Radio Free Geneva on The Dividing Line

So, we continue with our Radio Free Geneva, which began on Thursday.

We are listening to a series. Good old Beau over in California put me onto this, let me know that William Lane Craig was addressing issues related to Calvinism in his

Sunday school class and I again felt it was highly relevant, especially in light of the way that he himself framed the discussion and that is he presents the reformers view, specifically a

Calvinistic view, then he presents the view of the Council of Trent and in essence says, well, you know, we just need to tweak the

Roman Catholic view a little bit and we're going to be okay. And of course, as you noticed on the blog,

I have been one of the many projects working on right now, have been looking at Frank Beckwith's book,

Return to Rome, and as such, once again am reminded of the fact that there are a lot of people who call themselves

Protestants, who are non -Catholics, but in essence agree with Rome on fundamental, definitional issues.

And as such, really do not provide much of an apologetic against Rome, and in fact the apologetic they provide is often so weak that it very much encourages people in their journey toward Rome eventually.

And so I think it is important to address these issues and to clarify these issues and that's what we do on Radio Free Geneva.

And so I continue, I played a portion of this last time, this is where William Lane Craig in essence says, well, yeah,

Rome basically has it right. They basically got this issue right in regards to this concept of prevenient grace, a grace that tries but fails.

That's what a prevenient grace is. It's a grace that enables you to then choose.

No one could choose God without him first drawing everyone. But the problem is, it's not enough to save.

And once again, if you are not aware of this, you need to be aware of this. The issue of the

Reformation was never, ever, ever the necessity of grace. Rome said grace was necessary.

And whenever you hear a non -Catholic today saying, hey, I read the Council of Trent.

Frank Beckwith did this on the interview with Gregory, Stand to Reason, on Stand to Reason.

I read the Council of Trent and they anathematized anyone who says you can be saved apart from grace.

That is a no -brainer. It's a basic thing. If you don't know that, then you know nothing about the

Reformation, know nothing about what was going on at that time, which unfortunately describes a large portion of evangelicalism today.

That is not, that was never the issue. The issue was never the necessity of grace. That's the Pelagian controversy long, long ago.

That was taken care of. The issue of the Reformation was the sufficiency of grace, not the necessity of grace.

Does this prevenient grace try but fail to save all depend upon the almighty will of man?

That is the synergistic system of Rome and of William Lane Craig and of Arminianism and of Volanism and whatever you want to, whatever terminology you wish to use.

Over against the monergism of the Bible, that God actually saves and that he does so perfectly.

And that's what we are looking at. So let's pick up where we were before, where Dr. Craig is basically saying, well, you know, let's just tweak the

Roman Catholic paradigm. Because when it comes to the nature of man, the nature of grace, natural law, all these things, we agree with Rome.

We just want to tack on this concept of justification by faith. And I would agree with most

Roman Catholic apologists that that system is inconsistent. And that's why I don't hold to that system.

Let's pick up with that. So it seems to me that we want to affirm, in line with, I think, Roman Catholic doctrine, that we have the freedom to respond to God's gracious initiatives.

We will not seek God on our own initiative. God's prevenient grace is necessary.

But we do have the freedom to respond or reject. We're not just like puppets. Now, of course, obviously, and I have yet to hear him show any knowledge of reformed response to this, which is utterly startling to me.

But Dr. Craig uses the puppet routine. And if you believe in a sovereign

God who has a sovereign decree, then men can just be puppets. I have never heard.

I would love to hear how William Lane Craig would exegete, not dance around, exegete the text in Genesis 50, and in Isaiah, and in Acts chapters 2 and 4, where we clearly see the sovereignty of God and the will of man acting in harmony with one another.

How does he deal with those things? I don't know. Those are some of the big questions that we'd all like to ask.

But, again, you will hear over and over and over again the puppet routine, even though, as we're going to hear a little bit later in the program today, when he talks about Molinism, he talks about God creating people who would do exactly what he knows they would do.

It is this meticulous providence of Molinism where God actuates one particular universe where you have free creatures who will do what he wants them to do.

And if you just step back and consider that, it is a vain attempt to rescue the biblical teaching that God accomplishes his purpose, that men may have purposes and intentions, but it's

God's intention that is finalized. It doesn't really do anything to the many texts of Scripture that says

God hardened people's hearts to their own destruction, but they don't want to deal with things like that too much. But it is all this incredibly vain attempt to do lip service to the sovereignty of God while making, as your ultimate priority, the libertarian free will of man.

But I think, in the end, one of the reasons that Molinism was abandoned by the Roman Catholics, I mean, this is a

Roman Catholic theory that the Roman Catholics are like, Nah, it didn't work. It has been picked up by primarily

William Lane Craig and promoted by him that is not derived from the reading of Scripture.

It is clearly formulated outside of Scripture and enforced onto the text of Scripture. It does not do justice to the text of Scripture at all.

But anyway, we continue on. And God, I think, although this gets into a different topic, willing that all persons should be saved, will give his prevenient grace to all persons, to invite them to be saved.

You remember it says in Timothy that God desires all persons to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

And in 2 Peter that he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. The only thing missing, of course, would be the citation of Matthew 23, 37.

We have the big three addressed in the Potter's Freedom. But once again, no evidence whatsoever that Dr.

Craig is going to take the time to say, now the exegetical objections to my understanding of these are answered by.

I have yet to hear, and I've only been listening to a certain number of these, but I have yet to hear any interaction with a reformed exegesis of those texts that would say, no, this does not indicate a concept where God's just trying to save everybody equally.

I just want to save everybody equally. I'm trying, but it's all up to you as to whether I'm going to be successful or not, which is in essence the synergistic perspective that is being presented.

God draws people to himself, bestowing his prevenient grace upon them, and they can then respond.

Now notice he says he draws men to himself, but it's up to them whether they respond.

And that doesn't work with John 6, now does it? Because all that are drawn are raised up in the last day.

But again, I have not heard in what I have listened to thus far any meaningful interaction with the.