Tim Staples on Calvinism

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 Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James wife And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning after a week's hiatus

Good to be back with you on the program We have much to do if you have looked at my blog

You know that over the next six weeks or so actually even longer now into March But especially the next six weeks very very busy

Next week just just a reminder just to give you an idea, especially those in the Phoenix area. We have so much to do today

I'm rushing But on Saturday, I will be speaking three times at Sovereign Grace Bible Church in Phoenix on Sunday both services at the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church on Tuesday and Wednesday I will be on with Michael Brown on his radio program discussing

Calvinism on Thursday Tim Staples will be my guest here on the dividing line for a 90 -minute edition of the dividing line to discuss first Corinthians chapter 3 and Purgatory and Friday and Friday night

Saturday morning I'll be speaking at the Arabic Baptist Church in Phoenix with Sam Shamoon and George say again others on the subject of Islam the weekend after I'll be in Conyers, Georgia and already put the information on the blog about that and then just a few weeks after that heading for London and Ministry there so a very very very busy time and I already have a number of things coming up in March and April as well, so Good good times in the sense of having lots to do but so lots of preparation wide variety of subjects

We're going to be addressing during this time period. So please pray for us as we pursue these opportunities of ministry

It's always good to have the opportunity to discuss these things Given that well, we can't expect the media to discuss them and we can't expect much in the

Christian media to discuss some of these issues either Today I am

Joined on the air I appreciate his taking the time to do so by the man of mystery the king of the blogosphere none other than my fellow blogger and really not

It's it's not really fair because Turretin fan has his own blog that is about 14 times more active than mine is and so He he makes my my pittance of output looks so Small and insignificant that I think we need to move him into the

Morpheus position in the prosopology on graphic on the Because Turretin fan

Seems how many do you type at about 300 words per minute something along those lines about 60 words per minute?

Well that I can even type faster and you know I still can't produce the amount of material that you do It's it is an amazing thing, but I asked the the great

Turretin fan to join me I was trying to figure out a nickname for you, but Turr just doesn't work

And I was thinking Francis, but that doesn't really work these days either Frank is right out

So we'll just call you Turretin fan Yeah, well that's that sounds like you're a rapper, and I just really can't

I can't hear you doing rap at all Anyway, I asked her to fan to join today because about I don't know ten days or so ago

I forget exactly how long ago it was now I was listening to Tim Staples series on purgatory

I found a very very interesting in a 5 CD set That very little the information was specifically on the doctrine of purgatory.

I at least appreciated the fact that mr. Staples recognizes that purgatory is a synthetic doctrine in the sense that it is

Based upon preceding concepts that you have to accept for it to make any sense whatsoever and I discovered that in the midst of his discussion of purgatory was a fairly lengthy about half an hour critique of Calvinism that I found

Just fascinating for many many reasons I generally find the criticism that's offered by graduates of the

Jimmy Swaggart Bible College of Calvinism to be extremely interesting if not generally very accurate and It does seem to me that converts no matter what they convert to tend to bring a lot of what they left with them

And I think that happened with with mr. Staples as well, and so I provided the the audio file to a turret and fan and said if you would like to join me and responding to some of the things that Tim Staples said especially because These tend to be issues that you have dealt with on your blog over the years in in a great deal of depth

So wouldn't you said be the case? Yes, some of them, of course some relate specifically to Calvinism there

There's other issues as well some philosophical issues that come up and a little bit of patristic

Argumentation as well. Yeah a lot of a lot of The really ages -old debate now of exegeting

Augustine which again illustrated I think the various stages in Augustine's life and and the problems that one encounters when attempting to bring him into Conformity with with anyone's exact position

You're going to find that to be really impossible to do but still Not exactly a fair representation of everything that Augustine had to say so unfortunately even

Having done a little editing. I see 38 minutes on my screen here as far as Mr.

Staples were obviously not to get to everything he had to say In in this program, but I want to get started especially because sadly

When when someone like Tim Staples or Jimmy Akin Addresses Calvinism for many

Roman Catholics, this is all they're ever going to hear about John Calvin and so a

Shall we say an unfair representation is going to stick with them for a very very long time

So let's just go ahead and dive into this. Let me let me start With with what he said, especially concerning his assertion that from Calvin's perspective in essence what he communicates and and this

He doesn't use these exact words, but we'll see the words. He does use in essence. He communicates that in Calvinism God In essence forces men to do evil and that God is actually working this evil within them and Hence that God is is in some way

Directly committing evil. Let's listen to what he has to say here. Dr. Merrill Unger, for example who did great work in demonstrating the veracity of Scripture through actually

I was going to start a little bit in that because we're short on time for the Lutheran human cooperation is necessary But there's an emphasis on faith alone to the exclusion of good works as being necessary With that comes a skepticism concerning any thought of merit at all for the

Calvinist Cooperation is virtually non -existent But in both cases works becomes almost a bad word with reference to justification when all this then filters down to the thousands of non -denominational ecclesial communities and various denominations who are not as Theologically sophisticated as are the more traditional

Lutheran and Reformed communities. You have a real mess Well, I guess we should start to stop and just for a moment say well, thank you.

