The Potter's Freedom Part 5

It was about 500 years ago, not quite, we're getting there, it's going to be a big anniversary when we do. But it was about 500 years ago that a very great debate took place, and I have an interest in debates, I've taken part in a few in my time.

But this one was done in writing, and I've done a few of those as well. But this was done in writing in the form of books, and I haven't quite gotten to that point yet. This was the first great debate of the Reformation, the Reformation, most of us, time as having begun approximately 1517, though of course anyone who's actually studied the movement knows that it was a very complex movement, and there were very important things that took place before it, and very important things that took place after it as well.

So it's really hard to say exactly when it began, but most people begin it October 31st, 1517. When Martin Luther posts his 95 Theses on the Wittenberg Church door for debate in regards to indulgences, well it was not too many years after that, that the first great written debate takes place in regards to the Reformation.

It took place between Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus was called the Prince of the Humanists, and Erasmus was in fact the one who had first both printed and published an edition of the Greek New Testament, and Erasmus was quite the scholar.

And Erasmus wrote a book on the freedom of the will. And Luther responded in 1525 with his classic work, The Bondage of the Will, in response to Erasmus. And as he brought his discussion to a close, Luther said something that I think is extremely important for us as we discuss the topics of salvation, as we continue to examine a new book published by Dr. Norman Geisler entitled Chosen but Free.

Here's what he said to Erasmus in his conclusion. After he had made a rather strong conclusion where he said,. For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and foreordains all things, that he can be neither deceived nor hindered in his prescience and his predestination, and that nothing can take place but according to his will, which reason herself is compelled to confess, then even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can be no free will in man, in angel, or in any creature.

That was his conclusion. And then he says to Erasmus, he says, In this, moreover, I give you great praise, and proclaim it, you alone, in preeminent distinction from all others, have entered upon the thing itself.

That is, the grand turning point of the cause, and have not wearied me with those irrelevant points about potpourri, purgatory, indulgences, and other like baubles, rather than causes, with which all have hitherto tried to hunt me down, though in vain.

You and you alone saw what was the grand hinge upon which the whole turned, and therefore you attacked the vital part at once, for which from my heart I thank you. Now, did you hear what he said? Here is Martin Luther, which most people would identify as the father of the Reformation.

Certainly there were others. Zwingli was coming to the same conclusions at the same time, and before them you had Jan Hus, you had John Wycliffe. Certainly we're not saying that everything began with Martin Luther, but most people would look back and recognize that God used Luther in an exceptional way at a certain point in history to bring about the freedom that we have today to study the Gospel, to own the Scriptures, to interpret the Scriptures in their own context, rather than the context of Roman Catholic tradition.

And yet what did he say about the debate over the bondage or freedom of the will, over predestination, over God's freedom and man's freedom? He said that Erasmus had entered upon the thing itself, he calls it the grand turning point of the cause.

What cause is he talking about? He's talking about the cause of the Protestant Reformation. And he says that Erasmus himself has recognized not what are simple baubles like popery or purgatory or indulgences.

Instead, Erasmus is focused upon the cause of the entire argument between Catholic and Protestant. In fact, he calls it the grand hinge upon which the whole turned, and said that Erasmus had attacked the vital part at once.

Do you hear what he's saying? He's saying that this is the cause, this is the vital part, this is the grand hinge upon which the whole turns. And he compliments Erasmus for focusing upon what's important, and yet today, today we have the very same issues facing us that faced Luther and Erasmus long, long ago.

And as I have been reviewing and discussing the presentation made in Chosen but Free by Dr. Norman Geisler, I have more than once had occasion to point out that, again, we have the exact same issues being discussed, except this time it's between two people who would call themselves Protestants, and yet on the issue, the grand hinge upon which it all turns, I find myself defending Luther's position, and Dr. Geisler finds himself defending Erasmus's.

Where do we draw the line? Well last week we began looking at Romans chapter 9, and I started preaching, I admit, I started preaching and I thought I was going to get done with the whole thing by about half past and we could take phone calls, but I started preaching and everyone who knows me, Rich Pierce is in the control room and I noticed that on my screen it says, Rich Pierce screening your calls, so we want to make sure to mention that.

