The Potter's Freedom Part 9

No more soul -destroying doctrine could well be devised than the doctrine that sinners can regenerate themselves and repent and believe just when they please.

As it is a truth both of scripture and of experience that the unrenewed man can do nothing of himself to secure his salvation, it is essential that he should be brought to a practical conviction of that truth.

When thus convinced, and not before, he seeks help from the only source whence it can be obtained.

So wrote Charles Hodge, and so certainly I believe, and for the past number of weeks we have been discussing and defending the doctrines of grace, the doctrines of the

Reformation, doctrines that I believe are biblical and apostolic. Indeed, I was thinking just a moment ago of the

Apostle Paul's words in 2 Timothy 2, verse 11, when he says,

For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus, and with it eternal glory.

And you have to believe that there is an elect people, a chosen people, if you're going to read the

New Testament with any level of honesty whatsoever. And yet there are many who would say, no, no, we are the ones who determine the number of the elect.

Who is the elect? By our free will, our free choice. And this week on The Dividing Line we address the issue of faith as a gift and the concept of what is known as irresistible grace.

And we do so in review of Dr. Norman Geisler's book, Chosen But Free.

And I don't think anyone is going to fall off of their chair in shock when I mentioned to you, when

I announced to you, in point of fact, that I am writing a book in response to Dr.

Geisler's book. It will be published, I guess the only way we can put it, is as soon as possible by Calvary Press.

Calvary Press helps to make possible The Dividing Line. You hear their spots here on our program each week, and they will be publishing my response called

The Potter's Freedom, A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's book,

Chosen But Free. And obviously I have been working on that book for the past number of weeks, and that has been foundational to the radio program as we have been looking at some very important subjects, subjects that really determine the very form of the gospel we preach, the way in which we preach it to the form of the church, etc.,

etc., etc. We now come, I think, to the topic that I honestly believe Dr. Geisler did the poorest on as far as accurately representing what

Reformed theologians believe about the sovereignty of God and salvation.

And that is when Dr. Geisler discusses the issue of the regenerating work of the

Holy Spirit of God in the believer's life. For example, on page 96 of Chosen But Free, under the subtitle,

Grace is Irresistible Only on the Willing. Grace is irresistible only on the willing.

And if you're going, what in the world does that mean? I don't know either, because the entire concept of irresistible grace has, within its very terminology, no reference to the idea of willing or unwilling.

Why? Because the people who came up with the term irresistible grace believe that man is dead in sin, that man is the enemy of God, and that irresistible grace refers to that sovereign regenerating power of grace whereby a spiritually dead man is made spiritually alive.

So the whole idea of willing -unwilling makes no sense. Irresistible grace is that grace we talked about a number of weeks ago when we talked about Lazarus being raised from the dead.

That work of God is irresistible. It's like the dry bones in the vision where God brings them back together and makes them alive.

Is that irresistible? Well, of course it's irresistible because there's nothing there to resist it. Well, obviously, once you establish the idea that man is an autonomous, free creature, and that he is not a slave to sin, obviously, once you've taken that particular perspective, then you can't have such a thing as irresistible grace.

But Dr. Geisler certainly does refer to it and rejects the

Reformed concept of God's sovereign regeneration of an individual on the basis of the exercise of His grace where God, at His time, reaches down and regenerates an individual, gives to them the gifts of faith and repentance.

He obviously denies that faith is a gift. He denies that regeneration precedes faith.

He agrees at every point, quite honestly, with those who opposed the Reformation on each one of these issues.

And on page 96 of Chosen but Free, Dr. Geisler says, what he does not seem to appreciate, and I believe this has some references,

I recall reading from a typescript here, but I believe it had reference to R .C. Sproul, what he does not seem to appreciate is that it is also a dreadful error to coerce good.

Forced freedom is a contradiction in terms.

Throughout this book, Dr. Geisler speaks of forced freedom. He says that if God's grace is irresistible, and if it is absolutely necessary to free man from slavery to sin, forced freedom is a contradiction in terms, as he puts it.

The philosophical definition of human beings as free, autonomous creatures is foundational to Dr.

Geisler's position. So the idea that God would have to irresistibly, by grace, raise a person to spiritual life and free them from the bonds of sin simply can't make any sense in Dr.

Geisler's position. He goes on to say, some extreme Calvinists, and let me stop here for a moment.

Again, extreme Calvinist equals any Calvinist. Dr. Geisler claims to be a moderate Calvinist.

