Calvinism vs Arminianism Day 1

Today, this show, tomorrow's show, for a good number of weeks now. Delighted to welcome you to the Line of Fire. Michael Brown, thanks for being with us in a moment. I'll be introducing our special guest who will be joining me today and tomorrow, Dr. James White, as we discuss, dialogue, debate the issue of Calvinism.

I won't be taking calls today. We'll be taking calls for Dr. White tomorrow. If you do want to contact me, you want to sound off on something, give us a call. This will be off the air, though, 888 -378-FIRE.

You can leave a voicemail. Maybe we'll play it on the air tomorrow, 888 -378 -3473, or you can email me during the program at drbrown, that's D-R-Brown, at askdrbrown. Over the months that we've been on the air, the years, recent years, we get tons of emails on many, many different questions.

A lot of people have Sabbath, law, Jewish-related questions. The question that would come up probably next to those is Calvinism. What do I believe about Calvinism from both sides, people emailing. And I said, you know, I need to do a show with that, and the man that came to mind is the perfect one to do it with is Dr. James White.

He moderated a debate I did in Phoenix in 1995 with an Orthodox Jewish rabbi. That's when I learned of him and his apologetics work. I have the utmost respect for him, his debates with Mormons, with Roman Catholics, with agnostics, with atheists, his sober writing about King James only issues and other things like that.

Calvinism, we have differences. So we're going to discuss these for the good of the body today. But whatever we get into today and tomorrow, the goal is not to win a debate. The goal is to do our best to present the issues clearly, bring them into sharp focus.

Dr. White and I fully agree that the sole basis for our discussion has to be the testimony of Scripture as carefully exegeted. And God willing, after these shows, we'll schedule time to be on his show where we can get more time to get into the issues, to get into the relevant Scriptures on his web broadcast, and then hopefully we can do like a full-blown, multi-hour, face-to-face debate one of these days.

James is joining us today. Well, it's great to be with you. You know, I'm not sure how to look at this. Someone told me that this show was meant to be, but then I thought that you chose to come on, so we'll have to work through these issues together.

It was both. Both. So tell me just the range of debates that you've had over the years as you stand up as an apologist for the faith. Well, it really started with Mormonism. That was my real focus at the beginning.

That expanded out fairly quickly to other areas. But as far as actual moderated public debates, we've done about 90 so far, and we really started with challenges on Roman Catholicism, some of the leading Roman Catholic apologists like Jerry Matitick, some folks at Catholic Answers, Father Mitchell Pacwa, and I have done five debates together that are, I think, some of the best in that particular area because he's a very respectful guy.

But that's expanded out a lot. I don't think you've quite you haven't had your Ehrman debate yet, have you? No, that's April 15th at Ohio State University. Okay, yeah, I debated Bart Ehrman on the reliability of Scripture last January.

John Dominick Crossan, Marcus Borg, of course, Crossan being one of the co-founders of the Jesus Seminar. John Shelby Spong on the subject of homosexuality. If you haven't seen that one, you would enjoy it.

I watched that one, actually. It was amazing. Amazing for not being a debate. I mean, the man has never heard of the concept of cross-examination before. But that was fascinating. And, of course, Barry Lynn of Americans Without a Separation Church and State.

I would imagine you would know that he tried to sue us to suppress the tapes of that particular debate because freedom of speech is only for those on the left. And recently, starting in 2006, really, I've really been focusing on the subject of Islam.

I've debated Shabir Ali four times so far, Zulfiqar Ali Shah. I'll be going to London next month to debate Abdullah al-Ansari at Trinity Road Chapel in London. And so Islam has become a real central area of my focus over the past number of years.

Tremendous. And we need to get folks praying for you when you go to London for this debate, and even helping you get there. You know, the interesting thing is normally when I'm debating rabbis or others, we develop a friendship, but we are so on completely other sides of the issue that there's a different approach.

So, I mean, 99 .9 of the time I'm cheering you on and in your corner and saying amen, as I know you are with me, but today we'll have our differences. So in the next four or five minutes, lay out for our listeners as clearly and concisely as you can what the Calvinistic system of belief is and why you feel it's so important that Christians understand this and embrace it.

Well, I really think that when we talk about the issue of Calvinism, we're simply talking about whether we are going to see the gospel as a God-centered thing or a man-centered thing. Is it primarily what God, the triune God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, has chosen to do in the eternity past to bring glory to the triune God?