We mention when Dave's here, so we need to mention when Rich is handling the board today. And Rich is laughing because I said that I was preaching, and I guess those who know me tend to know that I do that.

And he doesn't want to say anything today, but one of my very good friends, Simon Escobedo is in the studio with me today, hi Simon, I know you're not going to say anything back to me, but hi anyways.

And he started laughing when I said I started preaching too, because I guess he knows that that's a tendency of mine as well. So we didn't get very far last week. We went through Romans 9 and I started dealing with Dr. Geisler's responses, but I didn't really have an opportunity to really get into it.

And given the fact that I have heard people repeating Dr. Geisler's comments on Romans chapter 9 over the past week, I think that it is very important that we address these issues and that we do so in a fair and biblical manner.

So I would invite anyone, if you want to know about the grand hinge upon which it all turns, to take your Bibles and look with me again this week at Romans chapter 9. I would like to begin by looking at what I described last week as the dividing line of Biblical soteriology, the dividing line of the two major ways of looking at what the Bible says about salvation.

And you might say, two? There's probably 23 ,000. Well, maybe, but on this issue, there's two. That makes it nice and simple. Either you believe God saves or you believe He doesn't. Either you believe that God saves perfectly or you believe that God has a plan whereby maybe He makes man savable, salvable, but He leaves it up to man as to whether he will actually be saved.

That's the great dividing line. That is the divide that Luther recognized. And maybe if you're a Lutheran, you're not aware of that because most Lutherans today don't believe what Luther believed about this.

I would just suggest you read The Bondage of the Will, but most people recognize that following Philip Melanchthon, most Lutherans stepped away from the strong position that Martin Luther had. But I describe Romans 9 .16 as that great dividing line, and it says it does not therefore depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

And whenever you see the word therefore, you should always see what it's there for. And so that flows directly from the assertion of Romans 9 .15, where Paul says, For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

And when you go back and look at where God said that to Moses in the 33rd chapter of Exodus, an incredible passage of Scripture, by the way, worthy of an entire hour in and of itself. I had the privilege of teaching a Hebrew exegesis class this past spring for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, and we went through Exodus 13, and it was just incredible, 32 and 33 and 34, those chapters, just incredible in their depth.

But fundamentally what Romans 9 .15 is referring to is God's freedom. God's freedom to have mercy on whom he has mercy and compassion on whom he will have compassion, it's about the freedom of God, the sovereignty of God, the fact that God is the one who's free.

And I am finding over and over again as I address this issue and as I'm writing my response to this book, not like any of you are surprised I'm doing that, that the real issue that we have to continuously keep before us is the freedom of God.

In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and I'll put it in this phraseology because I want you to understand the importance of what we're talking about. There is a theology that is extremely popular amongst all religions of man, there is a theology that is extremely popular today even amongst those who would call themselves Protestants, that should be written under the title of the bondage of God.

It should be described as the bondage of God theology, and it's the idea that somehow God has gotten himself into a situation where he is in bondage to his creatures. There's many things that God would like to do in this theology.

God tries, desperately in fact, to save as many people as he can. In fact, I was reading an article by Dr. Geisler in a tribute to John Walvoord written in 1982. I did not bring it with me today and I do not have the files working on my computer in front of me, so I'll have to paraphrase, but specifically Dr. Geisler said that God will save the maximum number of savable people.

That is, he will not save as many as could be saved, except he will within their realm of freedom. God would like to save all, but he can't, and so I would like to submit to you that the theology that is opposed to the Reformed understanding of these passages could be described as the theology of the bondage of God.

God is in bondage to his creature. His creature has ultimate freedom, but God has no ultimate freedom in and of himself. That's not what Exodus 33 is about, and that's not what Romans 9 .15 is about. There God says, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

God's mercy and God's compassion are free. They are free because God is free. They have to be. If they are mercy, if this is mercy, if this is compassion, if this is grace, it must be free. It cannot be demanded and it cannot be forced.

And light of that assertion drawn from Exodus 33 of God's absolute freedom, Paul concludes, it does not therefore depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. In the NIV, the NAS renders it, so then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

And I rendered it to you from the Greek. It therefore is not from the willing one, the one willing, neither from the one running, but from the God who is mercying. And mercy, mercying as a verb is not something that we really have in English language.

