9/19/2013 The Dividing Line The Calvinism Dialogue at STS

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

Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed to Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to call us you can but again, dr. White's not going to be taking calls today.

So with today's topic here is James white.

Introducing the Calvinism Dialogue at Southwestern Seminary

Yeah, and that's how we start radio free Geneva today, too. I know for many of you that that's a complete bummer, but what we're gonna put together will be so much better and You'll you'll be so excited when you get done and I know rich sound a little tired there.

You've been working too hard on this stuff, you know, that's that's all there is to it but we're gonna we're gonna try our best to to press on and. And I just received information in the channel Amir canner is doing an apologetic lecture on Islam called ten things.

Every Christian needs to know about Islam in, Georgia. Well, that's good this weekend. You know, I didn't try to send him a book. I should have sent him a book I maybe he would not not just send it back.

Anyways, folks. I'm really excited. I am really really excited yesterday morning I Was listening to a Calvinism dialogue that just took place in the Dallas area Between two professors at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary now for those of you not up to speed on these issues Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is not overly friendly toward Real Calvinism and when I say real Calvinism, I mean Historic Dordian The Calvinism of Edwards and the Calvinism of Spurgeon and the Calvinism of Especially people like Warfield or Hodge or Machen or Sproul or Piper Real Calvinism, for example that recognizes that there is a complete and perfect harmony Between the salvific decree of God The freedom of God to define who the elect are and then to provide Redemption perfectly for those people.

So in other words those people who say well, it's one thing for God to choose the elect. But he has to make the redemptive work. For a different group there can't be harmony between two there has to be disharmony and if you don't say there's disharmony.

Then you're accused of all sorts of things people who hold to a consistent historical Calvinism not really encouraged there at at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and so I was listening and We are going to put this into the queue after we finish up with Jerry Walls.

We're gonna continue with Jerry Walls in the first hour today, and then we'll move back into our response to Bashir Varnia but We'll put that in the queue we'll listen to what was said. I won't play all of it, but we will respond to some of the statements that were made there.

There wasn't really anything overly exciting. Other than the fact that the Calvinist Was not even a full Calvinist. I mean, I'm sure he's a wonderful guy seems like a wonderful wonderful person Professor of preaching there, but when you don't even try to defend limited atonement, and you don't even seem to understand what its role in historic Calvinism is and Don't even point to the fact that there's all sorts of biblical evidence on the subject and how vital it is for proper Understanding of the perfection of the atonement all the rest that stuff.

I'm sorry you're not a Calvinist. You know you may be less synergistic than the other guy, but you're not a Calvinist. You know that's the sort of the way it is, but anyways We will get to that after we finish responding to Jerry Walsh in fact the interesting thing is Jerry Walsh would say that dr. McKellar who was the Quote-unquote Calvinist representative in this dialogue was not a Calvinist in fact.

We've already listened to the part where Jerry Walsh would say it. That's the case so anyway. But what really excited me Was that dr. Malcolm Yarnell. Dr. Malcolm Yarnell is fairly well known for his opposition to Reform theology there at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary the people in Dallas are are pretty well aware of where dr. Patterson and dr. Allen and dr. Yarnell are and Most you will remember that what six seven five years ago five years ago.

Not exactly five years ago be five years ago this November as I recall because I was in England at the time Dr. Allen stood Before in fact if we had played our radio free Geneva theme today, we would have heard dr. Allen saying James White is a hyper Calvinist remember and I have identified that as a falsehood, and we have discussed the basis upon which Dr.. Allen tries to put this and of course Interestingly enough the very basis he used was a work by Phil Johnson who is also repudiated his misunderstanding.

But he's taking what a student taught him on this. That's that's the real problem is is he's Taking a definition that basically says well You are a hyper Calvinist if you hold to a view that might lead you to actually living out a hyper Calvinist perspective.

So if you do not affirm irrationality in God if if you if if you do not say well We're not going to make a distinction a real meaningful distinction between the prescriptive will of God where God says do not murder and the decree of God which includes the death of Christ or it says you shall not sell someone to you know your brother into slavery, but God worked in that in Genesis chapter 50.

You know if you just skip all that part and and try to squish the three-dimensional fullness of the biblical revelation down into a two-dimensional flat pattern. Then people will say well What you need to affirm is that God wants to save the non elect in the exact same way He wants to save the elect you you cannot allow.

