Roman Catholicism, Phone Calls, and Norman Geisler

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 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 white And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a

Thursday afternoon. Don't forget next week Tuesday and Wednesday Iron sharpens iron

I'll be on with Harold camping Yes, indeed, it's gonna be interesting

I've Just looking at his book on how the end is near and trying to figure out his mechanism for coming to The conclusion that the world's gonna well judgment comes on May 21st, 2011 and And Again if you've seen a that, you know 88 reasons in 1988 and all the rest that kind of stuff you've seen this kind of stuff before, you know mathematical equations and Somehow he comes up with 23 years

Times 300 and this is really funny because it's 23 years times 365 plus leap years World would have thought that way but hey from his perspective doesn't matter because God's only now opening our eyes to understand all the stuff

Anyway, see it's this new revelation. It's it's literally in the same level of Gail Rippling er, you know

Why did you call that new new American Standard? Version instead of Bible well because that's what

God calls it. You can't argue with that You know ones when someone has direct revelation

You know There you go. Not much you can you can do about that. I Was looking at a comment left

An article I I had taken the time to respond to a gentleman who

Know why isn't Firefox opening a new a new thing. It doesn't want to open a new tab using ctrl -t

I'm not sure why but it was it just once in a while. It just decides that it's just simply I'm not going to do that anymore

That for you too many times. I'm just not gonna do it anymore and that's Anyway, I commented on a fellow by the name of dev man

J st. Joseph's Vanguard and our ladies train is the is the blog rich is completely lost about that but it's a

Roman Catholic thing just just get used to it and I noticed as soon as I clicked on it again this morning.

There's a new addition to it since I linked to it it says Welcome visitors from James White's blog.

Please feel free to comment on this or any other post or ever I asked you to keep your comments respectful and charitable also note that you do not need to be registered to comment

But the first time you comment the blog will hold your comment in moderation till I approve it Subsequent comments are posted immediately.

Thank you and God bless so I'm sort of wondering I Had seen someplace before what had shown how many times it had been viewed and I I didn't

See that any anymore, and I I thought that that might be Useful and interesting to to see that but it's not coming up for some reason.

I'm not sure why Because I have a feeling it's probably picked up a few readers, but anyway a

David Bamber BAM BER left comment on After I left a comment and I left comment just linking to my blog

And I wanted to read it and respond to it here on the program And then maybe post the video of this and we'll go to our calls

And then I want to get back to the Norm Geisler sermon. We haven't been at Since I was in where was

I again back east someplace? Back in New Jersey was the last time we tried to do this so it's been a little while Here's what he says the problem is thus with mr.

White he acts as though if any Catholic fails to engage with him properly or if he defeats any person debate that means

Rome's position is somehow wrong Being a good debater which undoubtedly white is doesn't equal truth well

Okay But isn't the fact that we consistently

See the same problems no matter who we're debating isn't that what sort of communicates what the real problem is

Isn't the fact that we've tried to get the best people we can to debate and anymore can't get anybody to debate basically

Doesn't that also say something? Why is it a problem with me when on the other side?

I've heard lots of Roman Catholics claim that their guys have won and that proves that we're wrong so when Rome wins

Whenever that was I don't know we'll look at a moment But when Rome wins then

Rome is right, but when Rome loses Rome isn't wrong I've seen people reasoning this way before that that we're right and Even if we lose the debate we're still right because the debate doesn't actually impact whether we're right even though when we win that proves that We are right because we're right

Okay Then it says I mean it is not as if Protestant apologists are regularly beating

Catholics and moderated debates Well exactly how many moderated debates are taking place these days

I? Mean seriously we're having a hard time getting Roman Catholics to debate.

We really do I mean I've You know been asking Tim Staples And you know

Scott Hahn's had a standing challenge for I don't know how long as has Carl Keating and Jimmy Akin and la la la la la we keep trying but so Who who do you think are regularly getting beat up on I mean?

Are you talking about you know some little thing where some? You know pastor someplace decides to do something silly and take on gerrymatics or something well

You probably wouldn't consider gerrymatics Catholic anymore, but anyway. I'm not sure what that means

He goes on to say Let's see here in fairness white has won a lot of his a lot a lot of his against Catholics Apart from his ones with St.

Genes and Madrid in my opinion now. We have recently reviewed Both of the

Patrick Madrid debates, and I think the listening audience can sort of judge from that I posted links

I put two of the interactions with mrs. Genis on this particular blog article that he that I mentioned and I Actually queued one up here.

I don't know if I'm gonna go to it, but I I do have this I'm gonna play this we haven't ever gone through this but After we had the mass debate and you can see just how nasty st.

Genis was during that debate. It was just it was ugly We tried as best we could to sort of sign a peace agreement to to say you know that was extremely unpleasant and so let's let's try it.

Let's try to be nicer next time and And so when we debated justification it was somewhat nicer

But I just want to play one just one question from the cross -examination period

Between myself and st. Genis now. I wasn't aware that the sound was so bad at this point Evidently we had sound problems as microphone or something during the cross -examination.