Or is it primarily something that is focused upon man and what man does? I really do believe that a theocentric reading of the New Testament leads to the conclusions that Reformed theology has drawn down through the centuries, and specifically God's kingly freedom, his freedom to glorify himself in the way that he chooses, his freedom to create the universe as he sees fit, and his sovereign decree, which forms the very fabric of time and the events in time.

And I think this is probably where we're going to have to focus most of our attention today, is we really seek to answer basic questions, many of which are answered, I think, in such texts as the trial of false gods in Isaiah 40 -48, in demonstrating who the true God is over against false gods, that he is the one who knows the beginning from the end, the true God demonstrates that he knows the future intimately, and that he takes responsibility for the events that take place, and he knows why everything happened.

There is a purpose in everything that takes place. And if there is a sovereign decree on the part of God, then we have to answer questions such as, how does this relate to the issue of sin? What is the range of man's creaturely freedom?

He certainly can't have autonomy. You can't have multiple autonomous wills in the universe that are free of each other's influence. But man's creaturely autonomy, how far does that go? What's the nature of that?

And then that leads us, of course, into the specifics of such things as, does that decree include the identity of the elect? What is God's purpose in creating the non-elect? What is his relationship to them?

What is common grace? And what is the nature of man prior to regeneration? What is he capable of doing? What does he do consistently? Can we answer questions like that? And all of it comes down to, and I heard you say this, I listened a number of times to the four programs you did late last year, both the two where you explained your own journey in these matters and then the two where you had people calling in.

I've listened to it multiple times, and you had said many times, you take the position you take because you are forced to it by believing what the scriptures say. You want to believe exactly what God has said and nothing more.

That's exactly why I take the position that I do. And I don't say that for us to say, well, then the Bible just must not be clear enough. I really do think that we need to go to the text of scripture.

And I think that God's means of glorifying himself, the central means by which he glorifies himself, should be something the scriptures are sufficient to actually explain to us and to reveal to us that this is why God has done what he has done.

And as you were saying in the last program I was listening to while riding, even this morning in the pre-dawn hours by a headlamp on my bicycle, you were saying this has really practical ramifications, and it does.

I'm an elder in a Reformed Baptist church, and the theology that I am forced to by a consistent exegesis of the text of scripture has greatly impacted, for example, my working as a hospital chaplain a number of years ago.

One of my most popular books, my second most popular book is a book on grieving and encountering death and dealing with death. And so it does have a tremendous impact on the worship of the church, missions, all sorts of things like that.

So these are important issues, but as you were saying, I have fond memories of sitting in a room at Aristotelian University, and I remember to this day scribbling on a notepad while your opponent was speaking, and I can still see the big letters I wrote it in, The Pharisees Live.

It was an incredible thing, and I've appreciated the work that you did in that area. I loved listening to you on the unbelievable radio program with Justin Brierley, and that was Rabbi Shmuley Botiak, wasn't it?

Yes, my friend Shmuley. Yeah, and I'm going to be on Unbelievable in just a couple weeks, twice in one day. They're in London, and so our paths have only crossed at one time, but they've actually crossed in many other ways, too.

All right, hey, we're up against a break. When we come back, James, I want to ask you a couple of questions for clarification to make sure that we rightly understand your position. Stay with us, friends.

A whole lot more to come on the Line of Fire today. Michael Brown, so glad to be with you with my special guest, apologist, theologian, author, Dr. James White. As we discuss and debate the issue of Calvinism today, we'll continue tomorrow, God willing, continue on Dr. White's webcast as well, a web show so that we can further discuss these issues.

You can email me at drbrown at askdrbrown .org, or you can go to the Line of Fire blog. We have it up ready. So askdrbrown .org. If you want to click on the Line of Fire, you can get into a discussion there about today's show.

And if you want to leave a voicemail, sound off on something that we can play on the broadcast tomorrow, 888 -3785. Okay, James, just to make sure that we're clear on Calvinistic teaching, I just want to ask a few questions because I know that there can be misconceptions on different sides.

Really, any time we have doctrinal issues or controversy, there can be misconceptions. And these would be some of the natural questions that would come up. So I just want to take a few minutes to clarify what you believe Scripture does say, and then probe that a little further, and then we can move on to some of the questions you raised that you want to bring up to me, okay?

Sounds good. All right, does God love all people in a saving way? Not in a saving way. God's love is expressed both in common grace as well as in salvific grace. And obviously, I would not say that God showed the same love to the Amorites that he showed to Moses.

So no, I would not say that God loves all people in a salvific sense, no. All right, so then he does not desire the salvation of all people. Not in the sense that we need to be very careful at this point because there is the truth that God commands all men everywhere to repent.