For the prescriptive will and the secret will of God you can allow for there to be the same Fullness and richness in God's character that's even found in man. He's got to be less than less than a human being you can't you can't have redemptive love and over against and you know You just got it.

You just got to make God really small to fit into our paradigm, and there are people out there They call themselves Calvinist. They're actually Hoopa Calvinist. They're below Calvin's view on these things and they Then will identify as hyper Calvinist anyone who is consistent on this matter well Make a long story short what I am excited to play for you today is Dr.. Malcolm Yarnell Demonstrating that dr.. David Allen was wrong and continues to be wrong and his identification of me as a hyper Calvinist Dr.. Dr.. Yarnell accurately Accurately at this point Identified one of the primary ways you can identify a hyper Calvinist and everyone who hears what he's gonna Say is gonna.

Go well that ain't James white. Because I've heard him teach against that over and over again the entirety of his ministry everything He does you can go on YouTube and find a thousand pieces of evidence that this ain't James white.

James white so here Malcolm Yarnell demonstrates that his boss Dr.. David Allen is wrong in his identification of yours truly as a hyper Calvinist. So I'm very excited to be able to play this for you.

This is all you got to do is look up Yarnell McKellar on YouTube Calvinism dialogue the channel is called pastor talks. There's only two videos in it. It only has 202 views on it. So it's not exactly the most popular thing is when we post a couple days ago posted two days ago.

If you go to one hour and ten minutes, that's not that's not a lava lamp that is what is that it's a it's a electrical storm lightning thing. It's certainly if I Will have to it's called a lumen glass.

I need to bring my lumen glass in. It's the Borg thing the Borg. I need to bring my green lumen glass in next time remind me. I'll put it over there and people will freak out. When I put my blue looming green one, I've got a green one a blue one an orange one and a red one.

Ha ha. We'll just keep moving those two anyways. I'm really excited to play this for you. So if you go to the video, it's a start at one hour and ten. Let's see one hour nine minutes and 40 seconds according to My video or my audio version here one hour nine minutes 40 seconds in.

And when you do that you will hear. First I don't believe this is dr. Arnelle speaking. It's dr. McKellar and then dr. Arnelle will speak dr Arnelle speaks last listen to what is said. Okay, we we're ready to come back so I want to encourage you to To come back to your seat and let's just I'm gonna just start answering some of these pastor.

We're gonna move rather rapidly. Through through these questions. So let's start first of all. This would clearly be directed at you dr. Keller this is as a Calvinist. What do you do with Matthew chapter 28 verse 19 you obey it?

You really do you go and make disciples of all nations you go and make the elect aware of their election. I don't know I don't know how people are going to respond to the gospel if I get a phone call and says hey.

Hey come and preach at Cottonwood Creek Baptist Church this Sunday. When I step in here and I step to the pulpit to preach I don't know the spiritual condition of the people out there. Some are saved some are not saved.

Some are some are going to resist the call of the gospel on this day. But some are going to be drawn by the Holy Spirit. So I think as Spurgeon said we preach the gospel promiscuously.

There you go. Yeah, and I want to back up what dr. McKellar is saying, which you would think has a non-Calvin. So I would agree with that but but I think he's right and I also have to say this. This is a Calvinist speaking a Hyper -Calvinist would have a different response than what dr. McKellar had a hyper Calvinist would say Let's let's not trample on the glory of God by Presuming to lead to present the gospel to somebody that's not intended to receive the gospel.

Well, that's that's hyper Calvinism. That's not Calvinism. What dr. McKellar is talking about is is his own response as a Calvinist.

So according to Dr. Yarnell of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Any honest person who would analyze my teachings who has ever heard me? Defending the Gospels ever heard me answering questions about reform theology, you know.

You've never heard me ever say anything like what dr. Yarnell just defined as hyper Calvinism. Let me let me let me play it again for you. So you can hear exactly what he said.

Hyper -Calvinist would have a different response than what dr. McKellar had a hyper Calvinist would say let's let's not trample on the glory of God by Presuming to lead to present the gospel to somebody that's not intended to receive the gospel.

Well, that's that's hyper Calvinism now.

How many times have I said on this program that we are to preach the gospel? We are to offer Christ to every creature under the heavens that that it is every person's Responsibility to repent and believe.

How many times I said that if I've said it once I've said a thousand times this program. Everybody knows it every honest person knows that that has been my position. Every honest person knows that I go out and I do evangelism and I stand before Audiences as I will in South Africa next week or the week after next and I will present the gospel to the Muslims.