I don't know because it sounds muffled to me But I asked him a question regarding what it means to be a son of God and This is where st.

Genis in that debate now I also yesterday put on the blog a place where st. Genis criticizes

Pacwa and Han and others and their views of justification and This is another one of those areas where it seems that he holds views that are very different than other people do

I thought Rome was supposed to be so unified because they don't have sola scriptura You know we just keep pointing out that you know everybody who says sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy

Might you know notice that all the disagreement on their side Would necessarily have an argument to it, but be that as it may

Let's just play this one section and Listen to this question I only get to ask the question have 60 seconds to respond, but listen to what he says about what it means to be a son of God and That a son of God can go to hell

Here's here's from the justification debate one of those that this fellow thinks that I lost

In light of the Roman Catholic position that you can be justified lose your justification become rejustified

And in light of one of the statements you made right toward the end of your little closing statement where we are in a gracious Relationship with God as a son is with a father

How can the commission of mortal sin and then the sacrament of penance cause a person to be a son not be a son be a?

son back and forth in that type of situation Oh Will be forever

That he had obeyed his father So when we talk about Moral sin we are not saying that they lost the subject we are saying that it lost the inheritance

And that's why the Bible constantly speaks and for example Ephesians 5 verse 5

Ephesians 5 verse 21 1st Corinthians 6 10 and 11 and we will lose the inheritance after you've been baptized

Giving people a moral sin now regarding it David, which is you think of this microphone?

David in Psalm 51 says please do not take thy Holy Spirit from me and that's referring to this sin that he knew about Sheba and He's repenting and asking

God to forgive him so the Holy Spirit does not leave him He also says that the righteous man in Verse 2 of Psalm 32 is one in whom no deceit is found

So this is the quality of righteousness that God is looking for in a person and that is infused by God's grace

It's not because of David's own righteousness Although David himself says that after he has

God's grace and does his works and he claims that it's his righteousness because he's cooperating with God's grace

So the same thing I want to zero in on is when David says take not thy

Holy Spirit from me And that's what we don't want to happen and that's what happens when we give people a sin

Alright, Dr. White you have one minute to reply I don't believe the Bible teaches anywhere that a person who is a son of God who has been sealed by the

Holy Spirit of Promise would ever find himself in the pits of hell a person who may have once claimed to be a son of God might indeed

Be there, but the fact of the matter is those as Jesus sends into eternal punishment He says depart from me for I never knew you not

I knew you once and I don't know you any longer not I knew you but you haven't remained faithful to me The statement of the

Lord Jesus makes is depart from me for I never knew you the Spirit of God testifies our spirits that we are the sons of God and if we are sons and we're joint heirs and The spirit is the downpayment that is placed upon us and God is the one who promises that he will redeem his own possession we again see

The difference between seeing salvation is something that God does by his power or the cooperative effort of two different people.

I would just invite folks to look at our bookstore number 491 is the mp3 of that particular encounter and Listen for yourself.

Yes, sir. Yeah, I think as I recall I remember editing that debate and it became very frustrating because I think

There was some microphones that the videographer was using that he had closed circuit and he had them next to the room microphones and next thing, you know, you are between Chris and Andy Anderson you and Robertson Janice people start grabbing microphones and moving them around from table to table and next thing

You know St. Janice didn't have a mic for the camera So what was happening was you had an open mic for the camera and so did

Andy Anderson But St. Janice's mic is now going over the PA system and bouncing right back in through yours

And that's why that got so messed up. Yeah, well that happens at times but Anyway, I think folks would find that to be an interesting exchange.

It was considerably nicer than the mass debate was but Anyway, he goes on Let's see

White is also white is also careful at always setting the parameters in any discussion in any dialogue with him

So he can convince his minions of followers Minions of followers and I thought you could have minions you could have followers, but I didn't know you could have minions of followers

That he's somehow always is gentlemanly in debate and the other person can't answer his question now

How exactly would I do that? I don't know what a minion is I don't know how I get minions and things like that not looking for followers either either but how do

I is that is that somehow part of the The thesis of the debate I set up these crazy

Subjects so that I can always pull this off or something. I'm sorry. That's that's a little bit silly He doesn't allow any comments to be posted on his web page

He deleted the comments people put on his YouTube videos and then blocked them off completely and only engages people on his radio show

Yes, that is exactly right. I do not waste my time producing Internet ignorance aggregators

I make myself very very available to folks. No one is more available than I am. So I find this constant repeated

Argument utterly fallacious and the end and indicative of a person who has no meaningful argument to make

He then requests people ringing him there and if they don't then somehow they're hiding in fear Well, if you've got some evidence that I'm somehow wrong about something.

Why not? Everybody listen to an hour -long discussion. I had with Matthew Bella sorry on the papacy just a couple weeks ago and I sure

I imagine that drove some people absolutely nuts because They know that while they could hide behind their keyboards and make snide comments on blogs

And waste my time having to try to moderate those things They will never call this program toll -free because they know their argument cannot hold water.