So in as much as God's prescriptive will, that is his law, commands all men everywhere to repent, you can say that God desires the repentance of all people in the same way that he says, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, et cetera, et cetera.

But we know from numerous instances in Scripture that that prescriptive will is not all that is in play in history. We know from the story of Joseph's brothers, for example, that while God said not to kidnap and not to sell your brother into slavery, he also did that for a purpose, to save many people alive, as we see in Genesis 50.

So when we say desire, then if we're talking about his eternal decree, which he always accomplishes, where God accomplishes anything that he desires to do, Psalm 135, 6, then no, if we're talking about just in a general sense, which is what you and I would have to base our activities on, because we don't know the identity of the elect, then we can proclaim the gospel to any person, because we don't know who the elect are, but God does.

All right. I just want to make a comment and then come back just with a further scriptural question to this. When I look at God's sovereignty, in my view, Calvinism diminishes God's sovereignty rather than exalts it.

And I see it as actually detracting from the glory of God rather than doing things to the glory of God or having a teaching to the glory of God. But, for example, with so many things in scripture, we see God being grieved, God saying, I never intended this, this is not what I desired, this is what I wanted to see happen, and it didn't happen because part of God's plan, the way he set things up, which is what I bow down to, whatever he says, you and I agree, we bow down to, he's God.

As I understand, throughout the Word, and it's really hundreds of scriptures, almost the entire Bible is telling this, that God is displeased with certain things, he makes clear this was not his intent, said if you'd only done this, it would have gone well for you, etc., etc.

People sin, people grieve him, and yet, through that, he accomplishes his will, and ultimately, for eternity, he will have a people that love him and serve him forever and ever to his glory. So his ultimate purposes will be accomplished, but if you can think that God can get the chess match to end a certain way, even though every chess piece has a certain freedom, to me, that's a greater sovereignty.

So that's, of course, how I'd understand Genesis 50, not that God arranged the kidnapping, but that through evil acts of people, God accomplished his will. But just explain again how you would view Ezekiel 33, 11, As I live, declares the Lord, it is not my desire that the wicked shall die, but that the wicked turn from his evil ways.

It is not my desire that the wicked person shall die, rather that he turn back and live. You know, there are many similar verses and expressions. How do you read those, because it seems to me to be the consistent testimony of God's Word, that he has an ardent desire, but he's worked things out with a certain freedom to get end results that he desires.

Well, one of the problems that we have here is, and this is something I sort of tried to raise a little bit in email, is I'm not 100 certain exactly where you come down on the issue. I mean, you specifically said in the programs that you are not in the open theism camp.

So you do affirm that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of all events, and so that then raises the question as to whether some of these objections are not valid against both of us. That is, if God chose to create the universe that he created, at the time of creation he knew exactly what was going to happen, then we either have to believe that he had a purpose in everything happening, or he just simply gave this concept of freedom and sort of rolled the cosmic dice and said, I win at the end, but if he created this particular universe with all the events in it, then the question as to why he does that is a question that really any Christian theist has to answer.

The open theist doesn't have to, because he takes from God the ability to know what free creatures are going to do, so as to maintain man's autonomy. But anybody else who says, no, God knew when he created, who would believe and who would not?

Even if it's by looking down the corridors of time, you still have to deal with the issue of why the corridors of time look the way that they do, and why they cannot change. That is a very, very important issue that may we can, because I asked, you had mentioned something about William William Craig, maybe we can get into whether you hold that Molinistic perspective.

But in regards to those texts, even as we read Genesis 50 just now, I would point out that it doesn't say that God permitted it for good. I understand that your Ph .D. is in Semitic languages, and so you're aware of the fact that in Genesis 50 -20 there's a direct parallel in the original language between God meant this for good, and you meant evil against me.

There's no difference between the terms that are used in the original language or in the Greek Septuagint. So I accept both of those. In other words, I accept that people acted sinfully, not because God designed them to, but because they chose to.

And God chose to accomplish something higher through it. That's his power and wisdom. Not that he had a decree that they did it to get those ends, but in his infinite wisdom, he can orchestrate things to accomplish a certain goal.

We also have, I mean, I know Genesis 50 you often point to in debates and writing. You have so many other examples, though, where it says the other. You know, God says, I intended this, but you did this.

Well, I would need to have specifics, because there is always God's prescriptive will that is expressed in his law, and when we break his prescriptive will, there are certain blessings and curses that, of course, are enunciated for us in the Old Testament.