And I'm not gonna sit down and but what I need to see some evidence that you're actually elect before I can. No, I don't do any of those things. How many times I said we do not know who the elect are.

Therefore we proclaim the gospel to everyone according to dr. Yarnell of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. What does that mean means? I'm a Calvinist. I am NOT a hyper Calvinist. Thank you very much.

Dr. Yarnell I would like someone to inform your boss. Dr David Allen of that fact so that he can take the time to remove that footnote and the erroneous accusations From the book wherein he has attempted to defend that because dr. Yarnell is right hyper Calvinism has specific marks it has specific results and when you ask that are those results how James White does his ministry the answer to any honest person is No.

It's no and so every time the people accuse me of being a hyper Calvinist. What are they really trying to do? They're dishonestly attempting to avoid having to deal with the argumentation that demonstrates that Their perspective is indefensible.

That's what they're trying to they're trying to hide behind the accusation Rather than actually dealing with the issue. So I appreciate dr. Yarnell's clarification of this and I Just hope that the result of all of this will be dr. Allen's recognition that he has inappropriately and improperly Identified me as a hyper Calvinist over against his own systematic theology professors definition of that term and So I very much look forward to Hearing a withdrawal of that particular Terminology by dr. Allen.

Thank you very much. Dr. Yarnell for doing that. I didn't of course ask that he do that. But it was just something that I heard as I was listening and I went how very interesting very interesting. Indeed, of course up to that point.

I was already right or disappointed there that the the beautiful biblical consistent doctrine of particular redemption the fact of the Perfect harmony between the Father Son Holy Spirit and bringing about salvation the fact that the the atonement Perfects those for whom it's made.

It doesn't just simply make salvation a possibility all that stuff had already been thrown under the bus Not even defended so nobody in the in the church that listened to that had any real idea of what the the real beauty of the fact that in a from a Calvinistic perspective the gospel is a triune gospel and That the work of the Son is in perfect harmony with the work of the Father.

It's not that the Son has provided something That will never be utilized by the Father. It is not that the Son has died in vain. It is not that the Spirit is trying equally to save everybody through prevenient grace.

None of that stuff came up, unfortunately and I would I would really hope that someday there might be an opportunity there in the Dallas area for a full-orbed discussion to take place where all those things were brought out and The biblical texts are really debated.

There's so many large churches there, and I think it would be a wonderful wonderful thing, but again my thanks to dr. Yarnell for clarifying that and Who knows what will happen in the future on that subject so Continuing on with Radio Free Geneva moving back to our examination of Dr. Jerry Walls presentation on Calvinism as you recall we have been dealing with his argument.

And we really haven't gotten to where dr. Walls gets revved up. We're gonna get there pretty soon. It's it's not a long presentation and playing at one at 1 .2 speed. It's even shorter than it was it was originally.

But we're getting there. We're getting there and so we remember the argument that was given before is that you know if If God can freely In other words in a compatibilistic way cause a person to love God then If if love is always wanting the best for somebody then then that means that this results in universalism but Calvinists aren't universalists.

No Calvinist could possibly be a universalist and Therefore Calvinism is inherently a contradictory, and we pointed out the problem with dr. Walls Argument and his thesis is he doesn't seem to recognize different kinds of love on the part of God and so on and so forth so we went all through that and Pretty much the last time as if I recall correctly.

It's been a little while now. We were looking at his discussion regarding John Piper and John Piper's Statement that he would give his life for his son so evidently John Piper loves his sons more than God does and I had responded by once again this real this this transferal of God into the human realm a Denial of his transcendence a fact that just to recognize that John Piper is a limited human being He does not know what God's all of God's Purposes and plans are in this world and would never put himself in the position of judging God in that way all that's just sort Of left aside and that kind of a comment says well evidently John Piper loves his sons more than more than God does.

That that was right toward the end of where we were going so we're gonna pick up where we left off with dr Walls presentation on against Calvinism that seems pretty clear.

The Bona Fide Offer and the Charge of Contradiction

That's basic core Calvinism, but then we got Packer saying this kind of a thing insisting God makes a bona fide offer of salvation to all persons. Now here's what you got to simply say. Well, what does he mean by that?

When he says a bona fide offer. Is he saying that God says? You're invited, but you can't really come and I know you can't really come and I could make you come. But I'm not going to but I'm offering it to you anyway.