This is all there is to it The Internet creates a tremendous amount of very brave people who don't have any reason to be brave So again, yeah,

I think that's great He says the fact is Christ never set up James White to be the protector of the deposit of faith

Well, he didn't set up any guy in Rome to do that either Nor did he say well if someone beats you in debate or provides better arguments on their radio show

You will know the truth of the gospel No Christ promised to guide his Apostles and their successors into all truth

Where'd that successors part come from? That's the Sun about the Apostles anyway, which James White is

Reformed Baptist and a separated brethren is certainly not part of James White has been given ample opportunities to express his views with Catholics over the years and it's about time that he encouraged his fellow

Reformed friends using his line of argumentation to come out of hiding also So we can't get any

Roman Catholics to debate but they wanted to be somebody other than me I wonder why that might be if I'm so bad, you know,

I keep bringing this up, you know Patrick Madrid thinks he's to and oh, why why not? You know, he's still a mainline

Orthodox Roman Catholic Two of the people that I have debated many times aren't even mainline

Orthodox Roman Catholics anymore They're way off of Center and so it'd be great to do some more debates but we keep trying to get these folks to do radio programs and things like that and there's not really interested so he goes on to say um,

I mean why have David King William Webster John MacArthur and RC Sproul and other reformed apologist refused to engage a moderated debate with Catholic Apologists over the years using your line of argumentation again is because Calvinist sophistry would be exposed

Mr. White, why aren't the reformed people that are listed above engaging Catholics and live debate? Can you please answer the question?

engaging who We can't get anybody to debate It's not like they're standing out there in line going.

Oh, well, but we just don't want to debate James White We'll debate somebody else. Who do you want them to debate? And why would they only debate those folks and not me?

Are you saying that these folks have better arguments than I do? Don't you want to debate the people that have the most experience? I Mean, let's face it.

I've debated John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman and Shabbir Ali and Zulfikar Ali Shah I've got a little experience in this debating stuff and it's not just with Roman Catholics So I don't see a parallel here because aren't the people that I want to challenge

Actually called Apologists and this is what they do for a living

So Why would apologists who do apologetics for a living? Why wouldn't they do debates when

I've proven that I can do them and do them in a scholarly fair moderated Serious fashion and that that can't even be questioned by anyone with even a semblance of fairness

So why would somebody else who don't they don't even do apologetics full -time?

Why would they need to do that? I mean R .C. Sproul is the head of Ligonier Ministries.

He hardly ever does any debates. John MacArthur doesn't believe in doing debates Doesn't even just doesn't believe it's the proper thing to do.

You know us. I've never done a debate there He doesn't believe you should do it. I disagree, but fine. That's his position

So I don't see a parallel there. Do you I don't so Anyways, so there you go.

There's a comment that was left there. I found it rather rather interesting And I wanted to record this and we'll

I'll try to find the time to put up on YouTube So that so this gentleman has a response to his his questions.

Let's grab a phone call here real quick There is a toll -free phone number at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three

Three three four one. Let's talk with Rob. Hi Rob. How you doing? Good Glad to hear it before I get into my question.

I want to do a real quick just Mentioned I really enjoyed. I just listened and watched your

YouTube video the 90 -minute one on about Harold camping Yes, and I think that's really going to help a lot of people, you know give them some good background, you know for when they

When they listen to the debate because actually I used to back in in early back in the early 90s

I used to sometimes I had a shortwave radio I would pick up a family radio and they used to have some pretty decent stuff on there

They had RC Sproul and and some other, you know, fairly decent people back back then, you know, but Then everything changed

But I wanted to mention and I don't know if you know a couple things I mean, maybe this might help you in your in your debate

But I remember back when I was listening back when the 90s 1994 business was going on and I was never believer in any of that but but He was actually floating that 2011 date even back then.

Oh, was he? Yes, actually he was that was actually his fallback Did you said well he said like, oh, you know, I'm ninety nine point nine percent sure about 1994 but you know, it's not that well then, you know, sort of like 2011.

That's definitely it And that apparently what he's saying now and also he also don't know if you're aware of it He used to he didn't teach this but now he teaches he teaches annihilationism.

Yes. Uh -huh. Are you aware of that? Yeah, he also teaches that and I don't know. I don't know Apparently he doesn't believe in the

Trinity, but he believes that That Jesus was or is the Archangel Michael?

Well, yeah, I mean there have been more than him that have have said that Jesus is

Michael. They don't believe that in the sense of a created angel even Calvin made comments along those lines, but They see

Michael as a Christophany in in the Old Testament Oh really because I've never heard that outside of a watchtower content, right?