Mr. Staples for recognizing Communities that are a little more theologically sophisticated than others

I think it's about the last positive thing I can come up with as far as that goes But he did at least admit and I think it is interesting

Francis Beckwith likewise Recognizes that it's it's the Reformed folks that provide the most cogent objections to his own position, even though he was never reformed

It's it's fascinating and reading his book that he's constantly responding to the very positions. He himself allegedly never held

I find that Interesting, but anyway the filtered down theology usually and almost predictably includes an immediate negative response if anyone posits

Cooperation with the grace of God or good works to be essential for salvation for believers who have reached the age of accountability

Anyone and of course that would include us Catholics But anyone who speaks of good works as necessary for salvation?

Well, they're immediately accused of teaching a work salvation That is opposed to Ephesians chapter 2 verses 8 and 9.

I Just stop right there and say this is why I've always always always said from the time

I was a skinny college student with hair It's not Ephesians 2 8 through 9.

It's Ephesians 2 8 through 10 don't you remember that you were in you were in that class when you we both looked very different and I kept

I looked more different than you did. I okay, that's fine I'm talking to rich here. Not not to a terrorism fan.

Everybody's going. Oh, that's a clue. No, it's not But anyway, I have always told people don't memorize

Ephesians 2 8 and 9 memorize Ephesians 2 8 9 and 10 and you'll be cutting off the vast majority of objections that People will be able to throw at you because it is right there that you have the proper relationship

Between faith and works that is lined out for you. And if you don't Give the doll story then people are gonna trip you up just as Tim Staples has done with many an unsuspecting person

But now before we get to a Catholic response to all of this

Consider this as well when I speak of the passivity of the will in Lutheran thought which has been and still is

Problematic though as I mentioned some progress has been made in the dialogue Strict Calvinist take this that Luther called the bondage of the will even further folks when

Luther and Lutheran say man's will is powerless to cooperate in his own salvation or of course

Not to mention the salvation of others They did not and do not go so far as to say that God predestines for evil or damnation or that God Operates the will of men whether it be to good or evil at least

I should say here Lutherans Do not go this far. However Luther himself is another question

He seems to have held a more Calvinist view at least in times in his writings

But that's beyond the scope of what we're doing here. I'm gonna stop right there.

I Please feel free to to comment on what he says here But it does strike me as interesting that someone in his position would recognize that there was a earlier

Luther view found the bondage of the will that is is significantly stronger than what we might call the developed

Lutheran view of Melanchthon and and others that came after him. He at least is recognizing that strong that strong emphasis, but he's going to get into this this idea of in essence

Arguing that God is the author of sin And that that Calvin actually makes those statements by quoting from The Institutes of the

Christian religion. So if you have your institutes nearby if you have a copy of the Institute's he's not using the best translation, but at least in my opinion, but You might want to grab it because he will actually

I think in each instance give the reference You can actually look it up yourself follow it along and you will see

What sections he's quoting and also what he's missing In in each of these comments, should we just press for from there

Turgeon van? Yes I would just before we press on you notice that he Even brings up this word bondage of the will and he does he says that God operates men's wills to do evil

But he doesn't he doesn't provide any explanation to help the listener figure out what

Luther's position was he makes it sound as though God is, you know, driving the man like a human would drive a truck and If you read what

Luther has to say It's the man's nature is corrupted by sin and that man's corrupt nature is what leads him into these sins

It's not as though God is forcing him to do things against his will or driving him like a truck it's it's nothing like that, but unfortunately what he just Presented in such a way that you don't find out those type of important details

Well, I also noted in a in a quotations coming up here in a moment from book one chapter 18 section 1

That he left off in the middle of a sentence and the end of the sentence would have Thrown light on the exact same subject.

So it does make me wonder about one of two possible things I have found

Roman Catholic apologists and I found apologists in general Who are more than happy to even when the original material is available to them if they really have a disrespect for a particular perspective they are willing to utilize secondary material and not check the original citations and it frequently is attached to whether they have a respect for what they're talking about or not and so I have seen certainly with folks the

Catholic answers a And and don't don't miss Use this term.