There is no such thing in regards to Dr. Geisler's position. He is an inconsistent Arminian, and that is the historical definition of the terminology position that he takes.

But he calls himself a moderate Calvinist, and hence all other Calvinists become extreme Calvinists.

And at this point, he is going to quote from R .C. Sproul, and he is going to present the historic, standard, reformed understanding of what regeneration is all about.

Let me read it to you again, beginning on page 96. Some extreme

Calvinists use a kind of smoke and mirror tactic to avoid the harsh implications of their view.

They claim that God does no violence toward a rebellious will, he simply gives a new one. In R .C.

Sproul's words, quote, if God gives us a desire for Christ, we will act according to that desire, end quote.

This sounds reasonable enough until the implied words are included. If God gives us an irresistible desire for Christ, we will irresistibly act according to that desire.

Now it can be seen that extreme Calvinists are using word magic in an attempt to hide the fact that they believe

God forces the unwilling against their will. What extreme Calvinists want to do is to avoid the repugnant image of a reluctant candidate being forced into the fold or captured into the kingdom.

But no matter how well the act of irresistible grace is hidden by euphemistic language, it is still a morally repugnant concept.

The problem with the idea of irresistible grace in extreme Calvinism, according to this analogy, is that there is no informed consent for the treatment.

Or better yet, the patients are dragged kicking and screaming into the operating room, but once they are given a head transplant, they not surprisingly feel like an entirely different person, end quote.

Now again, some of you may not have heard the earlier programs where we went through all of the very strong and polemic language used by Dr.

Geisler against the Reformed position. It's interesting to note that that strong and polemic language is not used against the

Arminian position, and in point of fact, the only criticism of Arminianism in the book is of Pelagianism and Process Theology, which isn't

Arminianism at all. We noted in the earlier programs there's a tremendous amount of totally unwarranted linguistic gymnastics going on where terms are being redefined right and left, and that this will lead to a tremendous amount of confusion on the part of those who take the time to purchase and read the book.

But here in this passage we can see the polemical level of Dr. Geisler's work, where he refers to the repugnant image, the morally repugnant concept of irresistible grace.

Let's just simply be honest, Dr. Geisler finds the idea that God in his sovereignty, in his sovereign grace and mercy, reaches down and takes the rebel sinner who wants to have nothing to do with God, who is perfectly, justly condemned by God's justice, and yet despite the fact that that sinner spits in the face of God, God by his grace takes out that stony heart and gives a heart of flesh.

God by his grace resurrects the spiritually dead person and gives them spiritual life.

God by his sovereign grace causes a person to be born again.

That is the concept that Dr. Geisler does not like. And so he describes it as a smoke -and -mirror tactic, a smoke -and -mirror tactic designed to avoid the harsh implications of the

Calvinistic view that someone like R .C. Sproul would say, if God gives us a desire for Christ, we will act accordingly to that desire.

If he gives us a new nature, we will act in accordance with that new nature. Now he seems to intimate that Calvinists are using a form of word magic, trying to hide from people what we believe.

Believe me, we aren't hiding anything. It is not our intention to hide anything. We believe that man is the enemy of God until God subdues that enemy.

There's no two ways about that. But it doesn't mean that people are dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom.

It means that an enemy who is enslaved to sin, who is dead in trespasses and sins, is raised to spiritual life and given a new nature.

And it is almost incredible to me that Dr. Geisler can so cavalierly say this and put it in these words, or better yet,

I'm quoting from him now, the patients are dragged kicking and screaming into the operating room, but once they are given a head transplant, they not surprisingly feel like an entirely different person.

That is a description of the Reformed viewpoint, that you take a spiritually dead man, give him spiritual life, a new nature that loves

God. Well, I guess if you have a non -Reformed view of man as being an autonomous, free creature, if you disagree with Martin Luther and John Calvin and Bootser and Beza and all the

Reformers, if you are on that side of the Tiber River, I guess you can call it that if you wish. But to someone who

I think reads the New Testament and listens to what it says about man being dead in sin, the enemy of God taking the fact that God, despite the fact that His justice condemns unjustly these individuals, that God in His mercy reaches down and changes their hearts, that's called grace.

That's called New Testament grace. A little bit later on, we continue reading from Chosen but Free, pages 97 to 98, then

Sproul confesses, the only answer I can give to this question is that I don't know. I have no idea why

God saves some but not all. He then adds, I don't doubt for a moment that God has the power to save all.

And then Geisler comments, if this is the case, then Sproul must doubt that God has the love to save all.