Well, of course the watchtower it likes to use those but those Christian scholars who in the past has said that are not making

Jesus into anything like a created being that Michael the Archangel is but they sort of traffic on the fact that people aren't gonna look into that but They they view those as Christophany is in in the

Old Testament in essence is what they do there. But yeah, I he also takes the section in Revelation the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth and actually says that Jesus died before the creation

And that the cross was just a demonstration the suffering he'd already gone through. I was just listening to this

I just happened. I had not listened to Harold camping in in ages. And so I listened to his

July 1st radio program I'm not sure why I chose I just decided let's listen to the open forum from July 1st

I couldn't believe the amount of stuff that I got out of that Not in the positive way, but just this discussion of somehow

Jesus on the cross was just Representing what he had already done in eternity past which was really weird

Yeah, and I just actually I hadn't heard it in years either and I did a couple Recently, I listened to it and and it was a young man who called up and was saying thing

But you know, there's people making the thing about the about 2012 about the Mayan calendar all that business Yeah, any brother and you know and and camping got, you know, very sort of indignant about you know

Well, no, that's a lot of nonsense. But this you know, it's 2011. That's the real thing. That's the real thing.

Oh, yeah No, I just have to say this one thing in Harold camping's defense is that you know, you know back when

I first You know heard the open forum, you know, it's having some problems with insomnia and after a couple minutes of hearing him

It cured me instantly Well, I have to admit that it would be difficult

Listen to Harold for long periods of time. I wonder if that's how like you maybe he gets some of his followers

Maybe like they're hypnotized or like, you know, and thank you. Well, let me tell you something I don't want to be too mean but I listened to some people who called in it was frightening these people

He is their cult leader. He is there. He is their voice of God. Whatever. He says it is just the final authority

I mean it makes the the most The the the follower of Rome who's just just dying out of Love for the

Pope look like they are catatonic in comparison to these folks. It's scary. It really is Okay, I wanted to feed into my question here.

I'll get back to that. I was recently I was I came across a book by Ron Rhoads who

I know, you know, and I Don't remember called the title but it was sort of like a book like the do's and don'ts of witnessing to Roman Catholics Okay, and I in any book of that nature you you always have a you know, something so in some way they address the topic of the baptism and salvation and In that section in basically in passing just a little footnote

He says well, he says, you know to be fair There are certain Protestant groups and he mentioned specifically

Lutheranism and Anglicanism that teach The same type of thing he said well So that he said the criticisms he have he had there would also apply as well and I wasn't real familiar

I don't have any personal familiarity with with Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but so I did a little Searching online and I discovered that yes, in fact that Historically Lutheranism and Anglicanism, I guess even today the ones that are, you know, the heaven

I guess non -liberal but the teacher they taught back then that they do that water baptism

That saves they teach that you know that it plays a role in salvation and also That salvation, you know that a person can be a true

Christian and in not just a professional but a true one and and you know possibly lose their salvation

I wasn't aware they taught either of those and I saw a website by It was it was kind of a question -and -answer thing people would email in questions to it was

Lutheran, Missouri So not minister and actually I do have I mean, I don't have a lot of personal familiarity

But in my extended family, you know in where I live there's a large There's a lot of Lutheran, Missouri, but in fact their headquarters is not far from where I live

But and in this in this question -answer box or whatever The person said oh, well,

I have this friend who you know, they're saying well, they're a Lutheran But I have this friend who's a who's a Baptist and we're talking about baptism and you know this, you know

He stole that, you know the Baptist view of baptism and and the Lutheran is it? Oh, no, you know, that's that's not right

And he he cited, you know, the the you know, the the Bible verses that people, you know That the teach baptism plays a role in salvation usually do such as you know,

Mark 16 16 John 3 3x 238 And others like, you know, first Peter 321 and other ones and he said, oh, well, you know, and he was saying, you know

Yes, but it does play a role in in salvation and he's claimed also that before the

Reformation He said that all the writers who addressed the issue obviously not all of them addressed it, but he said the ones who did

All claimed that in using those verses claim that that you know water baptism You know that it washed literally washed away since and I think

I'd like you to if you could address that a little bit And also my question is in light of Galatians, you know 1 8 at what point?

Okay, if a group teaches That you know water baptism It washes away since plays a role in salvation or I mean the losable salvation thing too

I mean if they teach one or both of those at what point it would they fall into the anathema of Relations actually outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy well,

I Don't know that we would even have time to address all that that says a tremendous amount of material but I Don't profess to actually understand much of Lutheranism there there are a number of different Lutheran groups and I have had

Lutherans profess many different things to me. I've also had Lutherans pretty much anathema ties all sorts of other

Lutherans and The fact the matter is that that Luther went through a fair amount of theological evolution

Calvinists tend to like the early Luther and not so much the later Luther Melanchthon went away from many of the formulations that Luther came up with from both periods of his life and So you have a wide variety of things you can you can choose from shall we say in Luther's writings you know a lot of people point to the

The bondage of the will and go. Oh, this is you know This is great stuff and at the time it was did he may remain consistent with those viewpoints later on well

It doesn't seem like he did but Trying to figure out a consistent interpretation of Luther is one thing then