But the point is that God meant what the brothers did for good to save many people alive. If the brothers had not done what God intended to occur, then the very many people who were saved alive would not be alive to that day.

So, Joseph, there is no other way that God could have gotten Joseph into Egypt. It's impossible that God could have had another way to do it. No, the point is that the way God got Joseph into Egypt is the exact way he had decreed from eternity that it would take place.

Ah, okay. That's what I believe you're reading into the text. But we'll pursue this. We'll stay right on this. It's an important point. Stay with us, folks. We'll be back shortly. I'm joined by my special guest, Dr. James White, as we begin our dialogue and discussion about Calvinism, why Dr. White is a committed Calvinist because of the Word, why I'm a committed non-Calvinist because of the Word, and why we both feel these issues are so important for the Bible.

Again, I won't be taking calls today to have maximum time. The dialogue with Dr. White, we'll probably take some calls tomorrow, but you can email me as others are right now at drbrown, drbrown, at askdrbrown .org.

If you'd like to leave a message to play on the air, 888 -378-FIRE, discussion at askdrbrown .org. Click on the line of FIRE for the blog there. We also have Dr. White's website, AOMIN, as in Alpha Omega, Omega Ministries, AOMIN .org.

I know he could use some support on his way to London, so get behind him as he's going. All right. So this really is an interesting thing for me because of my respect for you and the work that you do.

But because we love the Word and because we love truth and we want to see God glorified, we'll press in front of each other on our beliefs here. So let's, as we're talking about this God decree, everything that happens and, you know, all the issues and author of sin, et cetera, let's, again, I'm trying to right what I'm saying.

Well, careful of that language there, not author of sin. Oh, yeah, I know. This is the stuff that it triggers. I'm not imputing that view to you, okay? Right. But so if we start, you know, I do a lot of study inductively, try to read through the Scriptures on a given subject and see what I can learn as I'm going.

So, you know, early on when we get to Genesis 6, we see that God is grieved over what human beings have done. And, you know, there's a lot to talk about in the Hebrew, what it actually says, but his heart is clearly grieved there, and he decides he has to destroy the earth.

To me it's completely contradictory to say that his heart was grieved over what he had decreed that people would do, and in fact they were only doing the only possible thing they could do because that's what he decreed.

To me, he should be rejoicing over that rather than grieved over it. Well, to me, the question would then be, well, if God did have absolute knowledge of what was going to happen in his creation when he created, then why would he be grieved at all?

Because he knew it was going to happen and he chose that it would happen. He could have not created if it was going to cause that problem. You see, what we're struggling with here is we're talking about God's providence, how he has decreed to interact with his creatures.

You and I are time-bound creatures, and we cannot even begin to really wrap ourselves around God's eternal decrees and how God exists outside of time and all the rest of these things. But one thing that I affirm is that God has chosen to interact with us in his sovereign decree.

That doesn't deny that the decree exists. It seems that we come from the perspective that says, well, if God interacts, if God is grieved in Noah's day, if God brings Assyria against Israel but then punishes Assyria because Assyria does what he decreed they would do but with a haughty spirit.

They went too far. Well, it was the intention of their heart that they're judged upon. That's what they're marked for. Zechariah 1 also says they overdid the punishment for his nation. So they went too far, and there was a wrong attitude.

So as I see that, I don't see that somehow as God being limited and his actions being determined by man's. That is God's decree that he is going to interact with us in that way. It doesn't do away with the fact that God himself says, I will accomplish all of my purpose.

Remember in Isaiah 46. Remember the four? Okay. Go ahead. But just to jump in, okay. He decrees that he'll interact with us according to his purposes, and that's acceptable to you. I say that his purposes are much greater than any one individual event, that his purposes will ultimately be accomplished.

But in the midst of it, there is pain, there is grief, there is hardship, and that's the way he desired to set it up. And throughout the word, I'm not going to read this nonexistent decree that everything that happens is going to go exactly according to his plan because I see hundreds of verses telling me the opposite in terms of specific things that happen, but the ultimate outcome will be according to his plan.

So I might cry with someone because they're going through pain now after surgery, even though I'm quite sure the surgery is necessary and the recovery will be good. I don't see how that's relevant to what I'm saying because God himself says in Isaiah 46 .10, I make known the end from the beginning from ancient times and what is still to come.

I say my purpose will stand and I will do all that I please. And when he puts the false gods on trial in Isaiah 41, he asks them to present their case and notice what he says to them. He not only challenges them to tell the future, which is very common.