But that's how it's used in the Greek language. Mercy can be something. You can mercy someone and God is the one. It is not dependent upon the willing of man or the running of man, but upon God who is merciful.

That's the dividing line. That's what separates what I would assert to you as a biblical soteriology from a soteriology that is less than biblical and is frequently pandering to the desires of men. Well, Dr. Geisser does address this verse in one paragraph on page 59 of Chosen But Free.

And here is his comments. He quotes it. I'll give you the quotation first and then his response. Romans 9 .16, so then it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. A New King James version of the Bible.

To the strong Calvinists, this seems unmistakable evidence that salvation does not depend on man's desire or will. R .C. Sproul is incautiously triumphant about this, claiming this one verse is absolutely fatal to Arminianism.

That quotation is found, I believe, in Chosen By God, page 151. And here is Dr. Geisser's response. Again, the Greek word for of here is ek, which means out of. It is a reference to the source of salvation, not the means by which we receive it.

This means it is a free act of our will in receiving it, John 1 .12, Ephesians 2 .8, etc. All forms of Calvinism and Arminianism believe that God is the one who initiated salvation even before the world began, Ephesians 1 .4.

Only God can be the source of God's saving, quote, mercy, end quote. However, as the Bible indicates later in Romans 9, verse 22, and elsewhere, we can reject God's mercy, 2 Peter 3 .9, Acts 7 .51. There is no discussion of the relationship of Romans 9 .16 to Romans 9 .15.

In fact, it's interesting since Dr. Geisser, as we did discuss last week, takes the idea that Romans 9 .10 and following is about nations and not individuals. It is interesting that at this point, he reverts to the individual view and not the nation view, recognizing, I think, as most people have to recognize, that the nation view simply doesn't fit into this passage or into most of the rest of Romans chapter 9 at all.

In fact, that's a major inconsistency. Why would you say that Romans chapter 9, verse 22 teaches that we can reject God's mercy if Romans 9 is about nations? I mentioned last week the fact that Dr. Geisser atomizes Romans 9 and addresses it in many different places rather than looking at it as a whole.

I think that's one of the tremendous strengths of Dr. Piper's work, The Justification of God, which I would again recommend very strongly to your reading, because instead of atomizing the passage and breaking it up, the overriding issue for Piper is how does all of this hang together?

How is it, what is Paul's point in all of this? Is he answering a question? Let's be consistent all the way through. That's why I would highly recommend to you the reading of Piper's work at this point.

But there are a number of problems with Dr. Geisser's response found on page 59 of Chosen but Free. The first thing that I did not even recognize until my friend Simon and I were sitting here looking at this a few moments ago before the program began is the first line.

Again, the Greek word for of here is ek, which means out of. And I have in front of me the newest edition, thanks to a good friend of mine, of Bible Works 4 .0. And my edition of Bible Works allows me to put all sorts of Greek texts up on my screen.

And so I was looking at the Greek New Testament in the UBS 4th edition, and I was looking at Romans 9 .16, and I could not find the word ek anywhere. So I thought, well, maybe one of the other editions of the Greek New Testament, maybe it's a textual variant.

And so I brought up the Scriveners, because that is the TR, which is the basis of the New King James Version, which is what he cites. But there are no textual variants there. So I brought up the Robinson Pierpont Majority Text, and there are no textual variants there.

In other words, the word ek does not appear in Romans 9 .16, despite the fact that the very first line of Dr. Geisser's response is, again, the Greek word for of here is ek, which means out of. No, Dr. Geisser, the word ek doesn't appear in Romans 9 .16.

Then we have the following statement, it is a reference to the source of salvation, not the means by which we receive it. This means it is a free act of our will in receiving it. And quite honestly, all I can say is, that statement does not have the first bit of connection to Romans 9 .16 at all.

That is what is called eisegesis. That is wishful thinking, to be quite simple about it. That has nothing to do with Paul's argument. It has nothing to do with the direction that he's going. And there's nothing in Romans 9 .16 that even begins to substantiate this, even dismissing the fact of the obvious error of asserting that the Greek word ek is here, and it isn't.

It is interesting to note that Dr. Geisser here seems to recognize that this passage has to be about salvation. Well, if that's the case, then in light of Romans 9 .6, and then 9 .16, and then the discussion in 10 and 11, this is all a unit, obviously, therefore, Dr. Geisser has undercut his own argument that the preceding sections of Romans 9 are about nations and not people.