That is to say, the extreme Calvinist God is all -powerful, but He is not all -loving. And in coercing the elect into the kingdom, the supposedly irresistible grace of regeneration negates

God's infinite goodness. Now, Dr. Sproul said a lot more than that.

That's only a partial quote, and it's a misleading quote. Dr. Sproul went on to say, in point of fact, that the whole reason why

God saves the elect and not the non -elect is based and rooted in His grace,

His mercy, and His divine and sovereign will. In other words, and here I think is the greatest problem with Dr.

Geisler's position, from the Reformed viewpoint, it's God that's free. God is free.

God can freely exercise His grace and His love, as we talked last week in taking apart

Dr. Geisler's example in regards to the three boys in the farmer's swimming hole, or non -swimming hole.

And there's a little note put next to the grace of regeneration in the book, and it says, Then it is theological double -talk to say that we do it willingly.

Now there, finally, finally, Dr. Geisler's right. This irresistible act of regeneration is compared to an act of resurrection on a passive and dead body.

Exactly, that's what God does. And what's Dr. Geisler's response to that? What could be more compulsive?

Doesn't Dr. Geisler see what we're talking about here? What could be more compulsive than resurrection?

Is that not the biblical terminology that is used? He has raised us to life? If we were so alive that we could, by our exercise of free will, enable

Him to do this, why do we need to be raised to new life? Compulsive?

An act of force? Well, if you call resurrection an act of force, I guess that's one way of putting it.

I don't see that that really makes a whole lot of sense, but that's what Dr. Geisler says. In an earlier work by Basinger and Basinger, Dr.

Geisler had included this paragraph, but there was some editing done in the Bethany House version.

It says, This is standard

Arminian, in fact Pelagian, argumentation against the entire concept of God's sovereignty and grace.

This is not modified Calvinism. This isn't moderate Calvinism. There is nothing remotely

Calvinistic about any of this type of argumentation. And you see that term irresistibly regenerate them.

Irresistibly regenerate them. If you have to be regenerated, that means you're dead. That means we're talking resurrection here.

The constant use of this type of terminology absolutely positively boggles the mind.

It boggles the mind. And by the way, we've already addressed the issue that God's love is free and that this whole argument that Dr.

Geisler's putting forward would negate all the concepts of God's love and freedom and grace and so on and so forth.

It simply doesn't make any sense. But what's worse is what happens when you apply this to Dr.

Geisler's exegesis of And I was this week reading a review written by a

Reformed scholar of Dr. Geisler's book, and I am not the only one to say that Dr.

Geisler's exegesis in this book is exceptionally substandard. I knew for a long time that he argued against Ephesians 2, verses 8 and 9, as a reference to faith being given as a gift of God.

And when you read his refutation, many people are very impressed by it. It is the standard response that says, well, for by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves.

It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. And so the response that is often given is, well, the word this is in the neuter in the

Greek language, and there's nothing in the preceding phrase, that is the phrase, for by grace you have been saved through faith, that is in the neuter.

So, specifically they would say the word faith. The word faith is not in the neuter, it is in the feminine form, and so it cannot possibly refer, when

Paul says, and this not of yourselves is a gift of God, that can't refer to faith. Well, we started to address this a couple weeks ago when

I pointed out that there's even a, what I feel is a poor use of a quotation from John Calvin, in Chosen But Free, and what

John Calvin actually himself said. But does Ephesians chapter 2 fit into the mold that, well, it can't be faith that is the gift here, it has to be something else?

Well, as it is pointed out, the word this is in the neuter form, that's quite true. However, there's nothing in the preceding phrase that is in the neuter form.

Nothing. The word grace is not neuter, the participle have been saved is not neuter, faith is not neuter, they're either masculines or feminines.

So, using that type of argumentation, there's nothing in the preceding phrase that this could refer to.

But the simple fact of the matter is, the neuter use of a word such as this is very common.

Paul used it, for example, in 1 Thessalonians 3 .3, he is wrapping up the entirety of the preceding phrase and restating it for us.

So, you see, it's all of salvation. Grace, the salvation itself, and yes, faith as well, at Ephesians chapter 2 verse 8, that is not from us, it is the gift of God, it is not of works as any man should boast.

You see, if human faith is, in point of fact, the final determining factor that determines whether God's entire plan of salvation will fail or will be accomplished, then that makes man sovereign over salvation, and that is, of course, what the various religions of man desire.

The religions of man want man to be in charge. They may say, oh, man can't save himself, he needs

God's help, he needs 99 % of God's help, but still, God really can't save anyone unless we help.