I'm using this in a particular way here an incestuous self citation where you have one person quotes the next person and then he gets quoted by the third person and the third person gets quoted by the first person again and It creates this false idea this false sense of multiple citations and multiple sources

But it's really just a bunch of circular self citation Of course we can all think of one particular internet apologist that is the king of this

Who basically just recites himself so many thousands of times that he has now taken over about a third of the

Internet Just simply to store all the stuff that's written, but that's neither here nor there Let's get into the citation that he makes of Calvin here coming up now, of course

The Catholic Church teaches that God could never He could not ever

Directly will or cause moral evil however, the Calvinist argues that God positively wills and Predestines only certain souls for heaven while also willing the rest for the damnation of hell

Not only is it impossible for men to cooperate with God for his own salvation

But it is God who actually operates his will to either good or evil

I mean, well you talk about Purgatory going out the window, of course But we've got all kind of problems here

John Calvin claimed that nature is so totally depraved and he viewed

God as so absolutely Sovereign that free will was nothing but a farce to him.

The will cannot be free according to Calvin Calvin stated for example in his

Institutes of the Christian religion in book 2 chapter 2 paragraph 13 he says quote

The grace offered by the Lord is not merely one which every individual has full liberty to choose to receive or reject

But a grace which produces in the heart both choice and will close quote

See for Calvin man is too depraved to even be able to cooperate with God's grace after conversion and God's sovereignty renders free will and impossibility, of course

The Catholic response is that God is powerful enough to create man with a will that is truly free and though man

Cannot choose God without God's assistance. We agree here God does assist man so that he may choose he does not compel and there is certainly no inner

Necessity here. There is nothing in other words There's nothing in God's nature that would render his creation of man with free will impossible

All right, sir. It's van Well, you heard him start with the idea of the operating the will that that our line he's already used before But then he he brings it in in a kind of negative way.

He says we as Catholics. That's how he describes himself He says we we don't believe that man is compelled by an inner necessity to do various things

And he makes it sound as though God is forcing somehow inwardly forcing unbelievers to be unbelievers to act in an inner

Sinful way and he also confuses as you may have caught there. He confuses the issue of total depravity

Which is really related to the state of the unbeliever before regeneration with the state of the believer after regeneration

Yes, he did and that's a vital problem with his analysis If you miss that Detail that total depravity isn't applicable to a regenerate believer.

He still has Corruption, but now a believer actually can do things which while they're always tainted by sin they are pleasing to God in some sense well, and that's especially relevant to the fact that he is attempting to defend the

Roman Catholic concept of purgatory which in and of itself is related to what Allegedly regenerate people do in cooperating with the grace of God and even he would say in purgatory itself in voluntarily undergoing these

Punishments that sanctify them before entering the presence of God and all the rest of these things that he's working on here in this series to establish the lay the foundation for the concept of purgatory so It does strike me as odd that he would not recognize the difference between what we believe about an unregenerate person and a regenerate person and the relationship between a person's will and being either still under the slavery of sin and Unregenerate or or now in dwelt by the

Holy Spirit. So yes, he did Mix that in there and I think if I recall correctly Right now he's going to go to the second quotation where he's going to continue this drumbeat of God working this evil

In a primary way not just simply through secondary means as a result of his decree

But in a primary way where a man is basically being forced to do something that he really doesn't want to do at any rate

This understanding leads to the characterization of man as little more than God's puppet

Thus John Calvin attributes both the good and the evil actions of men to God Now I know at this point some of my

Catholic hearers are saying this is unbelievable but folks to John Calvin and Calvinists the

Catholic and biblical notion of God permitting evil and Working all things together for good is absolutely rejected

The strict Calvinist says God performs evil folks Let me quote from John Calvin's own words

Again from the Institutes. I'm going to quote from book 1 chapter 18

Paragraph 1 and it says and I quote hence a distinction has been invented between doing and permitting

Because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God that he

Directs their malice to whatever end he pleases close quote

Now I hope everyone heard the chuckle in in Tim's voice there as he said closed quote the problem is he didn't finish the quote and so both turrets and fan

I have comments here Let me let me give you a fuller quotation because unfortunately a lot of folks would only have that much to listen to This is a chapter 18 from other passages where God has said to bend or draw

Satan himself and all the wicked to his will There emerges a more difficult question now remember he's addressing a particular question here

He's already laid the establishment in the previous section from numerous biblical texts about God's sovereignty and his decree

And of course we don't get anything from mr. Staples about how he can make the statements he does that that God is sovereign and yet We have this this free will of man this autonomous will of man and all the rest of these things

But anyways for carnal sense can hardly comprehend how in acting through them He does not contract some defilement from their transgression and even in the common undertaking can be free of all blame and indeed

Can justly condemn his ministers hence the distinction was devised between doing and permitting?

Because to me this difficulty seemed inexplicable that Satan and all the impious are so under God's hand and power they direct their malice to whatever end seems good to him and Uses their wicked deeds to carry out his judgments

That's the part he didn't read and perhaps the moderation of those whom the appearance of absurdity alarms would be excusable

Except that they wrongly try to clear God's justice of every sinister mark by upholding a falsehood

It seems absurd to them for man who will soon be punished for his blindness to be blinded by God's will and command

Therefore they escape by the shift that this is done only with God's permission not also by his will

But he openly declaring that he is the doer repudiates that evasion However that man that men can accomplish nothing except by God's secret command

That they cannot buy deliberately a cop that they cannot buy deliberatingly accomplish anything except what he has already decreed with himself and determines by a secret direction is proved by innumerable and clear testimonies and the next

Two pages is Nothing, but examples of this including one.