But I don't see anywhere in Romans 9 .16 where we have a differentiation between source and means. And in point of fact, the obvious emphasis in Romans 9 .16 is, therefore, it is not of the one willing, neither the one running or striving or trying, but, and but is used here in what's called the adversative.

The adversative. It is not this, rather, on the other hand, it is this. And in fact, Dr. Geisser should be well aware of the fact that this type of adversative use is found elsewhere. For example, in very, very important passages about the doctrine of justification, you will find the very same type of adversative uses being used, where you have a distinction being drawn between, it's not this, but this.

Allah's not used that way, but day is used that way. For example, in Romans 4 .5, He wrote to a man who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly. That's an illustration of the use of the adversative.

Well, that's the same thing that we have in Romans 9 .16. It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, instead, what does it depend.

On?

Now the word depend, actually, is not found in the Greek text of Romans 9 .16. Literally, as I've read it before, it says, therefore, it is not of the one willing, neither of the one running, but of the mercying God.

And Paul's point's very clear. Salvation is of God, not of man. And are we to understand this to say, well, yes, God's mercy is necessary? Well, that does seem to be what Dr. Geisser goes on to say. He says, all forms of Calvinism and Arminianism believe that God is the one who initiated salvation even before the world began, Ephesians 1 .4.

That is a true statement. That is a true statement. All forms of Calvinism and Arminianism do believe that God is the one who initiated salvation. All forms of Roman Catholicism believe that. All forms of Mormonism believe that.

All forms of Semi-Pelagianism believe that. In fact, I've never met any religious system that says that God did not initiate salvation. Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, you name it, everybody believes that.

But that's not the issue, nor is that the issue of Romans 9 .16. Unless what Dr. Geisser is suggesting to us is that what is being said here is that the source of salvation is not man's desire or effort.

Well, who could actually seriously suggest that Paul would want to argue that? His opponents aren't arguing that. So why would Paul be arguing that, well, the very source of salvation itself is the will or the running of man?

The very fact that he brings out the willing of man and the running of man, we are talking here about salvation as a whole, including whether one embraces it or not. And that's borne out by the context, because then he begins talking about whom?

About Pharaoh. Very personal, very direct, very forceful argumentation that Paul is using here. Now he then says, only God can be the source of God's saving mercy. Well, that's quite true. But Dr. Geisser is inserting, eisegetically, a distinction between the source of salvation and the means of salvation, the means by which we receive it.

It is not man's will, but God's mercy that brings about all of salvation, source and means together as one. He then asserts that, however, as the Bible indicates later in Romans 9 .22, we'll look at that in a moment, and elsewhere we can reject God's mercy.

I think when we get to Romans 9 .22, we'll find out somewhat otherwise. Let's continue looking at his responses to Romans chapter 9. We looked briefly last week at the issue of the verses 11 through 13, and the issue of nationalism and so on and so forth.

I would just like to emphasize one more time, since this response that he has provided is being discussed and being used by other people, that recognizing that the phrase, Jacob I loved and Esau I hated, comes from Malachi, does not in the least bit argue against the personal nature of Paul's argumentation in Romans 9.

Yes, when Malachi was written, Jacob and Esau were gone. Yes, Malachi is referring to two nations. And yes, Genesis 25 says there are two nations in your womb. All of that's quite true. The problem is, that's an argumentation against Paul's position, not against anything else.

See, the question is, how is Paul using these issues? How is Paul using these passages? And when we look at Romans chapter 9, the question he's asking is, why is it that even in light of all the promises of the people of Israel, there are individual Israelites that reject Christ?

That's Romans 9. And then as we've seen already this afternoon, starting after verse 14, Dr. Geisler recognizes that from that point on, this has to be applied to individuals. So if you start in Romans 9, and in the first six verses you have personal application, and then 14 onwards it's personal application, why in the world would we not see that the in verses 10 through 13?

I don't know. But I believe it involves eisegesis, not exegesis, of the text. Now, we did not get to looking at the response to the conclusion of Romans 9 last week, and I'm going to try to both be fair and thorough, but I guess I've given into doing some preaching again, didn't I?