Recognizing Melanchthon's change is another thing and then seeing the various permutations that have come with Wisconsin Synod and Missouri Synod is

Far beyond any of the time frames that I have to even try to keep those things straight So it's

I've had Lutherans, you know very firmly condemn me and my Calvinism as being mere humanism and so on and so forth and affirm a

Strong concept of baptismal regeneration while at the same time Shouting sola fide and and I think that's one of the things is that likewise with Anglicans there there are

Anglicans who interpret the 39 articles in one way and interpret them in another way and These groups that attempt to say sola fide

Justification by by grace through faith alone, but then have these other What seemed to me to be contradictions

I think put themselves in a difficult spot obviously as far as being consistent goes

But Luther himself had to develop this concept of infantile faith to to try to hold together this idea that You're justified by faith, but there's also this this role of baptism

And I think historically the peasants revolt in 1525 had a lot to do

With what was going on at this time both, you know Luther himself had made the comment

That's a free church a church that you didn't to just join by being born into a culture

Or into a society would be the only type of church that could possibly have any meaningful holiness to it and so there's all sorts of things that go into that and It's it's very very complicated very very difficult to To figure out exactly where all the groups are coming from but the people that I know of who attempt to on the one hand affirm sola fide while at the same time having these types of Practices generally will either go one of two ways either they will will jump the one direction and In essence the justification by faith becomes sacrificed and that does become a problem or they'll go the other direction and the activity of baptism and the effect of baptism becomes significantly more symbolic than it would in a

Dogmatic position such as what you would find in Roman Catholicism so Obviously as a convinced

Reformed Baptist. I think that these are important issues, and I think it's one of the reasons that there is

Significantly less meaningful apologetic response to Rome or to these other groups from Those perspectives because I think they're they're carrying along some some real baggage but at the same time

I know people who are in these groups that Are on the side of the truth in the sense of affirming

Justification by faith and these other issues they then downplay So as to find a way in their own thinking to harmonize these things so it's

You know for me. It's obviously important Because it does end up causing stumbling blocks, but at the same time there are those it's

You know there's there's inconsistencies for lots of folks. I mean we could make the argument that the consistent

Arminian Would would have to abandon any meaningful Profession of Sola Fide as well, so Thankfully there are a whole lot of inconsistent

Armenians, too Right I had one other real quick question as you about and I was something I had seen On I don't know who wrote this it was there if it was what kind of a group it was but it's in Ephesians 28 which

I'm sure everyone is very familiar with where it says by grace you have been saved through faith Somebody was and I see this in a couple different places

And I don't know the source of it But they were claiming that in the original Greek that when it says saved through faith it actually supposedly

There's an article before the faith, and it actually reads saved through the faith no and the end Well are there any textual variants there?

Well I Look at the Nessie Allen text here real quick. I didn't have that up, but it's in In the text

I'm looking at that's that's not there so Ephesians 2 H Well yeah, yeah, there is a textual variant there.

There's the majority text actually has it But it's Sinaiticus Vaticanus Wide range of others do not have an article before the word faith, so you wouldn't want to build anything major on it, but So I don't

What were they attempted well what they were saying? I mean, I'm not exactly sure what because What they had tied it into was they were saying well

It means saved through the faith in the same way like for example in Jude 1 3 we're talking about the faith once delivered to the

Saints it was saying like that the faith in Ephesians or rather that faith in Ephesians 2 8 was supposed to be like safe through the faith meaning like by the

Christian faith Not through one's personal faith, and I'm really not sure what you know what why but I mean it just struck me as very odd Well, yeah, it would strike me as odd.

I mean I I don't know what the what the application would would be

I mean for by grace You have been saved through faith and that not of your own doing what the

Christian faith was you're not not of your own doing I mean No well especially because of the rest of the sentence

It's saying it's the gift of God not as result of works that no one may boast so The point is to demonstrate that the faith that saves is commensurate with grace

Which is the same thing we have in Romans not that this somehow is the faith that has saved us

That would just disrupt the entire argument of the entire sentence that wouldn't that wouldn't make any sense so where the articles there or not that wouldn't shift the meaning of faith away from the discussion of works and Grace to some doctrinal formulation.

I mean I there are places where truth and faith mean those things primarily in the pastoral epistles, but This would

Ephesians 2 would be a parallel with Romans 3 and 4 and that that's that's not what the meaning of the term would Be there Well it's gonna be a little frustrating because it's gonna be by phone and the fact the matter is that Harold Camping doesn't speak very quickly and so I would like to be able to cover ten times more than I than I will be able to but Chris Arnson just called him up and His his home phone number is listed and so he just called him up, and he always answers on the first ring

He said he sits next to the phone I think I think people just call him all day long, and he just he just you know dispenses his spiritual wisdom

I guess and and Chris just called him said hey, would you be on my program could we wanted his debate and So that's how it happened

Okay, that's good. Okay. Well. I hope it all works out. Well. I'll be listening and People be thank you, okay, thanks a lot

All right, we went right past the break there, but that's okay We'll try to get our phone calls in and still get to Norm Geisel.