We're gonna hear later on acts 428 that is Cited here and he concludes by saying yet from these it is more than evident that they babble and talk absurdly who in place of God's sovereign

Providence Substitute bear permission as if God sat in a watchtower

Awaiting chance events and his judgments thus depended upon human will

Yes, sir so the So that that's the full quotation which actually provides a lot more context but remember the

Thesis that he's trying to support is his comment. The strict Calvinist says God performs evil folks

That's his that's his thesis and and his support is not that God performs evil

But but that God decreed that evil will happen through the agency of wicked men

Not that God will do it, but that the wicked men will do it, right? And it's

It's a little upsetting or more than a little upsetting that he does this because he if he's going to quote from the Institute He's suggesting to the listener that he has some familiarity with the

Institute And if you read the Institute and read book 2 chapter 3 section 5

It tells us should anyone give utterance to the profane jeer that little praise is due to God for goodness

To which he is forced. Is it not obvious to every man to reply? It is not owing to a violent impulse, but to his boundless goodness that he cannot do evil therefore if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded because he

Necessarily must do good if the devil who can do nothing but evil nevertheless sins voluntarily

Can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning

This necessity is uniformly proclaimed by Augustine who even when pressed by the invid Excuse me the invidious cavil of fleshes

Hesitated not to assert it in the following terms man through Liberty became a sinner but corruption ensuing as the penalty has converted

Liberty into necessity and The that that argument that Calvin's making not only from Augustine's authority, but even just from common sense.

God is naturally It's of his nature that he only does good and Calvin is very clear there when talking about what

God does what he actually performed. He makes it absolutely clear that it's Impossible for God, but by his nature to do anything evil any moral evil and he contrasts that with the devil who in his opinion can only do evil and can't do any good and Those that kind of comment where Calvin speaks clearly to the matter of what

God does and contrast it with other willing agents such as the devil and human beings that that really shows that Staples is misrepresenting what

Calvin's position is when he tells people that Calvinists say that God performs evil Well, and it it does raise the question in everyone's mind

Does Tim understand the distinctions that Calvin himself raises in the

Institutes and I Don't know how to answer that it has not been my experience in my interactions with mr.

Staples over the years that he was a careful student of the

Statements that he would make I point people to Colin Smith's Refutation some of the comments he made when he and I were on the

Bible answer man together back in I think it was 2000 on the the subject of the genitive case in Greek it seemed that he was drawing from secondary sources at that point and We certainly have encountered in various contexts people quoting

Calvin and not allowing him to define his own terms in all sorts of books written by Protestants and others and there's plenty of Protestant writings that you would find these same citations to be found in So I just don't have any way of knowing

Whether Tim has actually taken the time to read Calvin But I certainly don't see any evidence that he's trying to allow

Calvin to define his own terms In in regards to this this subject and as as a result He is in essence charging

Calvin and Calvinists with beliefs that we simply don't hold and hence this entire criticism becomes one that is

Really not not relevant to to What he's trying to raise and hence does not defend purgatory against the

Reformed objections to it As we're gonna see he keeps bringing in this idea of the work of Christ the work of Christ none of this undoes the work

Of Christ, but when he does that basically what he says is well, it's the work of Christ.

It is the first cause It's the grace that comes from the death of Christ that allows us to do all these things

But we still have the same questions. It would be great to ask Tim and who knows maybe Maybe after next week he'll want to do some some more some more programs on some related subjects

But I would love to ask him how he Says well, yes God is sovereign and no one can be saved apart from God's grace and God's grace has to be first and all these things

But does that then not mean that you what you're saying is God is trying to save everyone equally

But he's failing and so how does that have to do with his? Affirmation that God does not only for know all things but That this that God does have a sovereign plan that he is accomplishing

How does you know? There's there's specific questions that have to be asked here And I've just never heard him give a meaningful response as to how all those things fit together

So did you want us to continue on from there yes, can we continue on I'm pressing for doers

Do not commit acts of depravity in spite of the command of God as Catholics understand

But because of the command of God according to John Calvin now that we've got it

I've got to go back just a moment. So you hear the entirety of that because that really is I think a Major statement on his part, and it is clearly where he is attempting to communicate communicate to Catholics a vast difference

Between the Reform view and the Catholic you listen again ever in he pleases close quote

Evildoers do not commit acts of depravity in spite of the command of God as Catholics understand

But because of the command of God according to John Calvin now right there

You just simply the equivocation there is Is so blatant?