I know, I know, it happens. It happens, I just can't help myself, but hopefully it's useful to someone, not to... Just a few moments before we take a break, but let me at least give you something to be thinking of during the break, and as we come back, Romans 9, 19.

One of you will say to me, this is page 89 of Chosen But Free. One of you will say to me, then why does God still blame us for who resists His will? This seems to imply that God's power in salvation is literally irresistible regardless of what one wills.

Yes, that does seem to be what it implies. Here is Dr. Geisser's response. In response, it should be pointed out, first, that the phrase, who resists His will, is not an affirmation by the biblical author, but a question posed in the mouth of an objector.

Note the introductory phrase, one of you will say to me, a similar objector is introduced in Romans 3, 8, why not say, let us do evil that good may come? So the idea that one cannot resist God's will may be no more a part of Paul's teaching than the view that we should do evil so good may come.

Furthermore, Paul clearly rejects the objector's stance in the very next verse saying, but who are you, O man, to talk back to God, i .e. resist God? His answer implies that the objector can and is resisting God by raising this very question.

But more importantly, the direct implication is that if it is irresistible, then we should not be blamed. In addition, in Romans 11, 19 -20, when Paul agrees with the objector, he writes, well said. No such statement is added here in Romans 9.

Another point to remember is that things that eventually seem irresistible were not so to begin with. For example, sin only becomes unavoidable when one freely rejects what is right and his conscience becomes hardened or seared, 1 Timothy 4, 2.

Likewise, righteousness becomes only irresistible when we freely yield to God's grace. Thus, grace is only irresistible to the willing, not to the unwilling. As John Walvord insightfully puts it, efficacious grace never operates in a heart that is still rebellious, and no one is ever saved against his will, end quote.

Let's go to our break with this one thought. If what John Walvord said is true, we are all hopeless. We are all hopeless. Think about that. We'll be right back. For The Dividing Line, my name is James White.

We're looking at Romans chapter 9 and discussing the issue of Dr. Norman Geisler's new book, Chosen But Free, and the responses that he has provided to these passages. And we do have one caller online.

We will be taking calls today. If you'd like to comment at 508 -0960, 508 -0960. Now basically, it seems to me that what Dr. Geisler is saying here is that first of all, Romans 9 .19, since it is an objector, that possibly he's misunderstanding or misreading the intent of Paul when he says, "...one of you will say to me, then why does God still blame us for who resists his will?".

But obviously, anyone who has attempted to present this passage to others recognizes the fact that when you preach through the preceding verses, when you talk about Pharaoh and the hardening of the heart, and some of you may be going, well, why don't you talk about his comments there?

We did a few weeks ago when I point out the eisegetical assertions that Dr. Geisler makes about Romans 9 and the issue of hardening and things like that. But when Paul says in Romans 9 .18, "...therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.".

Verse 19 flows very logically from that. And I have heard, when I have preached 9 .18, how many people have I heard say, well, then why does God still blame us for who resists his will? The natural response of the human heart is Romans 9 .19.

So in Romans 9 .20, Paul's response focuses directly upon the real issue in this entire matter. "...Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, Why did you make me like this?".

What is his response? Man must realize that he is the pot. God is the potter. That the potter is free to do with the lump of clay what the potter wishes to do. That is Pauline theology, and that is Pauline anthropology.

That is, that's Paul's doctrine of God, and that's Paul's doctrine of man. And that's the response that he offers. And so it is amazing to me that as a result of this, we don't have an exegetical response from Dr. Geisser.

We have an eisegetical response that really has nothing to do with the text at all, that says grace is only irresistible to the willing, not to the unwilling. Well, then we're playing word games. We're playing word games.

Irresistible to the willing? What does that mean? I have no idea what that means. When Dr. Geisser says, I believe an irresistible grace is just irresistible to the willing, that's an oxymoron. That makes no sense.

It communicates nothing. It's either irresistible, that is, that God by His sovereign power raises dead sinners to life by a sovereign act of His will, or He can't do that, or doesn't do that. I mean, those are your only choices.

Saying grace is irresistible to the willing, not to the unwilling, means nothing. And hence, to quote John Wolvard, efficacious grace never operates in a heart that is still rebellious. Well, I'm going to tell you something.