And remember, we've pointed out in the past, Dr. Geisler makes it very plain in Chosen but Free, the atonement of Jesus Christ does not save anyone, it makes man savable.

Well, the difference between savable and being saved solely on the work of Jesus Christ, that is the dividing line between the

Reformers and those who stood against them, and that's the dividing line today as well.

So you see, once you've embraced these various viewpoints, it's, well, it's difficult to do solid exegesis.

Let me give you another example. On page 186 of Chosen but Free, we have the citation, and this is in the appendix where Dr.

Geisler is attempting to argue against faith as a gift from God. Many of us will quote

Acts 16 -14. One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth in the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God.

The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. And in Acts 18 -27 adds that salvation is to those who by grace had believed.

Without this gracious work of God, no one would believe and be saved. And here's Dr. Geisler's response.

Moderate Calvinists, listen closely here because language is important.

Moderate Calvinists, that's what Dr. Geisler refers to himself to, let's just translate that,

Armenians, do not deny that God moves upon the hearts of unbelievers to persuade and prompt them to exercise faith in Christ.

They only deny that God does this coercively by irresistible grace, and that he only does it on some persons, the elect.

The Holy Spirit is convicting the world, all men, not just some, of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

And God does not force anyone to believe on him, Matthew 23 -37. Now we've already pointed out that Matthew 23 -37, which is cited over and over and over again in this book, is used eisegetically by Dr.

Geisler, that Matthew 23 -37 is about the nation of Israel, specifically the city of Jerusalem, to whom

God had sent prophets and apostles. It has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with the use that is used in this book over and over and over again.

However, listen closer to what is said. While Acts 16 says that the

Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message, the reinterpretation of this is that what

God does is he persuades and prompts someone to exercise faith in Christ. Well, why does the text say that God had to open her heart?

Isn't that a coercive act? I mean, the heart is the very central aspect of the human being.

What's God doing opening someone's heart? That's coercive, that's intrusive, that's, that's, that's, my goodness, that actually impacts the freedom of man.

If she doesn't want to open her heart, isn't she a free, autonomous human being? Well, obviously,

God had to open her heart because God has to open anyone's heart. And are we to believe that, well, all this means is that God graciously opened her heart, and he opens everyone's heart.

Everyone's brought to this moral, neutral ground, and that's what the Holy Spirit does. He opens everyone's heart, and now you can just simply choose right or wrong from that point.

Is that what the text says? No. The result of his opening her heart was that she believed, just as the result of being drawn by the

Father to the Son is inevitably, and never with question, the act of faith.

So there is no exegesis of the passage here. There is just simply the reiteration, oh, the Holy Spirit convicts everyone, all the world.

Well, if the Holy Spirit convicted everyone like he did Lydia, guess what? Everybody would be Christians. Everyone would be

Christians. The same thing happens when we look at John 6, 44 through 45.

Here is the quotation. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

It is written in the Prophets, they all will be taught by God. Everyone who listens to the

Father, that's the Greek term akuo, to hear the Father. Everyone who hears the

Father learns from him and comes to me. Now notice what it says. Everyone who listens to the

Father and learns from him comes to me. The first verse had said that everyone who is drawn by the

Father to the Son will be raised up on the last day. These are plain statements of scripture, but listen for any discussion of them in the short one paragraph response.

Here is the one paragraph response from Dr. Geisler, page 186. Quote, it should be observed that it does not say here that faith is a gift of God.

It merely says that they were taught by God. The method of obtaining faith is not mentioned.

The Bible says elsewhere that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Faith grows in the heart of the one who receives the word with joy.

End quote. That's not a response, my friends. That's not exegesis.

That's not dealing with the text. The text cited was longer than the response, almost.

There's no discussion of the fact that all who were drawn by the Father are raised up by the Son, and there is not even a mention of the phrase, everyone who hears the

Father, listens to the Father, and learns from Him comes to me. What does that mean? There is no way to fit it into an

Arminian perspective, but when you read John 6, 35 through 45, it is very plain what is being said.

This is a hearing that is a hearing that is only made available or possible by the

Spirit of God changing a person's heart. Jesus said elsewhere in John, why don't you hear the words that I say?

The reasons you don't hear is because you don't belong to God, not the other way around. There is no response to John 6, 44 through 45.

None whatsoever. It's just, that's not a response. That's an excuse. The scriptures are very plain in saying these things, and this impacts everything we believe about how we preach the gospel, and how we share with people.

No response provided whatsoever. Why? Because the passage says, everyone who hears.