Let's talk with Jamie in Phoenix. Hi Jamie Hi I have a question concerning Actually, it's two passages one's in John three others in John nine

And the first one John 3 17 I actually hear often from people who want to say

That you know that you know You know Christ came to save all men et cetera et cetera when it says for God did not send son

Into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him and then look, you know the rest of the context there, but I was reading through John 9, and I came across out when a

Jesus is a Talking to the Pharisees after he sealed the blind man, and they say

For judgment I came into the world so that those who may not see and those who may become blind

So the I'm just wondering how we can you know earlier Jesus. It's it seemed. I know this is not the case

You know that seems usually I've got come to judge and later It says that he did come to judge, and I'm wondering how we can

How those two work together well obviously the context of both is different and so the the presentation that is being made in John chapter 3 is

To Nicodemus in regards to the purpose of the sending of the Sun That he has been sent so that eternal life might be given to those who believe

That his sending in regards to them is that the world might be saved through him

That the person who believes in him is not condemned he was not believed, but notice it says whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is

Condemned already because he is not believed in the name of the only Son of God And this is the judgment the light has come into the world the people love the darkness rather than light

Because their works are evil so you have condemnation and judgment language right there in John 3

The only reason it says God not sending his son the world to condemn the world is because the world is already

Condemned the sending the Sun does not bring that condemnation the condemnation is already there because of sin now in John 9 the context is the fact that you have the blind and Those who see and this is in specific reference to the claims the people of Israel who?

Claim to be able to see but they are actually the ones who are blind And you have this healing that then brings this out in in stark contrast

These individuals who see themselves as being spiritually wise and insightful and having this

Ability to see in vision and so on so forth But in reality they are unable to see at all and that God is going to bypass them

Because of their self -righteousness and so as is very common in the gospel of John he will utilize

Words like hearing and he will utilize them in multiple ways People can hear

Jesus preaching, but they can't hear they can see but they can't see light darkness.

These are themes that he runs through the entire gospel and each time that it comes up and each time that that it's brought into a particular context you have to allow for that context to define its usage so Unfortunately people who just proof text the

Bible, and they're just they're not actually Looking to handle the text in a meaningful fashion, but are just simply looking for isolated texts to pull out of the gospel of John could very easily create contradictions and things like that on a surface level but Again, there's you know you can't stop people from abusing scripture.

You can only Demonstrate they're doing so by handling it accurately so That's what

I was trying to prove fine So you're saying that actually if they try and you know throw out seven verse 17 and John 3 we should take them through Through verse 19 and then compare that to 39.

Oh, yeah, I mean the judge Yeah, the judgment language is right there This is the judgment light has come to the world and people love the darkness rather than light because their works for evil

It's right there the statement is made those who do not believe are condemned already His sending him does not bring about their condemnation their condemnation is due to their sin

But then with the Jews specifically who claim to see Then their blindness is demonstrated by the fact they cannot see the identity of the one that this blind person as soon as he identifies himself will bow down and worship so That that's the the glorious nature of John chapter 9 is the revelation it makes of them

Trying to make sure I was thinking correctly do that. Thank you. Okay, you're welcome. Thanks. Thanks for calling.

Bye. Bye All right, eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the toll -free phone number

I saw we had a caller but caller didn't stick around, huh? Alright, well anyways, let's let's in the last 20 minutes.

We've got here get back to norm guys So now my understanding was that when I tried to play some of these clips from New Jersey For some reason due to Skype or the way that the volume was set up on the

Mac that it was something I don't know. You just couldn't hear it. It just just couldn't follow so I'm probably gonna be repeating something here

But hey, that's just the way it is and probably nobody listening right now Or remembers anyhow, so for those of you who are not aware what we were doing

Norm Geisler preached a sermon Why he's not a five -point Calvinist. He has preached this a number of times and We have been listening to it and we've been listening to the entirety of it

Lots of folks like to say that I like to take things out of context and stuff like that By the way, it was interesting that there was a textual variant there.

I mean, it's I was learning something I was getting appreciate that learning those things.

That's why we do this. It helps me I have not seen every textual variant in the world yet. And Even if I had sometimes

I don't remember them. Isn't that an amazing thing? That's why they actually publish these things. It's very useful

Anyways, I'm playing the whole thing Not only so that people can't say I'm taking out of context, but because there's a flavor

To this sermon that I'll be perfectly honest with you. It is a very shallow Sermon now,

I understand sometimes if you go to certain kinds of churches and You're asked to address these things and you know, the people out there just don't have any idea

What you're gonna be talking about then you've got to be very simplistic When you simplify something you have to try to you want to find out if you really understand a subject

Teach it to young people teach it to the kids What do I mean by that well

Obviously if you can teach it to the young people if you can simplify it that means you really do understand what you're talking about when

Norman Geisler tries to simplify a presentation on Calvinism the result is a boatload of straw men a boatload of errors

Some of you saw the blog article. I put a man. I should have queued that up of William Lane Craig talking about How since as a non

Calvinist? He would never want to say that Someone could turn to Christ and true repentance and faith and Christ would turn them away and say

I will not regenerate you as if Any Calvinist ever believed that? But that's the kind of thing that happens when when the person speaking has a fundamentally flawed understanding of the subject

Then when they try to simplify it they're gonna make errors. I've done that I mean sometimes people force me to address subjects, and I try to say well.