because he is he is Confusing the general command of God that says do not sin with the decree of God that is

That the forms the very fabric of time But he's using them as if they're synonyms to make it sound like what

Calvin is saying is that God? Commands men to sin and also commands men not to sin so he becomes this this celestial

Celestially confused being that of course us Catholics recognize doesn't exist

But that's what that's what you Calvinists have to have yeah, and we're going to get to it in just a minute

Lord willing and if time permits he Groups among the various things that God permits of the evils that God permits and just permits in his view

Which he contrasts here with with his commands in other words he commands He commands these

Righteous acts and despite those commands certain bad things happen But the primary example he's going to give us the crucifixion and to say for anyone to say that God did not want the crucifixion to happen is really just fundamentally misunderstands the whole point of Both the old and the

New Testament if you don't see that the crucifixion of Christ was of the primary importance to God Well, I happen to have that very section marked, so let's let's skip to it.

Let's listen to what? The illustration here in from Acts chapter 4 bring good out of that eat

This truth is most obviously and profoundly Demonstrated through the greatest evil in the history of the world the crucifixion of our

Lord Jesus Christ Through this greatest evil in history God brings about the greatest good the redemption of the world

God did not kill Nor did he impel anyone to kill Christ Christ, but by virtue of his omnipotence

He does bring good out of the evil acts committed Yeah, so there's there's his commentary

He says he does not impel But he brings good out of the evil acts committed

I don't know if you have acts for there I Have it here if you want me to read it so we could take a look at it

How do you want to handle that well if you don't mind? I'd like to read something from Acts 2 okay

Acts 2 in There's a there's a sermon here it says ye men of Israel hear these words

Jesus of Nazareth a man approved of God among you by miracles and Wonders and signs which

God did by him in the midst of you as you yourselves also know him

Being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God He have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain whom

God hath raised up having loosed the pains of death Because it was not possible that he should beholden of it and that in verse that the 23rd verse there

Which says being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God It has to mean something more than their permission and and for Mr..

Staples to suggest that God just seized on this Occasion to work some kind of great good use

Is contrary to any possible understanding of the text any reasonable understanding of the text?

Most definitely and of course we would like to find out what the infallible interpretation But that's just one of those things you you can't come up with it is interesting

The the acts for text likewise Which he was referring to let me go ahead and read that for folks so that there

They know referring to the the early church after a persecution gathers together

They pray to God and they say for truly in this city They were gathered together against your holy servant

Jesus whom you anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate Along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur and Now Lord take no other threats and grant that your bond service may speak your word with all confidence so here the early church is

Absolutely convinced as you saw in the sermon from Acts 2 23 That the crucifixion of Christ was not merely something that That God has seized upon to try to make something good out of it

The only way to understand either text is that it was God's purpose

That Christ died at this time in this way in this manner for a specific purpose

I mean it specifically says that what these men did they did because your hand and your purpose predestined it to occur and So it's no wonder then that one of the very first examples that Calvin uses in the same section that Staples was quoting from This is again book 1 chapter 18

First section the Jews intended to destroy Christ Pilate and his soldiers complied with their mad desire yet in solemn prayer the disciples confessed that all the impious ones had done nothing

Except what the hand and plan of God had decreed So Peter had already preached that by the definite plan and foreknowledge of God Christ had been given over to be killed acts 2 23

It is as if he were to say that God to whom from the beginning Nothing was hidden wittingly and willingly determined what the

Jews carried out now. There's just there's no way around this unfortunately And this is why you know people say why do you like?

debate so much because listening to the 5 CD set of Tim Staples on purgatory you don't get to ask these questions and If someone you know

I think it would be wonderful if someone would call up Catholic answers when Tim Staples is on and ask him this question

I'm probably not gonna get a chance to it next Thursday because it's not directly relevant first Corinthians chapter 3 But at least in a debate you get to ask questions and cross -examination and say alright

You say this is how this is your interpretation Could you explain to us where it came from show us from the text?

How you get mere permission or God coming along afterwards and sweeping up the mess and and making you know

Recycling the mess and getting something good out of it When the specific purpose of the text is to say that what they did was under the very sovereign decree of God and that I just noticed and I'll stop preaching after this becomes then the basis upon which the church says now

Lord take note of their Threats and grant that your bond servants may speak your word with all confidence How could they say that if God does not have control over whether they will be able to continue to continue to speak his word?

with all confidence or Whether he will be involved in these things They have to believe in the sovereignty of God in these things.

They see God's sovereign certainty in his action in the past and then in The future then they can trust in him.

I don't know how you can have trust outside of that So there was my small sermon on that Lots of other things here,

I'll go back to before the acts for Because he continues to discuss that issue

And then I before we finish up and we've we've only got about two 20 minutes I wanted to get to some quotes toward the end.

Like I said, there's 38 minutes worth of citations here So there's more than we can get to especially when we're responding to things.