You know what that is, folks? That's irresistible grace. That's powerful grace. And I am so thankful that God's grace isn't just a helper, that it is irresistible.

That is, that when God sends His grace to regenerate one of His own, His grace never fails.

In your mind, just put up there, irresistible grace equals never failing grace.

I'm not sure why anybody wants to believe in failing grace, but maybe you're one of them.

Why don't you give us a call at 508 -0960. I'm a nice guy, really. Honest, I am.

There's some people going, yeah, right, sure. Why don't you give us a call? 508 -0960. 1 -888 -TALK -960.

If you're outside the Phoenix dialing area, we've got one person on the line. We've got a few lines open for you.

508 -0960. We'll be right back. And welcome back to Dividing Line. My name is James White.

We're talking today about faith as a gift from God. We're also talking about God's irresistible grace.

That is His grace that actually accomplishes what He intends. And someone might say, now, wait a minute.

Grace isn't irresistible. I resist grace every day. Or the lost resist grace every day. What we're talking about when we talk about irresistible grace is that when

God intends to save one of His elect people, His grace, by which

He does so, accomplishes what God intends it to accomplish. We're not talking about the fact that, well, that Christians sin.

And you could define that as a resisting of grace. We're talking about the fact that God saves and God saves perfectly, and that God's the one who saves.

It's not God plus man, God plus man plus sacraments, God plus man plus man's free will, whatever it might be.

Get rid of all the pluses. God is Savior, period, end of discussion. That's what irresistible grace is all about.

And unfortunately, many people play upon and say, well, you can resist grace. There's all sorts of individuals.

There were people, the Jews resisted God's grace. Well, that's not what we're talking about.

We're not talking about the fact that God is gracious to every single human being who's ever lived, and yet man spits in his face.

That's not what the issue is. But unfortunately, there are many, many people who attempt to present it in that particular perspective.

Well, we have folks on the phone, and let's get to our phone lines. Let's first talk to Rodney, a first -time caller.

Hello, Rodney. Hi, how are you? I'm doing well. How are you? Doing well, thank you. I just have a question. I read Dr. Sproul's book.

However, I haven't read Dr. Geisler's book. Which book by Dr. Sproul? He's a rather prolific author. Yes, he is.

I have read Chosen by God. Ah, that was the book that did me in, too. Yes, it did me in also.

And my question is, how does Dr. Geisler deal with John 665, where Christ says, therefore

I have said to you that no one can come to the Father unless it is granted to him or, yeah, by the

Father. How does he deal with that? Yes, there actually is a citation on page 60.

Let me read it for you. He quotes it, and then he quotes Dr. Sproul. The passage teaches at least this much.

It is not within fallen man's ability to come to Christ on his own without some kind of a divine assistance, end quote.

And I think that's, let me back up here, ibbid, ibbid, ibbid, ibbid, yes, that is Chosen by God.

He has it listed as page 68. Here's Dr. Geisler's response. Moderate Calvinists and Arminians agree with this.

That's because they're the same thing. Anyways, as Sproul himself admits, the real question is, does

God give the ability to come to Jesus to all men? That's also on the same page from Chosen by God.

The answer is that there is nothing here or anywhere else to say God limits his willingness to provide this ability to only some.

Indeed, the Bible is clear that he is patient, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance, 2 Peter 3 .9,

and that he wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth, 1 Timothy 2 .4, see also Ezekiel 18 .32.

In other words, he does what every Arminian I've ever met does, and that is when you're faced with the specific grace of God in John 6 .65,

6 .44, whatever else, simply quote 2 Peter 3 .9 and 1 Timothy 2 .4 and move on from there.

The problem is, as you know in looking at John 6, these words are spoken after Jesus has quite literally, by his teaching, driven away everybody who had been following him since he had fed the 5 ,000 the day before, and the only people that are left are the 12, and one of them's a devil.

So when you read John 6 .65 in context, it has nothing to do with either 1

Timothy 2 .4 or 2 Peter 3 .9, however you may interpret those. Obviously, in that context, that's exactly what is going on, that he does specifically draw a specific people to himself, those that are given by the

Father to the Son, and that's what he's talking about in John 6 .65. That is really interesting that he would take that position.

Well, interesting? That's an interesting term to use of it, interesting, but I would say that Chosen, and again,

I saw a review of this book written by someone else, a Reformed scholar just this past week, and so I'm not the only one saying this, and I'm not trying to say it's to be mean,

I am saying this as a result of my specific examination of the exegesis in this book.