That's frightening to me. That statement is absolutely, positively frightening to me. What is the hope for the rebellious heart if God's efficacious grace cannot change that heart? If it is up to us to make ourselves unrebellious, so as to enable God's grace to work with us, folks, I've heard that line someplace before.

It's called 2 Nephi 25 .23 in the Book of Mormon. It's also found in Moroni 10 .32 of the Book of Mormon. It says, if we will do these things, then is the grace of Christ sufficient for us. 2 Nephi 25 .23 says that we are saved by grace after all we can do.

My friends, the dividing line has always been not the necessity of grace, but the sufficiency of grace. And at this point, Dr. Geisler and I are on absolutely opposite sides of that issue. And Dr. Wolvard as well, for he says, efficacious grace never operates in a heart that is still rebellious.

And I say to you, the whole reason it has to be efficacious is to change our hearts and make us new creatures. Or we will remain rebels and enemies of God. It is God who changes the heart. Well, before I do any more preaching, I think it would be a good idea if we take some of our phone calls.

508 -0960. 508 -0960 is the phone number. And we invite you to call and participate today on The Dividing Line. Let's start with our first caller. This is Randy all the way out in Apache Junction. Hello, Randy.

How are you?

Very good. How are you doing?

Doing real well.

My question is, if we are predestined in our will, we have no responsibility in our will in accepting it?

I didn't say we have no responsibility in our will. I said that we are spiritually dead and that we are enslaved to sin. And so that means that if we are going to be saved, then salvation has to come from God.

It has to be of God. And He's the one who must save us. Not that somehow He's just sort of staying there impotently and hoping that we will take care of things ourselves and sort of work the plan, shall we say?

Do something to save ourselves and accepting something, so on and so forth. God is the one who raises us to spiritual life. Yes, indeed.

Okay. Doesn't have anything to do with it, then. And we are predestined, then why are we here? How come we didn't just put us in the eternal state?

Because God is working something out called His plan in this world. Ephesians 1 says He is working all things after the counsel of His will, that He is bringing glory and honor to Himself by conforming us to the image of Christ.

Prior to Romans chapter 9, you have, logically, Romans chapter 8. And in Romans chapter 8, there Paul talks about this very purpose, and that is that God is conforming us to the image of His Son, that He is, in doing all of this, bringing honor and glory to Himself.

Ephesians chapter 1 brings the same thing out. And really the fundamental answer to anyone's asking, why does God do anything, is found in Ephesians 1, 6, the praise of the glory of His grace. If God simply just zapped us into the eternal state, so to speak, I'm not really sure that all of the things that God would have to be revealed to us, would be revealed to us.

And you may recall, for example, the fact that the New Testament teaches that we, following Christ's footsteps, He suffered, and we're called to suffer. Well, why, someone might ask. Well, it is God's will, through suffering, to conform us to the image of Christ.

And, well, can't God just do that by snapping His fingers? Well, I suppose that He could, but in response to your question, I would say that He hasn't chosen to do so.

Yeah, I don't think we would actually know His love and respect and honor for Him, if He did that, you know?

Well, that's part of it, but I think part of it is taking, see, God is glorified in taking enemies. And that's what the Bible describes us as. Read Romans chapter 8, verses 4 through 9, and there it says that those who are not according to the Spirit, who do not walk according to the Spirit, they are at enmity with God.

And it is His joy to take those who are justly condemned, and His enemies, and change them. Give them a, as He described in the Old Testament, take out that heart of stone, and place within them a heart of flesh.

And change them from being God-haters into being God-lovers. And He is glorified in doing that. And that's what He's about doing in this world.

Do you think, do you believe that He still has a plan for Israel, in His predestination?

Well, if you mean that there are...

The remnant being saved?

Well, Romans chapter 11 says that a remnant will be saved. As to exactly who they are, that gets us into a very long discussion of eschatology and everything else. And you'll never find me arguing eschatology in a public situation.

But, certainly, I mean, there are people who are being drawn from Israel even to this day. That is, Israel in the sense of the people of Israel, the ethnic Israel. But, obviously, you know, there are major viewpoints in regards to whether Israel is just the descendants of Abraham, and in fact Romans chapter 9 addresses this, or whether those who are the children of promise, and all the rest of those things that go along with it.