Let me quote to you from Calvin's Institutes He says quote God is the author of all those things which according to these objectors

Happen only by his inactive permission. Now, of course, he's referring to us Catholics there

He testifies that he creates light and darkness forms good and evil

Referencing Isaiah 45 7 that no evil happens which he hath not done close quote and I'm quoting there from book 1 chapter 18

Paragraph 3 and you'll also want to read paragraph 4 there of the Institutes, but now as Catholics We understand as st.

Paul teaches and I'll quote Romans 1 28 Since they did not see fit to acknowledge

God God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct close quote

God does not cause Yes, sir. So we just heard him recite what he what he thinks

Calvin teaches and Even quote from him. He doesn't provide the fact that Amos 3 6 which is the second of the two passages

Calvin relies on says Shall there be evil in a city and the Lord hath not done it which gives that same the

Lord has done evil you know Clip that he's using he's doing a soundbite of Calvin Calvin says something about God doing evil and he's using it that expression the same sense that Amos is using it, but but then he immediately turns over from that and and and continues on to try to Pin Calvin down by saying that Calvin's not accepting that What Romans 1 says about people being turned over to a base mind as a judgment for sin?

The problem is the result of being turned over to a base mind or depraved mind as a result of sin

Has the same effect that these people now naturally sin and Mr.

Staples doesn't address that fact. He sort of treats it as though the only time people ever have turned over to a depraved mind is when they personally sin and Therefore we can just ignore this and not treat

God as intending the result that naturally proceeds from His action of turning them over to a depraved mind

In other words, he almost acts as though God turns him over to a depraved mind of the punishment not knowing that That's going to result in those people then

Behaving in a depraved way is though God doesn't intend at all that they're gonna actually be, you know

Engage in those two paybacks and yet, you know, somehow he He chose a punishment that ends up contradicting some other part of his nature many years ago

And this was many years ago. We did a study through the Institute's at least. I think we made it through book one

Throughout many ministries and so the the version of the Institute's that I have my hand is that which

I used for that? And so it's marked up. Let me just read of a few sections that you're not going to hear from Tim Staples that Bear upon this from this section

This is again chapter 18 of book 1 at the end of section 2 It says to sum up since God's will is said to be the cause of all things

I have made his providence the determinative principle for all human plans and works not only in order to display its force in the elect

Who are ruled by the Holy Spirit, but also to compel the reprobate to obedience

He goes on to say indeed an Example of such petulance is not new for in every age there have been impious and profane men who have frothed and snarled against this portion of doctrine frothed and snarled

He is Interesting terms, but he's right. There is It's interesting.

We we have a Catholic doing this here But is anyone really gonna think that when he was a

Protestant and a follower of Jimmy Swaggart? He would have been any less Confirmed in his detestation of this biblical doctrine

It's it's the exact same thing He goes on this is section 3 again for it is easy to dispose of their first objection that if nothing happens apart from God's will

There there are in him two contrary wills because by his secret plan he decrees what he is openly forbidden by his law

Yet before I answer I should like my readers again to be warned That this cavil is not hurled against me

But against the Holy Spirit who surely put this confession in the mouth of the holy man

Job as it pleased God So was it done when he had been robbed by thieves in their unjust acts and evil doing toward him?

He recognized God's just scourge and then he goes on from there to talk about Eli's sons

Psalm 115 3 Isaiah 45 7 Amos 3 6 here all the texts are coming up again

But his point is to not first run to a philosophical explanation but to say when you make this objection you're making this objection against the

Holy Spirit of God who gave us the scriptures and I think that's extremely important to recognize that certainly has always been the foundation upon which

I have sought To to bring defense for these things He also says yet God's will is not therefore at war with itself nor does it change nor does it pretend not to will what?

But even though his will is one and simple in him it appears manifold to us because on account of our mental incapacity

We do not grasp how in diverse ways it wills and does not will something to take place When Paul said that the calling the

Gentiles was a mystery hidden in Ephesians 3 9 He added shortly thereafter that in it was shown forth

God's manifold wisdom Because God's wisdom appears manifold or multi -form as the old translation renders it ought we therefore on account of the sluggishness of our understanding

To dream that there is any variation in God himself as if he either may change his plan or disagree with himself

Rather when we do not grasp how God wills to take place what he forbids to be done Let us recall our mental incapacity at the same time consider that the light in which

God dwells is not without reason called Unapproachable because it is over spread with darkness therefore all godly and modest folk readily agree with this saying of Augustine quote

Sometimes the good will a man will something which God does not will for example a good son wills that his father live whom

God wills To die again it can happen that the same man wills the bad will what God wills with a good will for example a bad son

Wills that his father die God also wills this that is the former wills what God does not will but the latter wills

What God also wills and yet the filial piety of the former even though? He will something other than God wills is more consonant with God's good

Will then the impiety of the latter who wills the same thing as God does there is a great difference between what is fitting for man?