But it would be, and this is the terminology he used, this would be a book to give to seminary students on how not to do exegesis.

Well, I agree with you totally, and you have a great show. Okay, thank you very much for calling in,

Rodney, first time, we appreciate you doing that. Thank you, God bless. 5080960, that opens up a phone line for you at 5080960, and I have many

Dennis's in front of me. Are they different Dennis's there, Big Dave? They are, Big Dave, the master of the phone control panel, tells us that we have more than one

Dennis with us today, and that, my friends, to those of you who have listened before, is frightening.

It's absolutely frightening for me to know that there are two Dennis's. Now, I'm going to go to the Dennis that I know first, and I think this is him.

Hi, Dennis! Hello! This is the Dennis we know, that's good, okay. Get me out of the way, there may be other

Dennis's nicer and calmer. What can we do for you today, Dennis? Okay, well, I have a little bit of a quirky conscience, so I need to say something, even though it's sort of old.

Way back at the beginning of this series, I said something in reference to deism, and, well, it should have been more precise. I should have said something like,

Dr. Geisler's Soteriology has something of the spirit of deism, in that it assigns God to a passive role, thus stripping him of his sovereign majesty.

Okay, now I feel better. Well, and you have, as normal, been very insightful, and you will,

I think, enjoy, I think it's chapter two of the upcoming book, The Potter's Freedom, because as you take apart

Dr. Geisler's perspective in regards to foreknowledge and determination, that is the fundamental result.

There is no active, powerful decree of God that actually determines the role of the elect or who the elect is.

It is all based upon his perfect knowledge of what free men do. There is no freedom for the potter in this system of theology.

Dr. Geisler Then here's a statement, I don't know if you like it, you can use it, whatever. Paul Let me write it down. Dr. Geisler Okay, based on Ephesians 2 -1, of course, where we're dead in trespass and sin, it says, "...corpses

cannot assist or resist. Resurrection is neither cooperation nor violation."

Paul That's right. Now, are you reading that, or did you make it up? Dr. Geisler I made it up. I wrote it down. Paul Well, I will need to see that copyrighted and notarized.

Dr. Geisler Well, you've got the tape, come on. Paul Well, that's quite true. But you see, that's why Dr. Geisler can say that men are not so dead that they cannot respond.

Dr. Geisler Degrees of deadness. Paul Degrees of deadness. Dr. Geisler You've got to get that thing from The Princess Bride.

I hope I haven't wrongly remembered the quote, but I think it would be very fitting. And also, it's funny how he talks about God hating people.

Well, it's just lesser love, because Jesus said, you know, if you don't hate your mother and father, just loving them less than Jesus.

Well, that's still a distinction. Paul Well, and for those that don't know what you're referring to, when Dr. Geisler deals with Romans chapter 9,

Jacob I loved but Esau I hated, he makes the assertion, and what's being said there is that to Esau I loved less than Jacob.

Well, that's exactly, that's one of the first things that came across my mind was, wait a minute, elsewhere he argues

God's love cannot have these kinds of distinctions, but now he's saying that it can have a distinction. But I think the way that he gets around that is that at some point in discussion of Romans 9, he says, well, in reality, what we've got going on here is that when you willingly embrace

God's love, it looks so much greater than the love of someone who doesn't willingly embrace it.

So in other words, our response to it is what makes it look like it's I think he would logically be forced to say that God's love for Jacob and God's love for Esau had to be identical, or there is some error in God or something like that.

Which, again, I don't know anyone in systematic theology history, at least amongst the

Orthodox, who has tried to attempt to argue that God does not have the ability to be free in the exercise of His love.

But again, we address that as well. It just doesn't make any sense to me, because if everyone deserves to go to hell, and if people who went to hell didn't deserve to go there, then

God is unjust, so they must deserve to go there, and Christians are saved by grace, so apparently we deserve to go there too, but it's not great to save us.

So if we all deserve to go to hell, and we're all just corpses, and we're all lumps of clay outside of regeneration, this whole faunted idea of man's autonomy is just so ridiculous.

It's like he's doing a Thomas Jefferson on the Bible, you know? Snip, snip, snip! Well, except it's isogetical snip, snip, snip, instead of the physical snip, snip, snip.

Or highbrow snip, snip, snip. Well, you call it what you will. All right, Dennis, thanks for calling in again today,

God bless. 5080960. 5080960,

I think we'll try to help Martin out with his transatlantic phone bill real quick by sneaking him in before the break.

How you doing, Martin? How are you, James? I'm okay, how are you? Doing pretty well. Good, good.