Now here we we get into again the definition of bona fide offer you remember last time I was I was dressing this and From the Arminian perspective you need to step back and Recognize what the presuppositions of the objection are there cannot be a divine decree of God.

There can't be time has to be a free-flowing thing. God has to be just as affected by the currents of time. There there cannot really as a result as I said the only consistent Arminian is an open theist Who denies classical theism and God's absolute knowledge of future events because The only rational way to hold to God having exhaustive knowledge future events is if God has a purpose in them.

It's part of his decree a creative decree. We've listened to people for so many years end up spinning in wild circles when they when they try to hold together the clear biblical Teaching that there's only one true God.

He knows all things. He knows all the actions of his creatures. He knows all events in time. That's clear, but then trying to hold that together with some kind of view of autonomy or whatever else you might want to call it the result is a catastrophe of self-contradiction and Fleeing to mystery which is one of the things that dr. Walls actually accused Calvinists of doing not not himself and so Here you you have this this argument being presented once again By dr. Walls and let's let's catch that that last section again invited, but you can't really come and I know you can't really come.

And I could make you come but I'm not going to but I'm offering it to you.

Anyway, so see notice notice the human level upon which this is placed as I said last time any individual who turns to Christ in repentance and faith will find him to be a perfect Savior. The question is is God under any obligation to lift and remove the chains of slavery that are placed upon all of the fallen sons and daughters of Adam.

If You say yes, then what you're saying is God's grace because that's a gracious gracious action on his part. What you're saying is God's grace Can and must be demanded for justice to exist and now now you're just mixing every category known to man.

You are mixing categories of grace and mercy with those of justice not seeing That grace and mercy triumphs over justice, but because of the incarnation of Christ there is no injustice. There is a fulfillment of God's law.

Because Christ bears the wrath that is due to his people in his body upon the tree. So justice is fulfilled and yet justice is triumphed over by mercy and grace. But if you make grace something that can be demanded then you are left in a Real mess in trying to explain the existence of evil and the nature of God and all these other things.

So again, you have to examine the Presupposition of the argument and the presupposition as well. If you if you have a bona fide offer, and this is the argument of the sub Calvinist The people call themselves Calvinist they pretend they actually believe in a divine decree, but they don't really believe in divine decree.

They they're sub Calvinist they certainly don't agree with Calvin on this issue by any stretch of imagination as far as the issue of the exhaustiveness of the decree and all the things to come along with it, but The idea is for it to be a bona fide offer then Christ has the there has to be disunity between the decree and The provision of atonement so Christ provides for something That God knows From his divine decree will never be taken care of will never be utilized.

But unless Christ provides it then there's no bona fide offer. So the idea of the definition of bona fide offer is based upon the hypothetical Ability of human beings to act outside of God's decree that's why again, I keep saying even if you listen to that thing we were talking about beforehand the Dialogue and Calvinism The very brief dismissal by both speakers all three speakers I guess including the pastor of limited atonement demonstrate they have just do not see this.

They do not even begin to understand The relationship. I don't know if this didn't bother to read Owen or just what but they just don't see the relationship between Christ high priestly work his work of atonement and The relationship the father and the son and so they introduced this disunity not even recognizing they're doing it, but they're doing it.

And what dr. Walls is saying that there needs to be this unity for it to be a bona fide offer. Because There has to be this theoretical possibility. God cannot command the fallen sons and daughters of Adam To do something when he has not actually provided for The fulfillment if they do it so God has to exist in a world where there's ifs for him.

So again, what's the fundamental objection to the sovereign decree? You heard it with Michael Brown cut the so-called decree. It's it it you just trace it back. What's the actual foundational argument?

There cannot be a divine decree. Just can't God has to be acting in time in the same way human beings do. So that he could do something other and he must be able to fail because I guess God has to be able to try and Try and try and try to save.

And that's what makes it a bona fide offer is that God can fail. So if you have a perfect God who provides perfect salvation, well that then you can't have a bona fide offer. There you go. That's um, that's what we're facing here wink wink.

Is that what he means by that by a bona fide offer? I mean if that's what he meant and he spelled out explicitly wouldn't you just think he was joking to call that a bona fide offer? So when he says bona fide, don't you take that to mean?