That's what a true prophet can do and what the true God can do and false gods can't. But he also says, as for the former events, declare what they were that we may consider them and know their outcome.

Now, a historian can tell you what happened in the past. But as you know, a historian can often not tell you why it happened. God challenges them to say why. That means there is a purpose. And so when I'm at the deathbed, when I'm crying with the person, I don't believe that there is any random purposeless evil.

It has a purpose, not just that God's going to redeem it, but that it came into existence for a purpose. Otherwise, do you believe that all evil has a purpose in God's plan? God can redeem it for an ultimate purpose, but there are many evil acts that are against God's will.

He will ultimately get something out of it. He's the redeemer, but he didn't cause it. He didn't decree it. Again, I see scripture throughout the whole principle being what people and Satan mean for evil, God can turn for greater good.

So in no way do I see God behind another heinous act where a guy kidnaps a little girl, rapes her over a period of days, and then buries her alive. I see God abhorred at that. I see God angry with that, displeased with that, but he can ultimately get good out of it because he's the amazing sovereign God.

I don't see him in any way decreeing it or standing behind it. To me, that's libelous against God. So when God created, he created a world in which that was going to happen. He knew it was going to happen, but he does not have any purpose in it happening.

He has a purpose he will bring out of it. That is God getting good out of evil. That is God bringing light out of darkness. Just like when Jesus says Satan's bound a person for 18 years, he doesn't say God bound him, he says Satan bound him, but because he's there to set the captives free and be the redeemer, he sets that person free.

Okay, he uses means. We all agree that God uses means, but what if in the death of that little child, that horrendous situation that you just mentioned, in the death of that little child, by that death, hundreds of people come to know Christ?

That's a redeemer. The point is that basically you're saying, yeah, but that's just he's reacting to what's taking place in time. What if he had a plan for that girl? He's a million steps ahead, and he's the redeemer.

That's the whole point. I think, again, you lower God down to our level, that he has to program it to make it happen a certain way. I mean, look, when the Israelites committed abominations, he said you did things I never commanded or mentioned, and it never entered my mind.

An open theist says he didn't know it was coming. Of course, I differ with that. You differ with that. But when he says I didn't command or mention or enter into our mind, he's saying I had nothing to do with this.

I never intended this for you, but I can bring good out of evil. Or what he's saying is that what they did was horrifically abominable and against his decree, which he reveals in his law, his prescriptive will.

But it was in harmony with his secret decree. Of course, because he can then bring. That's why the good comes out of it, and it's a specific-purposed good. All right, we'll continue, and I will address the question of how does God know the future when we come back.

Thank you so much. I enjoyed very much this passionate discussion, conversation with apologist, theologian, colleague, but today theological opponent in the Lord, Dr. James White. We're not taking calls today to have maximum time for this.

We're going to continue the discussion tomorrow. Then, God willing, I'll be on Dr. White's web broadcast for a day or two where we can discuss these things in more uninterrupted form. James, I'll tell you, as I was just putting together some notes for today, I'm thinking we need to do this over a period of hours face-to-face one day.

Well, yeah, we do, because we've hardly even commenced to get to anything yet, and I can just see people throwing things at their radios out there right now. But it probably would be good to move on, even though both you and I know this is where the issue lies.

Unfortunately, a lot of the conversation on Calvinism sort of floats above these foundational issues as to the nature of God's decree and issues like that. So that's why we have to start at the beginning.

But a lot of folks want to know about the atonement and stuff like that. We probably need to get to those eventually. Right. And just a verse you can chew on overnight, but one of many like this. So we will move on.

I agree. Where God said, I surely said, I promise, this is Eli and his descendants, that you and your fathers, your house, your father's house would minister before me forever. But now the Lord declares, far be it from me, those who honor me I'll honor, et cetera.

Which I see throughout the Word. God's willing to go in one direction. People sin, go against that, they forfeit blessing. But he ultimately accomplishes greater purpose. We can come back to that. I would like to ask you one question, and we can discuss it tomorrow.

Because I would respond to that by saying, yes, again, I think David was always the one that God had chosen to use. And so what happened with Eli's sons had to be a part of that. But in Genesis 20, you know that God kept Abimelech from touching Sarah.

And he says, I have kept you from sinning against me. My question would be, if he could keep someone from sinning against him, and he doesn't keep the man in your hypothetical situation from doing what he did, then why wouldn't he?