One thing I wanted to say before I came to my statement was how grateful I am for your show. Well, I think you're our only

English listener, so we're grateful to have you. Oh, I don't know, I meant to say, and probably

Stephen will hear, Stephen Luker, I mean, you know, I'm very grateful to him for putting your show on the internet. That's the only way

I get to hear it. Well, let me mention Stephen Luker is our wonderful friend who runs straightgate .com,

and Stephen allows us to put these programs on the internet so people all across the world, including

Martin in Birmingham, can not only listen to the program, but he can also hear himself. And that makes that long -distance phone card you bought worthwhile, doesn't it?

Well, I think so, maybe. All righty. Well, what's your comment today? Well, it was just a little incident that happened to me.

Do you remember a couple of weeks ago I mentioned I was talking with somebody who gave me Sumner's book? Yes.

I was talking, you know, further on the saga, I'd given him some of your tapes and Sproul's The Heart of Reformed Theology, and I eventually sort of came back with him, and we went through, you know,

John 6 and Romans, and basically he was quite funny. He looked me in the eye, and he said, okay,

I can't floor the argument, but he said, I don't want to believe it. And that was, you know, it's so true.

He said, I just don't want to believe it. I remember a Roman Catholic lady who was doing some graduate work at a local institute, and one of her assignments was to interview a fundamentalist, and so she called me up, and I went, well, whatever.

So she came over, and we started talking about what we believed, and when I got to the point of talking about sovereign grace and God's justice and righteousness and so on and so forth,

I'll never forget, she summarized what I had just said and said, you really believe that?

And I said, yes. She said, I would never believe in or worship a God like that.

And my response is very straightforward, and I said, yes, outside of grace you never would. And I think

Jonathan Edwards was quite right to point out that probably the single best test of regeneration, the single best test that we have of whether we are truly in union with Christ, is whether we love those aspects of God's revelation concerning Himself that are the most offensive to the natural man.

Oh, absolutely. I mean, to be honest, James, I mean, before sort of coming across Alfred Omega, I mean,

I was sort of basically an Armenian, I'd say. Oh! And, you know, listening to your take,

I mean, you know, it gave me, I'll just be honest, it gave me a few sleepless nights thinking, no, this is too hard.

No, that wasn't me, Martin. That wasn't me. I understand exactly what you're saying, though.

You know, yeah, I mean, I agree. It's very difficult, but if you want to be consistent with the whole of Scripture, you've got to accept it.

You have to. There's no other way to do it, and there's a wonderful piece that comes once you really begin to look at yourself for what you truly are and God for who

He truly is. So that's a wonderful thing. Well, hey, thanks for participating today, Martin. Thanks, James.

All right. God bless. God bless. Bye. And welcome back to The Divide. This afternoon, we're looking at faith as the gift of God.

We're also looking at the subject of the perfect grace of God. Is God's grace perfect in and of itself, or is there a necessity for man to somehow add something to it?

Does God simply try to save, or does God actually save? Is it due or done?

This past week, we were talking to a Roman Catholic individual in our chat room, and we were sharing with this individual the fundamental differences between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity on the issue of salvation.

And it strikes me that the very same issues that we were addressing are the issues we're addressing here. Due versus done.

God as one who makes salvation available, or God as one who actually saves.

Saved or savable? Redeemed or redeemable? Well, those are the issues that the

New Testament addresses very clearly, and I think we all need to ask ourselves when we look at the text of the

New Testament and we listen to what it says, are we willing to truly listen to what is being said and obey what is being said?

Let's take another phone call. 508 -0960, by the way. 508 -0960.

And by the way, we need to push this 1 -888 -TALK -960 number, because the president of the ministry,

Rich Pierce, reports to me that as he drove back into the Phoenix area, you picked up the signal

Winslow, Holbrook, Winslow, Holbrook, had it all the way in from Flagstaff and on down, so there may be a lot of you folks out there listening to us on the powerhouse 1360, and therefore you need to use that 1 -888 -TALK -960 number to get hold of us here, and it's toll free, so you can participate as well.

You don't have to be a Phoenician. 1 -888 -TALK -960. Let's go to Ed in Phoenix.

Hello, Ed. Hello, James. How are you, sir? Fine, how are you doing? I'm doing pretty well.

Good. The question I have is pertaining to being dead in sins and trespasses, and when

I hear that, I think of Adam and Eve.

Yes. When they sinned, they died. That's right. And yet, there was still that communication with God, so I'm wondering...