I really don't know You know I've not really studied that all in depth This is my understanding and then when

I try to simplify it somebody writes and says well you didn't understand this well They're right. I didn't that's why I try to avoid

That's why I try to you know put out this that disclaimer right at the beginning saying This is not an area where I'm claiming any expertise

This is just my understanding and go from there, but I'm not allowed to do that by the way by Many people's counts

I have to be have the same level of knowledge of all things is how some people deal with me anyway

So let's get back to the Norman Geisler sermon and listen We're about 23 minutes in for those of you who have downloaded the file from it's available out there on the internet fairly easily

And I'm not a five -point Calvinist is I don't believe that Unconditional election is

Unconditional from the standpoint of the receiver it is only unconditional from the standpoint of the giver let me illustrate

If I decide to give you a million dollars out of the goodness of my heart without Any strings attached not because you worked for me

But because I just want to out of the generosity of my heart give you that money

That's an unconditional gift. There's no strings attached. You don't have to work to get it

But you do have to do one thing to get it you have to receive the gift I mean

I can offer the million dollars, and you still don't have it you got to reach out and get it so the gift is

Unconditional from the standpoint of the giver But it's conditioned on the reception of the receiver you must receive it to get the gift

Irresistible or rather Unconditional election from the standpoint of the extreme

Calvinist says there is not even any condition for you receiving it You don't have to believe to receive it in fact you can't believe now obviously

I Just have to immediately point out that the historical background of the phrase unconditional election is whether God's choice of an individual is

Based upon his foreseeing what that individual will do the fulfillment of conditions that you can have one condition

Autonomous faith you can have multiple conditions sacraments baptisms confessions, whatever it might be but the question is is

God's election of particular individuals based upon his foreseeing of Their fulfillment of conditions, or is it?

Unconditional now What was just said as a straw man? Well, you're gonna receive this whether you believe or not

No, you're going to believe and repent Infallibly due to the fact that God has unconditionally elected

You will believe you will repent Because it is God's purpose to conform us the image of Christ It is

God's purpose to save us through the proclamation of the Word of God Through the gospel and through the work of the

Holy Spirit of God and that word calls you to believe calls to repentance the spirit Changes your heart and mind takes that heart of stone out gives you a heart of flesh, which dr.

Geisler sadly mocks in his presentations as a rewiring or reprogramming

The greatest gracious miracle God ever does and change in human heart is mocked by many

Armenians. It's a sad thing to think about but He is confusing the historical use of this term with a assertion of synergism on his part rather than the

Biblical teaching that when the Spirit of God raises a person to spiritual life he likewise causes that person to Become a lover of God obedient to Christ.

That's what faith and repentance is all about And aren't you thankful?

You know I have a lot of people who argue about that and they will they want to turn faith into a mere intellectual scent the tip

Of the hat whatever it might be but to the true Christian, aren't you thankful that? the source of saving faith is outside of yourself

I Feel so badly for people who think they have to somehow Work that up within themselves.

I think a lot of what we see in evangelicalism Is the this emotionalism this this, you know,

I got to get revved up on Sunday to make it through the next Sunday It's all due to the fact that that people think that somehow they this comes from themselves

It's it's not the work of the Spirit of God applying God's truth in one's life and informing one of the image of Christ the glory

Of Christ, it's me holding on. I've got to give that synergistic effort You know

God's doing his best, but I I put in the rest You know theology matters because you're so totally depraved this can't understand it and you can't receive it.

It's something That God has to impart in you and then once he gives you salvation

Then you're able to believe after that and of course the

Bible Doesn't the notice and for those who weren't listening? Dr.

Geisler continues to equivocate where he will say regeneration. That's what we say

And then he'll say salvation all of it he just he just used them back and forth even though we make a clear distinction and so then he can run off and find text use the term salvation and Use that against what we're arguing for.

He doesn't of course as we've pointed out actually deal with the text that we present that demonstrate that regeneration is necessary for the

Practice of saving faith and that this is all part of the the one act of the Spirit of God drawing us unto

Christ through the ministry of the Word of God and the proclamation of the gospel all that stuff

No, we're not gonna deal with those because he's in a position where he knows That's ninety nine point nine nine percent of his audience is never gonna raise those questions.