Sincere honest that you really could respond to it. He insists on this right so I'm taking that that's what he means if this is not what he means. He's just being rhetorically dishonest. Okay, so a bona fide offer is one that can actually be accepted by the person to whom is offered.

So Packers either being dishonest or it's being misleading. You know, so I would choose that to believe that he's not dishonest. So I will take it that this is what he means if he's not being dishonest.

He's got to mean this by a bona fide offer. Otherwise, it's just rhetorically utterly misleading. So I'm assuming he's honest. This is what he means. Conclusion. All persons can actually accept the offer of salvation to be saved.

Now, you notice anything. We have discovered an implicit contradiction here. Having spelled out the premises and the implications. Here's what you get. Three not all persons can actually accept the offer of salvation to be saved.

Six. All persons can actually accept the offer of salvation and be saved. Friends that is an outright contradiction as much as saying Bach is a bachelor and Bach is not a bachelor.

So there you have his philosophical argument. We've already demonstrated that it's based upon numerous redefinitions of terms ignoring ignoring Important elements in regards to what we believe about God's love and and all the rest of that stuff.

But again, I've said it I'll defend it. Arminianism is primarily a philosophical system that then attempts to utilize Biblical data. I Have said it before. I know that they don't like to hear it, but.

You've all listened to this program how many times over and over again? We've gotten into discussion the Calvinist goes the text the Calvinist brings it but but but what about this. But but but what about that.

And. It ends up being some kind of well, but we we have to have this concept of free. We'll have to have that concept of autonomy. Etc, etc. And it is it's a philosophical system. Not a biblical system and.

We're seeing it again. You cannot make both of these true by appeal to mystery. By appeal to antinomy, it doesn't make you pious to think you can it makes you confused. Okay, so there's a contradiction now, let's go on.

We still got some ground to cover here. Really glad you guys stayed. I appreciate it. I'm getting hot up there. Is it okay if I take my jacket off? I'm suffocating.

Now, I you know, I appreciate guys who are passionate. I mean, you know, dr Wallace says he he's starting to like me and it's not just because I'm bald. Though I do shave my head. I just would look like a monk if I grew what hair I have left out.

And I just don't want to look like Luther with a tonsil, but anyway. And I appreciate. I think we probably would have a very interesting debate. But I am concerned we would end up like ships passing the night given our starting points.

All right now. Let's let's go on. Let's go on. Let's go on to what I call ambiguous Calvinism. Ambiguous Calvinism. And this takes place when Calvinists trade On both conceptions of freedom and someone who's been reading Calvinist literature and studying and critiquing it and analyzing it for several years now I Will tell you you'll see this all over the place.

So once you understand compatibilism and understand and start reading this stuff and you will see Calvin saying stuff all the time That they cannot consistently say on their premises. So what they often do is slide back and forth between a libertarian view of freedom and a compatibles view of freedom.

I.

Really don't think the vast majority of us do that. But hey, I'm I am NOT here. It's not my my intention to defend the absolute Consistency of every Calvinist that dr. Walls has ever spoken with well.

They're talking about God's wonderful grace saving people and is electing them to salvation. They're compatibilist. But then when they talk about sinners disobeying God and doing wretched things suddenly they sound like libertarians.

All right. So here is another Calvinist theologian John Calvin who's almost as good a Calvinist as Piper. Not quite. But he's up there. He's up there, right? I know you don't like him as much as Piper.

Okay, but I really listen to this fascinating passage from Calvin. There's the general call. This is the call of the gospel that goes to everybody whosoever will may come. There's the general call by which God invites all equally to himself through the outward preaching of the word.

Even those to whom he holds it out as a saver of death and as the occasion of severer condemnation.

Now that's a genuine citation and It's one of those tough things that Calvin says that I perfectly agree with. Perfectly agree with and I've been consistent here, too. I Don't I don't say that to Pat myself in the back.

I just pointed out How many times and let me I'll give you a real basic example of where I've been consistent here. How many times y 'all go back. Those you who've listened for years and years and years and years some of the folks in the in? the chat channel, you know, Tucson mom just came in so Tucson mom remember this and Lu would remember this and some of the old older folks remember this.

Not necessarily old chronologically. We've had some people in there for years that are that started when they were very young anyways when we would go out to the Mesa Easter pageant, we would go up to Salt Lake City and We would pass out tracks we would talk about the fact that there were times for example when the The elders would do everything in their power to try to get tracks out of people's hands and They would want to you know, I remember this one I remember he looked like this day.