Communication, but not fellowship. Communication only in the sense that God cast them out of the garden, but the point of their spiritual death is the same point that is brought up by Paul in Ephesians chapter 2, and that is the result of spiritual death is that we walk in the flesh, our minds are set upon the things of the flesh, rather than the things of the spirit, which results in death, setting our minds upon the things of the spirit results in life and peace.

And so, Paul's point in bringing that out, especially in Ephesians chapter 2, is to contrast the state that we were in before, you being dead in trespasses and sins, the fact that we walked, that is, we had our very life in the spirit of this age, in the lusts of this world, the spirit that works in the sons of disobedience.

It's a rather depressing description in verses 2 and 3, when it describes the slavery, quite literally, of those who are dead in their trespasses and their sins, and this control that the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience has over those individuals, over all of us, who then fulfill the lusts of the flesh, and the desires of the flesh, and of the eyes, and so on and so forth.

In fact, the result is that we are, by nature, children of wrath.

But, then verse 4, the huge contrast between verses 3 and 4, but God being rich in mercy, not but man having saving faith, but God being rich in mercy, and it doesn't say, made a plan of salvation.

It doesn't say He threw a rope down in the pit in which we had dug for ourselves, but God being rich in mercy, because the great love with which

He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ.

The only active agent in that entire sentence is God, never man.

Man is made alive, man is resurrected, and God's the one who does it.

Maybe what I'm having difficulty with is, we are alive physically, and there are, you know, before my conversion, there were times when

I did cry out to God for help, you know, to get me out of trouble or whatever, but now you're saying...

You remain, Eddie, as an image -bearer of God, and as an image -bearer of God, there is a knowledge of God that is impressed upon us.

The unregenerate man knows that God exists. He knows that God is there. And so the issue is, what does spiritual death result in?

Does it result in a destruction of that knowledge of God's existence? No. But does it result in the destruction of the source for proper and holy desires within ourselves?

Yes. Does it result in rebellion against God? Yes. Does it result in our inability to break the bondage of sin?

Yes. Yeah, that's what it brings about in our lives. Okay, one more thing. Who would you recommend that has done a good study on this subject, specifically?

On the deadness of man and sin? Yeah. Well, there's all sorts of studies.

I mean, Robert Raymond's New Systematic Theology has a section on it, any of your good Reformed theologies will.

Sproul has written extensively in a number of his books on what this results in. His book,

Willing to Believe, would be a good thing to look at. Obviously, Pink's work on the sovereignty of God, he himself says he's not addressing that, but he does address it a few times in passing.

Calvin has excellent material on that in the Institutes of the Christian Religion as well. Spurgeon frequently makes reference to it in his sermons.

So there's a lot of references you could go to there. Okay. Okay, thanks for calling in today, Ed. Okay. God bless.

Bye. Let's quickly, nope, we're going to skip any other references there.

There's all sorts of good passages that we can go to. I just did want to attempt, and I forgot to do this earlier, let me just share a few passages of Scripture, and if you're driving around, write these down, but listen to what they say.

Psalm 105, verse 25, This is referring to people bringing, this is referring to God bringing nations against Israel.

He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal craftily with his servants. Can God do that? Joshua 11, 20,

No mercy, but that he might destroy them just as the Lord had committed Moses. The Lord hardened their hearts so they would be destroyed in battle.

Can God do that? Scriptures say so. I remember the words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 11, 25.

At that time, Jesus said, I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

God hides his truth from some, oh yes, for his purposes. Jeremiah 32, 40,

I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them to do them good, and I will put the fear of me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from me.

You hear what God does? My friends, if it bothers you that God puts the fear of him into our hearts so that we will not turn away from him, then you've got a problem.

Because the theology that's causing you that problem is not a biblical theology. If you have a problem with God's irresistible grace, then maybe you don't understand what grace is.

You remember what Martin said? I had a few sleepless nights. I know many a person who's had a sleepless night because they have been forced by the weight of Scripture to recognize that, you know what?

I haven't looked at God the way that I need to look at God. I have not, in fact, looked at myself the way that I need to look at myself.

And that may cause some sleepless nights, and maybe this series that we have presented has bothered you.

I'd just like to ask you to consider, to think for just a moment, why has it bothered you?

Has it bothered you because your theology is maybe not biblical? Pray to God, study the

Scriptures, listen to what the Word of God says, and make your decision from there. Thank you very much for being with us today on The Dividing Line.

We hope you'll join with us again next week, here at two o 'clock, as we open God's Word and look at important issues about the