He's safe Which is also why Norman Geisler will never debate this subject even though he has been invited to Over and over and over again teach that because the

Bible teaches That you must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved

As if that's somehow contrary to what we believe Yes, we we do believe that one must believe on the

Lord Jesus Christ to be saved and we can preach that to all of creation

To every man woman and child that does not change the fact that we recognize

That unless the Spirit of God comes along as the wind does in Ezekiel and Causes those dead bones to come alive that we will be standing in the middle of a graveyard preaching to dead bodies

It is the Spirit of God that brings that spiritual life

We do believe every person must believe but what dr. Geisler is teaching is that every person has the capacity

To believe in and of himself outside of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit of God 1631

Constantly Jesus said he that believes on the Son shall be saved the wrath of God shall not abide on him

Romans 6 23 the result of sin is death, but Salvation is a gift of God in it.

And of course Any Reformed person to seeing her going none of this has anything whatsoever to do with what

I believe and so why is dr. Geisler this great scholar Quoting texts that have absolutely nothing to do

With what we believe Does it not indicate a fundamental misconception on his part?

I think that it does gift must be received and if We don't receive the gift

It doesn't matter how Unconditional the giver was it doesn't matter how gracious he was

You're not going to be saved Now, of course what that means from dr. Geisler's perspective.

Is it that this giver? What has been given is the chance to be saved not salvation itself.

Notice this results in an impersonal election an election of a plan an election of a nameless group

The personal aspect of salvation to where God's love is set upon you as an individual from eternity past that Jesus Christ dies for you as an individual

Knowing who you are Has to be sacrificed in these systems to where you become just this part of this nameless faceless group and whether you're going to be

Part of that group is all up to you not up to God Turn to John chapter 1 for an illustration of this in fact a biblical pronouncement on it in John chapter 1

We read some really difficult verses to understand

Because in verse 10, it says Jesus Was in the world and the world was made through him and the world didn't know him how incredible He came to his own and his own did not receive him but as Many as received him to them gave he the right to become the children of God Even to those who believe on his name.

How do you get salvation? You must receive it now notice

He doesn't actually continue on and assumes that Verse 12 is meant to give some sort of ordo salutis

But to all who did receive him who believed in his name he gave the right to become the children of God no question about that Adoption comes to every single person who has received

Christ to every single person who's believed in his name But does that mean that they were born by the their own action of believing?

The very next verse that he didn't read which actually is a continuation of the same sentence

Says who were born Not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God and So what is the source?

What is the origination of their being begotten into the family of God? It's not of the will of man.

It is of God Now again, I suppose the only way to get around this would be to say well

All that's talking about is the opportunity But then again you have this impersonal salvation stuff and that is what

Norm Geisler preaches you need to understand he Specifically says Christ's death saved no one

It simply made men savable He may say that in this sermon

I don't remember it's been about a month and a half two months two and a half months since I listened to it last But I have documented that in the

Potter's freedom, of course and have played that many times we have an entire series that I did back of 2000 or something like that on in response to chosen but free but Just keep that in mind you must accept it you must

Make an act of faith to Receive the gift Now true verse 13 says those who were born out of blood nor of the will of the flesh

The will of man, but of God it points out this didn't come out of your will

This came out of God's gracious will but it came through your will for by grace

Are you saved through faith and while salvation edge cats that? Forgotten It didn't come from your will it came through your will

That's that's what it means when it says not of the will of man, but of God What that means it didn't come from the will of man, but through the will of man

Yeah, that's that's what John's talking about. Sure. It's right there on the text, isn't it? There's ice of Jesus for it doesn't proceed out of the will of God I didn't seek him first I love him because he loved me

Okay, so if God loves every single person equally then why isn't the response?

Oh, it's all the person see again all the person God's love God's grace

God's choice everybody's the same and Yet for a large number he fails and then for those who are well better More spiritually insightful.

There's got to be something because it's not in God's choice. It's in me That's where the difference is.

I seek him because he first sought me But it is a mistake to say while that is true.

It is a mistake to say That we didn't receive the gift that he gave and no one is saying that we don't receive it

What we're saying is that that reception is the sure result of the work of the

Spirit of God as a result of The choice of God in eternity past he does not fail to save his elect

We didn't get very far there because I tend to start preaching but I we will continue on with Norm Geisler We will get to it sometime.

We are looking at the waveform here on my screen. We're about halfway through Maybe a minute short of being halfway through the sermon and obviously limited atonement will be coming up here pretty soon

So we will we will get to it. But we only got what about three and a half minutes worth

Today. Oh, well, I apologize. But hey good phone calls covered some good important material

Lots of things for lots of different people in the program today Still not sure we're gonna do on Tuesday.

I have a feeling what I might do is go ahead and play That's a camping thing in place of dividing line so you can listen to it if you'd like I mean you can download the video, but some people can't download those big videos and those 90 -minute videos

So maybe streaming it would be the way to help some other people have some background So I think it might be a good thing to do next

Tuesday So I'm not doing that program right before doing the camping debate on Tuesday, but we'll be blogging about it

Thanks for listening to the dividing line. We'll see you next week. 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 -973 -4602 or write us at p .o

Box 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