To will and what is fitting for God and to what end the will of each is directed so that it be either approved or disapproved for through the bad wills of evil men

God fulfills what he righteously wills and quote and So this is this is important stuff.

This is stuff that people have a lot of questions about and unfortunately as I as I viewed it mr. Staples Utilization of this subject was very surface level and does not at all do

I think justice to Either what Calvin has written or or what even what

Augustine has written? And so in his conclusion in this section is for would not be done if he did not permit it yet He does not unwillingly permit it

But willingly nor would he being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could make good even out of evil and quote

Is the end of the quotation here, so we go on and on with that. Let's let's return to Tim's the center to sin, but indeed

God may remove grace when it is rejected as St. Augustine taught that would simply be

God's just judgment that would be both just and therefore good But according to Calvin's unbiblical teaching

Sin comes about because God chooses not to give grace in the first place and even more he then impels or Compels men to act sinfully as quoted before folks according to Calvin God does evil and we are not talking about mere physical evil here

Calvin speaks of God performing that which is a moral evil that is more than just problematic that is absurd

God cannot perform more evil because he is absolutely good Scripture reveals to us that God for example in Hebrews 6 8 and numbers 23 19

God cannot lie Say Paul tells us Let's The exact same time we both wanted to comment on on that please since I just read a bunch of stuff you

You comment on that one. Well, I just briefly wanted to point out This is what I had mentioned previously, which is when he said

God performs evil folks God is doing moral evil and that this is wrong because of God's perfect nature

Well Calvin had already had already said that and you know Staples is just not accurately representing what

Calvin has to say about the subject when he took when he said that God does evil Calvin gave lots of qualification and lots of explanation about what he meant

Explanation that mr. Staples left out in which you've now provided at least in part Oh and and you would again expect that if he was actually reading the

Institutes that you would have been hit with page after page after page of discussion of secondary causes and means and all the rest of stuff and he what he's doing is he's purposefully seemingly confusing the

Rejection on the part of Calvin of the mere permission defense The idea that that God does not have a decree it's just mere permission which then raises all sorts of Incredible difficulties in regards to well if this is merely

God's permission then why would you glorify him when mere permission brings about what he desires and How can

God have a decree and have an end to which he is working that glorifies himself?

When he is in in essence turning the reins of the universe over to his creature talk about grace all you want if that grace is

Fundamentally not able to accomplish God's purpose then really what good is it?

And is it really biblical grace? These are all distinctions that he cannot get into because his fundamental purpose here is to try to undercut

I think primarily in the minds of Roman Catholics Reformed objections by placing within their minds a straw man a boogeyman view of Calvin and Calvinism and what a belief in the sovereignty of God leads to And it obviously is effective for some but we always have to keep in mind

That it's it cannot be effective for God's elect people These things will be very clearly

Explained God cannot deny himself in 2nd Timothy 2 13 or act contrary to his nature

God Not being able to do something folks does not negate his omnipotence

Omnipotence means that God can do all things that are possible for him To do something contrary to his infinite and perfect nature would be to negate himself

Which is absurd it is logically impossible Another way of looking at this would let me just stop it there because he starts going into a section here

That's a little bit long I was just looking while listening to that at another statement by Calvin in the next section the

Institute's he says We ought indeed to hold fast by this while God Accomplishes through the wicked what he is decreed by his secret judgment

They are not excusable as if they had obeyed his precept which out of their own lust they deliberately

Break it is so important to keep in mind the basis upon which man is judged is not a knowledge of God's Secret decree it is not a knowledge of that eternal decree that gives the very form of time itself

He is judged on the basis of acting on his own desires on that which he himself desired to do

And that that is very very important I did have one other thing I wanted to want to get here to that marked and it's it's skipping forward about 16 minutes actually

But I want to get to this little thing. I'm I may have to start and stop it. I apologize It's live radio.

That's why it works. Let me see where I put the marker here Again from on the spirit and the letter

He says quote his mercy comes before us and everything But to assent to or a descent from the call of God is a

Matter for one's own will close quote How far is this from the dreary?

predestination of Calvin's invention That claims to quote again John Calvin this time from the

Institute's book 3 chapter 21 paragraph 5 Calvin says quote we indeed ascribe both

Oppressions and predestination to God But we say that it is absurd to make the latter

Subordinate to the former in other words folks the foreknowing and the predestination

He says it's absurd to make the predestination subordinate to the former which is exactly

What both st. Augustine and more importantly st. Paul does but let me go on with Calvin's quote here

Let's go ahead and stop there and I know you you had a comment on that in our in our discussions before him

Yes, one. There's two there's really two aspects. The first one is an obvious equivocation he's he's mentioning that word for knowledge in place of prescient and He's doing that for the purpose of reminding the listener that Paul had mentioned about predestined according to foreknowledge and he's trying to suggest that He's trying to suggest a particular interpretation of that first to the listener without actually providing any

Exegetical basis more importantly though what he is failing to do is really address the absurdity that Calvin's raising

We got the idea is if God's looking down the corridors of time to see what will happen

He's also seeing his own actions that will happen and it's absurd to say that God predestined his actions that he's already seen himself doing it just it's ridiculous

No one would say God sees that he's going to do X Y & Z and therefore God predestined that X Y &

Z will happen That's an absurdity and Calvin recognized it but and mr.