If he can do it, and he has done it, and, in fact, I personally think he's doing it every single day, so often that we should all be on the ground in thankfulness to him. Because I think if he wasn't, none of us could walk out our door without being killed.

But since he can do that and he doesn't, wouldn't it follow that God must have a purpose when he doesn't keep someone from sinning against him? A purpose could be to let human sin take its course or human freedom have its repercussions.

Or he knows in his wisdom, because, again, he's sovereign and we're little puny people, that he knows when it's right to intervene and when it's not right to intervene. That's not for me to ask. And I'm not going to take one exception and then try to extrapolate that something through the entire word.

But if we get back to the Atonement principle, you believing that Jesus died only for the elect and purchased their salvation, not made it possible, etc. So when we go to an unsafe person, we don't know, from a Calvinistic point of view, if they're elect or non-elect, are we giving them a genuine offer?

When we command them to repent, from a Calvinistic perspective, we know they can't unless God enables them. If they could believe, they'd be believing a lie because Jesus didn't die for them if they're not elect.

So to me, it's like saying, hey, I've got a car for you if you'll come up with the money. Knowing they don't have the money, I don't really have a car. To me, I can't see it as a genuine offer that we're really giving to the lost.

And it seems to me as something duplicitous. Yeah, that was the objection that I heard you making initially. And that's one of the reasons I needed to find out whether you really believe that God knows the future.

Because in reality, if God knows who is going to believe him from the beginning of time itself, then you have the same problem. Because he knows and he inspires you to preach with fervor to a person, yet he knows that person's never going to believe.

So the question becomes, again, is that really a valid objection? Because the apostolic example is not to present the gospel as being something other than the call to repent and believe. It is not, well, you should believe because Jesus did this for you.

I never find the apostles making that presentation anywhere in Scripture. And you can show them where they do, but I just don't believe that they do. It is repent and believe and whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

And the Spirit and the bride say, come. So I'm telling them, come and whoever, I mean, I think it's a right deduction, whoever means me. If it's not a genuine offer, then God cannot say I offered it to you and you refused it.

I never really offered it because it was never really available. We differ on what faith is. We differ on the very nature of man. There is never going to be anyone who is going to turn from their sin because they're spiritually dead.

They're slaves of sin. They are not able, according to Romans 8, to do, they are not even able to submit themselves to the law of God unless something divine happens first. Faith comes by hearing the word.

That word is preached. Faith is available. And that's part of the justice of God, that there is a choice to make, which is why we have Jews throughout the world. Dr. White and I knew this would happen, which is why we've already been making plans for you to get on his broadcast and discuss things at greater length.

Okay, James, so we can continue to frustrate our listeners, let me ask you one last question, and I'm going to let you talk right until the end. We've got a few minutes, and then I'll just come on. So I want you to get the last word in, but let me throw the question out.

Here's a guy drowning in the water. He can't swim. He's flailing. Even if he could swim, there's sharks surrounding him. Somebody comes with a boat out of the blue. The guy's petrified. He says, look, just grab that rope.

Trust me, I'll take it from here. The guy grabs on. Somebody reaches in, pulls him out. I don't see how there's any glory to the person. I've never heard a salvation testimony where anyone ever gave glory to themselves.

It was always how bad they were and how good God was. So I still don't get it as to how this is man-centered, man-glorifying. The guy's drowning. It's the rock of ages. Fowl, I to the fountain fly. Wash me, Savior, or I die.

So all I'm doing is you're saying, just trust me. Okay, and you pull the person out. The credit goes entirely to the Savior, 100%. So I just don't understand how you could say it's man-centered. Go ahead.

You've got a couple minutes, and you get the last word. Well, because we're not crying out for help. We are crying out in hatred to God. We are rebels. I responded to Norman Geisler's similar example in the book by pointing out that the biblical teaching about the nature of man is that he's not crying out for help.

If anyone's crying out for help, that's because God has already begun to work within them. We are rebel sinners, and we're dead at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. These sharks already did their eating on us.

And it is his will that has raised us to spiritual life. That's why when I say man-centered, what I mean by that is that the common Arminian perspective is that God is attempting to save everyone equally, this prevenient grace concept, but that that grace doesn't actually save unless we enable it to.

Or as Norman Geisler says, Christ's death did not save anyone. It made all men savable. And really what I wanted to get into in the last section was, and I hope maybe we can touch on this toward the beginning tomorrow, depending on where you want to go, but I really appreciate having this dialogue with you because you, unlike most evangelicals, have 66 books in your Bible, unlike 27, which is what most people have.