.
01:11:26: So he said it didn't exist until Calvin wrote the institutes.
01:11:33: And he got some stuff from Augustine, right? I suppose if he had offered, you know, an actually meaningful exegetical interpretation of Romans 8 and 9 and John 6 and John 10 and John 17 and Ephesians 1 and so many other texts that at least you would be able to give it some thought.
01:11:59: But let's think, Augustine's writing his anti -Pelagian works in the first portion of the fifth century for 10 onward, 20 to his death.
01:12:21: Clement, and we don't know that was his name, but the church at Rome sent an epistle to the church at Corinth somewhere either at the end of the first century or the very beginning of the second.
01:12:35: Could be as early as before 80, 70 or as late as 110, 120.
01:12:42: So you're talking a solid three centuries before Augustine, right?
01:12:50: And if you have read much of this epistle, then you know that one of the epistles favorite words is the word the elect, the elect.
01:13:07: Let me read just one portion of this that we've gone over these in March, April of 2020.
01:13:17: We went through a fair amount of Clement at that point to demonstrate his soteriology.
01:13:25: Day and night, you were anxious for the whole brotherhood that the number of God's elect might be saved with mercy and a good conscience.
01:13:38: The number of God's elect might be saved with mercy and a good conscience.
01:13:46: I like pointing out these little facts because folks get real accustomed to just throwing stuff out without actually doing much reading in the original sources.
01:14:01: And so it becomes fairly easy when you literally say that Calvin made all this stuff up, you're just demonstrating you don't know anything about church history at all.
01:14:12: You have done no first level reading, zero, none. It's embarrassing, but there you go.
01:14:23: So this kind of rhetoric amongst the
01:14:29: Church of Christ folks is just constant. These guys are on the top level of that.
01:14:36: They really are. I've heard significantly less controlled.
01:14:42: I appreciated the fact that they weren't. Let's just say I've heard some Church of Christ guys that if these guys are using a hammer and nail they would use a flamethrower.
01:14:53: So I did appreciate that. And if they'd like to do something like John 6 or Ephesians 1, something along those lines, straight up debate, equal time based on the original languages.
01:15:14: Great. I think they, I get the feeling these guys, and I'm saying this as a compliment, these guys would be, we could work with them and they would stick with the timeframes and you'd have a meaningful exchange.
01:15:33: Despite how strongly I've had to deal with a lot of just basic errors and misrepresentations and just factual stuff,
01:15:40: I think they could do that. There's a lot of other people I've encountered. No, that would never happen.
01:15:47: You'd be, and one of the problems I think today with doing things electronically is that you have to have some level of trust that the other side isn't going to really wildly misbehave because if you're not in the same room together, there's not quite as much control
01:16:03: I think as you might have in other situations. So anyways, okay. I skipped over a few that I had in the thing there, but got to most of them even though I was talking fast and even made them talk fast just a little bit.
01:16:15: So appreciate you're listening to the Radio Free Geneva today. My plan is to have a regular program tomorrow because there are developments taking place all the time in our world and we need to talk about them, be prepared for them.
01:16:31: So we're going to try to get back. And besides that, next week we start traveling again.
01:16:39: And so you've got that kind of thing. So anyways, thanks for listening to the program today. We'll see you next time.