Well, probably because we took a picture of him and he's staying there with his jacket pockets stuffed with our tracks just with the most smug look on his face and Sometimes we'd find tracks, you know on the ground.

They'd been spit upon or stomped upon or whatever and what we call them. We call them fallen warriors the fallen warriors and When I'd get together with people Sometimes especially the younger folks would be rather upset.

You know, we're out there. We work hard to get those tracks out. It takes some effort to smile folks and get the lines out right and and get the tracks out to people and there's someone Stealing them and they're just throwing them away and it seems like a waste of effort.

I'd look at people I say look. Some of our literature goes out for salvation and some of it goes out for judgment. Goes out for judgment and I looked at that young man When he had his pockets full of stuff and I said young man, you're gonna be held accountable before a holy God.

Because you know, and I know you cannot answer what is in that literature. Therefore you are guilty of Keeping other people from having an opportunity of seeing the truth and he just looked at me like the point is I've been consistent.

When you preach the gospel, it's gonna have an effect. You see the problem with many people is they think when you preach the gospel. Unless it results in someone bowing the knee to Christ that you've wasted your time that it was not effective.

But that's like saying the law was not effective. What did Paul say? Well, I said thou shalt not covet. What did that do to Paul as an unregenerate man? It made him covet. It had its effect. It did what God intended it to do.

It made sin more sinful and Yes, there are times when God brings judgment upon a people By Letting them hear the gospel with clarity but not removing the chains of Slavery they have their sin. They continue to love their sin and He uses it to actually increase their judgment before him.

This happened in Scripture. This happened the people of Israel. This happened to other nations. It's happening in the West right now. That's the reality. That's what happens. That's what happens now. Dr. Wallace doesn't seem to like that.

This is sort of one of his ooh in that a terrible thing to say. But you know There's a lot of things in the Bible that if you just simply throw them out there to a lot of people there go. Oh, I don't like that.

Yeah, well doesn't mean it's wrong. Are you following this?

There was this doctrine that used to be prominent in Calvinism you don't hear much about it anymore, but it used to be very prominent in classic Calvinism called the the dreaded false hope and This was the the fear that you might not truly be elect and even though you you were converted.

You might have fallen away and that might be evidence that you weren't really elect and you dreaded. Oh my god I thought it was elected seemed like it was for a while. But now I'm not so sure and lots of classic Calvinist struggled with this fear.

That that they were not truly elect and this passage right here is what it was based on. So Calvin is trying to make sense of backsliders what people in Normandy tradition call backsliders people are converted and then fall away.

How do you explain them? Here's Calvin's explanation. God holds out to some people that are not truly elect The gospel as a saver of death and as the occasion of severe condemnation. So it can condemn them more severely than other people.

That's why does it the other kind of call is special. Which he gains notice for the most part. To give to believe the believer alone yet. Sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it.

Then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness so in other words.

They went out from us. So it might be demonstrated that they were not of us for if they had been of us They would have doubtless remained with us. I think that's what 1st John 2 says and All of us Arminian or Calvinist have to answer.

The question how is it possible that there can be people? Who have sat under the gospel ministry who have made professions of faith and then in the midst of such blinding light Have turned back to their old ways dogs returning to their own vomit as Peter would put it now you may not like the answer the Calvinist gives but that doesn't mean that it's inconsistent or unbiblical and I would say that the answer the Arminian gives is even Has has a major real major problem.

That is it's just simply not biblical at all. You see the Arminian has to limit Christ's ability to save. He has to limit Christ's ability to save he has to make it a cooperative effort. Christ is doing those all he's he's trying just as Hard to save a person and he's trying just as hard to keep a person, but he can't do it by himself.

He's got to have help, right? Well, that's what the Arminian says that's the Arminian says and Certainly the only consistent Arminian perspective is one that denies the perseverance of the Saints because if it was I mean if you just put so much effort into this idea of free will in choosing salvation.

That that's what's so funny about so many Baptists who are just raw about the subject of Perseverance the Saints in fact in that in that conversation in that Calvinism dialogue. It was directly stated you can't deny Perseverance the Saints and really be a good Southern Baptist.

That's that's what Baptist faith message says you gotta you gotta believe that. Well, you know a lot of people have pointed out that doesn't make a lick of sense. If it was your autonomous decision that enabled the grace of God to save you Then how can it not be your autonomous decision to stop allowing that to happen.