Staples is seems to be more interested in trying to sort of score points in terms of Making it sound as though Calvin's comment disagrees with what

Paul had taught, right? There's no question that he completely ignores the context of what

Calvin is saying in each of these situations But in so doing he is consistent in pushing forward with a perspective that Well, at least it's educational.

One of the reasons I wanted to do this is I know that we have non -reformed Protestants who listen to this webcast and for example

One of the reasons that I have agreed to debate Robertson genus in September on the subject of the doctrines of grace is

I I want People to understand that the dividing line in regards to the doctrines of grace is one that places the non -reformed

Protestant very firmly in the camp with Rome in rejecting the fundamental issues that we have to address specifically in regards to the total privacy of man the

Sovereignty of God his decree the nature of man's will the nature of God's grace that's why we took the time to listen to William Lane Craig in talking about soteriology and And to listen to this man in a non -catholic church in essence say we reject what the

Reformers said about these fundamental issues and we accept a modified version of the view of the

Council of Trent as being more biblically accurate The that's where the dividing line is these days and It has moved and we need to recognize that or there is going to be this so much confusion

That I think we see in the response to Francis Beckwith's reversion to Rome that we see in the ecumenism that we see in this this

Mere Christianity movement that is basically saying we don't need to worry about the specifics of the gospel

The the gospel parameters are wide enough for us to include Roman Catholicism in there all is well.

Let's not worry about these things Let's let's let's build a least common denominator Christianity for political reasons and cultural reasons and things like that it all comes back to these things and That's one of the reasons

I want to know how to go here is so that those who oppose the doctrines of grace

But who at the same time oppose Rome need to realize you're in bed with Rome in soteriology you're you you you're standing on the same foundation and it's not overly shocking then when people come along and Drag those folks no longer kicking and screaming into communion with the

Bishop of Rome Because they've never been Consistently on ground that would allow them to criticize

Roman Catholicism to begin with The theology matters and it is the gospel is one whole and when you start dividing it up and Holding the contrary and contradictory positions on it.

It it doesn't doesn't get you anywhere Did you want to was there anything there? I mentioned that you want to Expand out upon because you certainly have spent plenty of time dealing with Rome Catholicism and its

Objections to biblical truth as well No, no, I guess there's there's some differences even within Roman Catholicism on this

Oh, yeah on the subject of soteriology but the bottom line is you're right that they they all stand opposed to Calvinism and The reasons that they use as you can hear from what mr

Stipples is presenting are often the exact same types of arguments the exact same kinds of faulty exegesis of the text in other words this argument about You know elect according to the foreknowledge of God meaning that God sees what's going to happen in the future and therefore reacts to the future

By electing certain people and so forth that that same faulty exegesis. We see all the time from folks who have no

No love for Rome necessarily and who don't realize where they stand in terms of the

Reformation. Well, it's also Rather rather fascinating. I suppose since we're just about out of time to point out that Tim gives us a whole lot of private interpretation of Scripture In these situations that are not necessarily the interpretations provided by other

Roman Catholics and and I don't know how they can't see the consistent

Inconsistency there that they have yes Not only does he give it but he invites the listener to Privately interpret

Scripture and come to the same conclusion as he does he that's the reason he quotes from Scripture the reason he quotes from Augustine and so forth is for people to judge

History and judge Scripture and come to a conclusion and if we are really incompetent to judge

Scripture and history That's inconsistent. It's not consistent behavior. He likes to try to say well the the illicit

Interpretations within the church. Well, who is he to determine that? This is not even a man who is a cardinal or a bishop or even a priest for that matter

It is amazing to see they cannot engage in these discussions about violating their own alleged

Disagreements with sola scriptura well turds and fan. Thank you very much for taking time out of your very busy schedule join me today

I know we didn't get to probably even half of the entire section, but I sort of knew that would happen

But I wanted to do this and I very much appreciate your partnership in the gospel and you're you're writing on these subjects

Thanks very much for having me on. All right. Thank you very much. God bless on This coming Thursday, it is my intention to Well, we'll see

I dr. Pipe is going to be on with me at some time Either end of this week or next week

But I also want to go after a debate by Anthony buzzer defense the deity of Christ.

We'll see you then. God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at p .o

inbox 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks