Perseverance of the Saints and Assurance of Faith

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 at 602 -973 -4602, or toll free across the

United States. It's 1 -866 -854 -6763. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. The Apostle Paul said to the Corinthians, test yourselves to see if you are in the faith.

Examine yourselves, or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you, unless indeed you fail the test.

Welcome to The Dividing Line today. We are live and back. I don't have the foggiest idea what happened last week, but we're back and with it this week and welcome to the program.

Going to be discussing some interesting things today, and invite your participation if you would like to be a part of things at 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number to be involved today.

I chose that passage of scripture because, as many of you might know, I have been looking at a book entitled,

What Love Is This?, by Dave Hunt, and have been looking at the section on the

Perseverance of the Saints. As many of you know, we are writing a book on the subject of Calvinism, and when

I say we, I mean Mr. Hunt and myself. It is a debate book, unlike the co -authored books

I've done in the past with Kevin Johnson and with Jeff Neal, Mr. Hunt and I are on the opposite side of this issue, so it's a point -counterpoint book.

I'm writing on seven topics, he's writing on seven topics. Interestingly enough, I was looking at them just this past week and I noted that all seven of my topics are positive presentations of a belief, that is, they are either on something like the proper and free kingship of God, that is

God's sovereignty, unconditional election, or they're on Bible passages, such as Romans 8 -9 or John 6 -35 -45, and all of Mr.

Hunt's topics are negatives about how Calvinism makes a mockery of God and makes a mockery of man's will, and so on and so forth, but one of the topics, of course, is on the final point of the five points of Calvinism, the perseverance of the saints, and there is a chapter in Mr.

Hunt's book on this particular subject, and so, since that's going to be one of the topics,

I assume, of course, that Mr. Hunt's presentation, his 3 ,000 -word presentation on the perseverance of the saints, is going to partake mainly of what is found in that chapter, so I was looking at it and trying to understand the positive position that underlies what

Mr. Hunt is trying to say in regards to his disagreement with the

Reformed understanding of the perseverance of the saints. It's very clear that Mr.

Hunt disagrees, but exactly why is the issue. One of the difficulties I have with Dave Hunt's book is that he doesn't really present a positive case for his position.

He just blasts away at Calvinism. He doesn't really tell us exactly where he's coming from.

His position is assumed, and all sorts of questions concerning the consistency of his own assertions automatically come up in the mind, but they're not addressed.

It would seem to me that if you're writing on a particular subject, that you would wish to consider, if I say,

I'm writing on Roman Catholicism, for example, and I say about Roman Catholicism that they believe

X, Y, or Z, and this is wrong because of this, if that statement automatically raises, in my mind, objections to my own position, if I could see how one of my opponents would say, hey, wait a minute, you're being inconsistent because you said this in the past,

I will try, even in just discussing Roman Catholic position, to demonstrate the consistency of my own position, sort of in a way of anticipating objection.

Well, this is not something that Mr. Hunt does in any way, shape, or form, and it makes it somewhat frustrating to attempt to interact with his information, with his materials.

Well, anyways, in looking at this chapter, he's writing against the

Calvinistic perspective, and in essence, his assertion is that Calvinism takes away all possibility of having any type of assurance.

On page 378, well, let me just read some sections here so you have an idea of exactly where we're coming from.

At the beginning of chapter 22, he writes, before beginning what turned into an urgent and in -depth study of Calvinism, urgent as in very fast,

I might note, I had thought that I was at least a one -point Calvinist. Surely my belief in eternal security, the assurance of salvation, eternally in God's presence, must be the same as Calvinism's perseverance of the saints.

That turned out, however, not to be the case. Why? Biblical assurance of salvation does not depend upon one's performance, but upon the gospel's declaration that Christ died for the sins of the world, and upon his promise that whosoever believes in him receives the gift of eternal life.

In contrast, the Calvinist assurance is in God having predestined him to eternal life as one of the elect, and his performance plays a large part in helping him to know whether or not he is among that select group.

Copts insists that God's answer to doubt, the only proper fount of assurance of salvation, of getting to heaven, glorification, is the doctrine of predestination.

That view has serious problems, as we shall see. I believe in my Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore, according to his promise, my sins are forgiven.

I have been born again into God's family as his dear child, and heaven is my eternal home. Christ calls us,

Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, I will give you rest. Matthew 11, 28. Laden with sin,

I came to him, and as he promised, found rest in him alone. Christ guaranteed, Him that cometh to me I will knowwise cast out.

John 6, 37. I just paused to note, just in passing, that's the second half of a sentence.

The first half of the sentence is the passage that talks about, of course, the eternal predestining act of the

Father in which he gives the elect unto the

Son. Let me just sort of skip that part. I came to him by faith in his word, and he will never cast me out, i .e.,

I can never be lost. My assurance is in his promise and keeping power, not in my efforts or performance.

He said, I give unto them my sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish. John 10, 28. It would be strange eternal life, indeed, if it were here today and gone tomorrow.

Yet many professing Christians, including five -point Calvinists who believe in perseverance of the saints, are troubled with doubts concerning their salvation.

Doubts even assail leading Calvinists. Zane C. Hodges points out that the result of this theology is disastrous, since, according to Puritan belief, the genuineness of a man's faith can only be determined by the life that follows it.

Assurance of salvation becomes impossible at the moment of conversion, and, one might add, at any time thereafter as well, for reasons we will show.

Piper and his staff write, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith.

No wonder, then, as R. T. Kendall has commented, that nearly all the Puritan divines went through great doubt and despair on their deathbeds as they realized their lives did not give perfect evidence that they were elect.

Arminius, on the other hand, contrary to the false label attached to him by his enemies, had perfect assurance, and said that the believer can depart out of this life to appear before the throne of grace without any anxious fear.

Then under the title, An Endemic Uncertainty of Salvation, why such uncertainty among Calvinists?

Why such doubts? And in what can the Calvinist find assurance? Oddly enough, certainty of salvation and confidence of one's eternal destiny is not to be found in the fifth point of Calvinism, where one would expect it, nor can it be found in the other four points.

While many Calvinists would deny it, uncertainty as to one's ultimate salvation is in fact built in the very fabric of their system.

Congdon writes, absolute assurance of salvation is impossible in classical Calvinism. Understand why.

Since works are an inevitable result of true salvation, one can only know he or she is saved by the presence of good works.

But since no one is perfect, any assurance is at best imperfect as well. Therefore you may think you believe in Jesus Christ, you may think you had saving faith, but be sadly mistaken.

And because unsaved, be totally blind to the fact that you are unsaved. R .C. Sproul in an article entitled

Assurance of Salvation writes, there are people in this world who are not saved, but who are convinced that they are. When our assurance of salvation is based at all on our works, we can never have absolute assurance.

But does Scripture discourage giving objective assurance of salvation? Hardly. On the contrary, the Lord Jesus, John 5 .24,

Paul, Romans 8 .38 -39, and John, 1 John 5 .11 -13, have no qualms about offering absolute objective assurance of salvation.

Furthermore, works are never included as a requirement for assurance. And then, interestingly enough, he quotes from Bob Wilkin of the

Grace Evangelical Society. And Bob Wilkin is one of the leading anti -lordship, anti -repentance writers out there today.

And he quotes from Wilkin about attending a Ligonier National Conference, and then goes on to say, what a commentary that lack of assurance of salvation permeated the

Ligonier National Conference featuring major Calvinist leaders. Why should that be? Because the Calvinists cannot rely upon Christ's promise of eternal life or upon the gospel, which are only for the elect.

Instead, his security lies in knowing that he is one of the elect. Piper writes, we believe in eternal security, the eternal security of the elect.

And there one confronts a serious problem. How can one be certain that one is among that select predestined company, etc.,

etc.? Now, here's the real issue. He goes on and on and on, and the constant argumentation is, you can't know for certain you're a part of the elect, therefore you cannot have true assurance.

But if he wanted to make this a meaningful critique, he would explain to us how, by denying the existence of the elect.

That he himself obtains the kind of assurance that he says that he has.

There's a very, very obvious action of equivocation going on here.

That is, Mr. Hunt seems to be saying, well, I trust

Christ to save me. Now, in reality, that of course makes me stop immediately and go, wait a minute.

Is it not your position that Christ attempts to save every single individual equally?

That's the whole essence of his love of God argument. There can be no particular love of God. God, unlike the creature he made, cannot have special love for anything.

He can only have a peanut butter love that is just spread out over everything.

And so, how is it that saying, well, I believe Christ can save me.

Well, he can save me as long as I, with my free will, cooperate with him. But how is it that saying, well,

I've believed in Christ, so I believe that he can save me, how is he paralleling that with an obviously different question?

And that is what the Calvinists are addressing is, how can I know that I have true faith?

How does Mr. Hunt know that he has true faith? In fact, given the position that he's enunciated here, anyone who says they believe in Jesus Christ from his perspective must have true faith no matter how they live or what they believe.

But we know that's not Mr. Hunt's position. We know he does not hold the position that Mormons are saved by believing in Jesus.

He'd agree with us. They have the wrong Jesus. But wait a minute, that means that there is a certain doctrinal element to that faith, and hence there is such a thing as false faith.

But Mr. Hunt seemingly wants to have his cake and eat it, too, because his position does not give him any basis for testing faith, unless what he's saying is, well, the only test of faith is a doctrinal one.

And certainly I would agree that there is a doctrinal test of faith. The object of faith must be

God's truth. It must be God's Son. It must be his gospel. There's no question about that. But if there is a test for the objective reality of faith in the sense of its object, then how can he object to us saying that there must be some test of whether a person has a true faith or a false faith?

And is he actually saying that the Bible never tells us to do, well, what it tells us to do in 2

Corinthians 13, 5? Test yourselves to see if you're in the faith.

Examine yourselves. Well, what's this examination supposed to be about? On what basis can it be?

Is it only a doctrinal thing? When we examine the passages of Scripture that talk about the means by which we know that we are in Christ, is it only doctrinal?

Now, certainly there are doctrinal tests. John tells us that those who claim to love

God, those who claim to be of the body and yet deny that Jesus Christ came to flesh are liars.

They're deceiving themselves. So there's a doctrinal thing. They claim to have true and saving faith, but they don't.

But John also says in the very same passage that those who claim to love

God and yet hate their brother are liars.

That's not doctrinal. That's behavioral. That's experiential. And John doesn't seem to have any difficulty going back and forth between those two things.

In fact, it's fascinating when you go back and there are only a couple of passages that were cited by Mr.

Hunt, but did you notice what they were? John 5, 24.

Jesus says, if you believe in him, you have passed out of death into life. Every Calvinist believes that.

Of course, Calvinist simply says, if you have true saving faith in him, Romans 8, 38 to 39.

That's fascinating because that follows Romans 8, 28 through 37, which is all about God's predestination and election and all that stuff.

And you've got particular redemption there in the whole nine yards. But we skip over that.

The main one that is cited over and over again, of course, is 1 John 5. And I'd like to invite you to take a moment to turn to 1

John 5 if you happen to have a Bible with you, or if you're listening via real audio on the web, you probably have a

Bible program on your computer that you can bring up. And hopefully your computer has sufficient resources to run it and a real audio at the same time.

And thankfully mine does. And 1 John 5, verse 11 says the following, and the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life and this life is in his son.

He who has the son has the life. He who does not have the son of God does not have the life. These things

I've written to you who believe in the name of the son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Now, there is no question that this passage, and especially 1

John 5, 13, has been misused in large streams of evangelicalism for a very long time.

It always bothers me, as it should bother anyone when you read some of the more surface level

Catholic apologists, when you listen to Tim Staples or Karl Keating or James Aiken, easily refuting the misuse of passages like this when surface level evangelicals throw them out.

Watching surface level folks fight with surface level folks is always a very frustrating thing. And it's very frustrating to recognize the

Catholic is right at that point when a person just throws out, well, 1 John 5, 13 says, these things

I've written to you who believe in the name of the son of God so that you may know you have eternal life. You can just know it. Okay.

There's no question that you can. But let me ask you a question. Let's say you're a computer programmer.

We have a lot of geeks in the channel who do computer programming. We have American geeks and British geeks and Australian geeks, and we have a world of geeks in the channel, and many of them do computer programming or at least act like they do.

And let's say someone came to you with a contract to do some programming for them.

And the contract said something along the lines of, when you do these things, you'll be paid $2 ,000.

Well, obviously, you probably want to know what these things refers to.

If you sign a contract that has the phrase, these things in it, you might want to know what these things is referring to.

What's the referent? What's the these things we're talking about? It doesn't seem to cross the mind of many individuals that these things in 1

John 5, 13 has reference to something, but what is it?

Well, these things would refer, first of all, to the immediate context.

You go back in 1 John 5, it talks about, of course, having the son.

We've already run across a number of passages in 1 John 2 and 4 about those who do not have the son because they do not believe the father's testimony concerning his coming in the flesh and so on and so forth.

But the these things would refer to everything that came before this in 1 John and 1

John is filled with all sorts of tests, all sorts of passages that are meant to give us assurance upon what basis?

Well, think about 1 John chapter 2, for example. This passage says, well, just think about some of these things.

The one who says, I have come to know him and does not keep his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him.

But whoever keeps his word in him, the love of God has truly been perfected. By this, we know that we are in him.

The one who says he abides in him ought himself to walk in the same manner as he walked.

Well, wait a minute. That that sounds like it involves self -examination.

It sounds like it involves consistency. Well, it does.

Well, how are you supposed to how are you supposed to take 1 John chapter 2, verses 4 through 6?

And how is that supposed to give you assurance if you are not examining your life in the light of those words?

But Mr. Hunt tells us that's all wrong. You just simply believe that Jesus can save you.

Well, every Calvinist I know of believes that. That's not the question. The question is, how do

I know that I have true faith? It's not questioning

Jesus's ability to save. That isn't the issue. That's the problem with Mr.

Hunt's entire presentation. He's comparing his belief that Jesus can save, which

I would say my my faith that Jesus can save is considerably greater in the sense that I accept that he can infallibly do so without my assistance.

He's comparing that to the real issue that's being addressed here, and that is when

I examine my own life, how do I know if I'm a hypocrite or not? What are the standards?

What does the scripture say? Mr. Hunt doesn't give us a positive presentation of how he understands these passages, therefore it's hard to say.

And since, by the way, in this book, he's going to be doing the the positive, I don't know that I'm not going to have

I don't know that I'm going to have much time to actually ask him to do so. But we'll we'll see what comes of it.

But you can see here in First John, chapter two, to apply these words requires you to actually think about your own life.

Look at verse nine, the one who says he is in the light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.

Well, here you have a person who says he's in the light. Here's a person who says,

I am in the light. And yet he's doing something that that demonstrates he's not.

He's not in the light. Well, wouldn't this be a person described in some of the quotations that we read from Mr.

Hunt, here's a person has a false faith. He is deceived. He thinks he's a believer. He's not. Isn't that what pretty much all of James is about?

And isn't that what First John's about? And isn't this all through the New Testament? It certainly is.

Verse 15, do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the

Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes, the boastful pride of life is not from the

Father, but is from the world. If you have the love of the world, the love of the

Father is not in you. How are you to know that? Or are you just to not worry about it? For those wondering, the

Roman Catholic in apologetics is commenting on the fact that I said something about surface level apologists.

And I was referring to books like Carl Keating's book that responds to the worst in Protestant apologetics and doesn't deal with the real serious stuff.

That's what I was referring to. That's not ad hominem. I think

I can substantiate the fact that they respond not to the best, but to the worst. They're responding to Jack Chick and people like that.

And that's not ad hominem. But that particular Roman Catholic in the channel is looking for anything whatsoever to say, ah,

I have refuted James White, that type of thing. So that's what is going on there.

Back to what we were saying. Those of you, I can just see a mass run over to apologetics.

Ah, see, there went wonky. Anyways, as I was saying, these passages are all over the

New Testament, but they are not addressed by Mr. Hunt. And so the question really has to be addressed to Mr.

Hunt. Not only what do you do with these passages, but how do you determine whether a person has true faith or not?

Now, one of the things that Mr. Hunt finds extremely just all he has to do is just state it and assume everyone's going to go gasp.

Oh, that's terrible. That's horrible. One of the things he finds extremely distasteful is a quotation from Calvin, where he says that God has even given to some people a false assurance, a false faith.

Well, I think that is quite true. I think that would be a very proper judicial punishment to bring upon someone who has flaunted

God's truth. Upon what basis would you argue against that?

Anyone and Mr. Hunt certainly has has encountered these kinds of people. I have encountered many a person who just loves to twist the word of God.

They live to twist the word of God. They live to attack the word of God.

Any argument is not too inane to be used to attack

God's freedom, to attack God's grace. And yet these people will confidently tell you that they have eternal life.

Where does that kind of blindness come from? Where does that kind of of of self -deception come from?

And furthermore, if we recognize that nothing takes place in this world, but it does so at God's permission and that God has a purpose in all things, that there is no purposeless thing that goes on in this world.

Then we know that is God's purpose, that the church must struggle throughout her existence against false teachers.

Well, what gives those false teachers the the absolute desire to press on in many cases?

Even when refuted. Remember the the what were called evil spirits sent from the

Lord to to false prophets in Israel to bring about God's judgment upon Israel.

Those passages are there in the Bible. I don't know what Mr. Hunt does with them. I don't know what anyone does to them. They're there.

God had a purpose in doing it. And people, oh, that's not fair. How could God do that? Remember, folks, as soon as an individual sins, the next breath they take is based on grace and mercy.

God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that God might bring glory to himself. And when those kings, for example, constantly rejected.

God's prophets demonstrate that they were concerned only about themselves, concerned only about the self aggrandizement of their kingdom.

God could have struck them down right then. So what's wrong with bringing judicial punishment upon them that brings

God even more glory than just simply striking them down by deceiving them and bring punishment upon themselves and others in any way that God so chooses to do so?

Well, we just don't like that, it seems to be the response from many people. Eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, thirty, three, forty one.

We're going to take our half hour break and be right back. The history of the

Christian church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation, the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine.

In his book, The God Who Justifies, theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification, and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture, where tolerance is the new absolute.

James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith.

Dr. J Adams says, I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates.

This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout, an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God Who Justifies by Dr. James White. Get your copy today at AOMN .org.

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder -to -shoulder against social evils.

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements, and many evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the

Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book,

The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatorian indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at AOMN .org.

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning

Bible study begins at 930 a .m., and the worship service is at 1045. Evening services are at 630 p .m.

on Sunday, and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805

North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.

If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org,

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

And welcome back to the dividing line. My name is James White. We're talking about self -examination in the sense of looking at our faith, asking the question, well, why does the

Bible tell us to examine ourselves to see whether we're in the faith? Why, what is this test that is spoken of in 2

Corinthians 13? Why does 1 John over and over and over again give us these means of knowing whether we are truly in him or whether we are a liar or not?

That is the question. By the way, I have someone personal messaging me. I really can't respond to personal messages while I'm on the air.

I think that's fairly obvious. Anyways, why are these things there? Why does James give us all the discussion that James gives us in regards to recognizing true faith and false faith and the marks of saving faith and all the rest of that kind of stuff?

Unless there is something that is extremely important about recognizing that there will be those who have a false faith.

There will be those who claim to be something that they are not. Seemingly, seemingly, from Mr.

Hunt's perspective, these are issues that we are not to address or that we are not to have any way of actually recognizing true faith versus false faith.

Why might that be? Well, I would suggest it is because the true saving faith that we talk about is the work of the

Holy Spirit of God. From Mr. Hunt's perspective, since he denies God's freedom in election and he denies the work of the

Spirit in bringing about regeneration and giving the gift of faith, he denies that faith is a gift, then everybody has the same kind of faith.

And if there can be false faith, then there can anyone who claims to have true faith that can become false faith.

See, there's no, there has never ever ever ever been a basis in a non reformed soteriology for a belief in eternal security or the perseverance of the

Saints. Mr. Hunt never had a rational basis for for believing in that point.

If it was of your own free will to get into this, then it's gonna be of your own free will to get out of it.

I've never understood that and I've said about, I've said about that, I've talked about that before. That is a lie

James. I have no idea what that's, we do teach is an act of the

Spirit. I wasn't even referring to Roman Catholicism, sir. But if you want to talk about Roman Catholicism, that's so, that's even so far down the the theological road there that I'm not even addressing that.

I'm talking about Dave Hunt and evangelicalism. Regeneration done by baptism, done by everyone, including those individuals who will not persevere, that's not, that's not the biblical teaching, sir, that's for sure.

But the, I've commented many many times, those who attempt to hold to eternal security while inserting free will simply contradict themselves.

If free will is so vitally important at the beginning, then doesn't free will become the very basis of the rest of their

Christian experience and hence it's their free will simply to walk away. Simply to walk away from that, that whole thing.

How can that be? I think that was brought out very very well by a question that was asked in a, in a debate with with a

Baptist minister we did quite some time ago. And the first question was asked of him was, it was an excellent one and that was, when we get to heaven and there is no evil in heaven, does that mean we've become less human?

Because from your perspective, then free will as you've defined it doesn't exist. This was being asked to the person.

I wish that I had gotten an answer for that because the the person just simply said, ah, well, hey, that's that's the stupidest question

I've ever heard. Let's go on from there. He didn't really answer it, but that is an excellent question. If there's no evil in heaven, why is that?

Do we become less human? Difficult thing to, difficult thing to figure out for the person who tries to make this concept of free will the be -all and end -all of all things in that particular context.

877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341, perhaps there are some anti -lordship salvation, anti -repentance is a part of salvation.

Salvation individuals out there who would like to address these particular subjects.

Maybe you'd like to defend what Mr. Hunt is saying. You would be welcome to give us a ring and to participate.

Of course, maybe there are those of you who attack. I can see one person in channel, one person left for some reason, he was here earlier, who was attacking the doctrine of the perseverance of the

Saints. I would be glad to defend that because I believe that. I believe that Christ cannot fail to save his own.

I do not believe that Christ will ever fail in doing the will of the Father and the will of the Father is that he would save all those who have been given to him.

There is no question of any of that. That is not the question that I'm addressing today. The question I'm addressing today is what mechanism has

God given to us whereby we might examine our own faith and hence grow in assurance.

I believe assurance is something that the Spirit of God gives to us. The Spirit of God gives it to us on the basis of our obedience to his word.

His word has given us these means. Therefore, when we use these means in Scripture, we grow in our assurance.

But I think it has been well said by one person that we need to have a working way of recognizing the difference between eternal security and eternal presumption.

Eternal presumption is a bad thing. Eternal presumption is a bad thing.

Your apology is accepted. I understand that you misunderstood what I was referring to.

Some people just find that very, very strange. Who's he talking to anyway? Well, he's talking to somebody in the chat channel.

Someone just asked, I just thought I might as well refer to it. Duke Tomah in the

Apologetics channel said Christ won't fail, but maybe we will reject him. Well, that means he fails because the entirety of our salvation is his work.

The Father said to the Son in John chapter 6, it is my will that you lose none of those that I give you.

And it is a human -based salvation system that says, well, Christ will do his best, but without our assistance, he cannot do the will of the

Father. John chapter 6 verse 38 and verse 39.

Tremendous passage of Scripture, and oh, those of you who understand the doctrines of grace, you've heard every kind of possible explanation of these passages that normally just border on the utterly unbelievable.

I want to get to this before I forget it. Well, that's a good question. I think

Bloompy Goomp in channel had a very good question.

How do we reconcile this with the fact that as believers we grow more and more sensitive and aware of our sin? That is the very work of the

Spirit in our hearts and making us more like Christ. So that that is one of the evidences of the work of the

Spirit of God is that we are concerned to examine ourselves. A person who is apathetic has absolutely no basis for claiming the promises of Scripture.

In fact, the person who's apathetic won't even be wanting to claim the promises of Scripture. But the fact that we become more sensitive to our sin, more sensitive to the attitudes that are ours, is the work of the

Holy Spirit of God. That is not what you find in the natural man. That's really.

But the problem is there needs to be a balance here because you know, you just added something there that I would

I'd have to disagree with. Therefore, if we are looking to our obedience for assurance, we're in big trouble, aren't we?

Well, not sure what you mean by that. If we are looking to ourselves as the source of our salvation, yes, we're in big trouble.

But when the Word of God gives us these clear -cut tests and in essence tells us, look, if you long to be obedient to Christ, if you long to contemplate

His law in the sense of understanding what His will for how we are to live our lives is, and if you can recognize in your life the evidence that you are seeking to live in that way, that is a means of the demonstration of the work of the

Spirit of God in our lives. And that's why I point out in 1st John, when John talks about our sin, when

John says, the one who sins does not know God, he uses that present tense over against that, for example, when he talks about if any man sins, we have an advocate with the

Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He makes that specific kind of differentiation within the text, playing off present tenses versus aorist tenses, and he communicates to us the fact that the one he's talking about who is continually sinning is the one who is a liar.

But he recognizes that there can be those who experience sin, and every believer does, and that we have an advocate with the

Father when we experience that. But what is our attitude toward it? Do we care about it? Or do we just laugh it off?

When we care about it, in fact, I would very strongly assert that if we hate our sin, that is indeed one of the greatest evidences of grace, if it causes us to fly to Christ and to Christ alone.

Because, you see, a natural man is not going to hate his sin, turn from it, and cling only to someone else.

There may be religious systems that teach us to dislike acts of sin, but then to turn to non -biblical, non -christian means of dealing with it.

If we hate sin so that we fly from our sin to the

Savior, that is absolutely opposed to the natural man.

That is absolutely opposed to what the natural man is going to do.

These are important things to think about. Just simply dismissing them and laughing them off, as Dave Hunt does in his book, is,

I think, just pastorally irresponsible. Pastorally irresponsible.

Anyways, I wanted to read this. I happened across a section that I thought was just, as I was reading

Hunt's book, believe it or not, I found this, for those of you who are geeks in the in the channel and in our listening audience,

I found this while scanning through Jonathan Edwards' book on religious affections on my

Handspring Visor Pro, which now has 144 megs of storage space and about 8 or 9 or 10

Bible translations, the Hebrew, the Greek, and things like that. Anyways, Pride goeth before destruction, which means my

Handspring Visor will be run over by a truck today, but anyways, I was actually scanning it, literally, on using

Teal Dock on my Handspring, and I ran across this section, which you'll notice I'm not reading from my visor.

I'm actually reading off of my screen, because I pulled it up with a different program. But anyways, I found this very, very interesting.

Listen to this from from Jonathan Edwards. Those that thus insist on persons living by faith, when they have no experience and are in very bad frames, are also very absurd in their notions of faith.

What they mean by faith is believing that they are in a good estate. Hence, they counted a dreadful sin for them to doubt of their state, whatever frames they are in, and whatever wicked things they do, because it is the great and heinous sin of unbelief.

And he is the best man, and puts most honor upon God, that maintains his hope of his good estate, the most confidently and immovably, when he has the least light or experience.

That is to say, when he is in the worst and most wicked frame and way, because, forsooth, that is a sign that he is strong in faith, giving glory to God, and against hope believes in hope.

But what Bible do they learn this notion of faith out of, that it is a man's confidently believing that he is in a good estate?

If this be faith, the Pharisees had faith in an eminent degree, some of which,

Christ teaches, committed the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost. The scripture represents faith as that by which men are brought into a good estate, and therefore cannot be the same thing as believing that they are already in a good estate.

To suppose that faith consists in persons believing that they are in a good estate is, in effect, the same thing as to suppose that faith consists in a person's believing that he has faith, or believing that he believes.

Now, of course, Edwards, in his context, is dealing, hey, someone just posted something in the channel they should not have posted whatsoever concerning the handspring visor, and as a result,

I think they need to go bye -bye for just a moment. Anyways, what he's saying in his context, you remember what

Edwards constantly had to fight against. He had to fight against that that that apathetic kind of Christianity that basically said, well,

I was sort of born into the church and I you know,

I was I was baptized as a child and that's that's all I really need, and I'm a member of the church, and that's it.

I don't need to have a living vital relationship with Jesus Christ. And there were some who went so far as to say, look, as long as you were baptized as a child, and you're in the church, then that's it.

You shouldn't examine yourself. You shouldn't look to have a living faith in Jesus Christ.

You shouldn't even, in fact, to even even examine yourself is to show a lack of faith.

And Edwards is saying, wait, what kind of faith is that? What kind of faith are you are you are you talking about?

That that boils down to saying that faith consists in a person's believing that he has faith or believing that he believes, and that doesn't accomplish anything.

To examine one's faith is not to question the ability of Christ. To examine one's faith is to be obedient to the

Word of God that gives us the means of recognizing the work of the

Spirit of God in our life, and there must be a means of doing so. Because there is false teaching and false faith.

And so we look to the Scriptures. Well, evidently my preaching today has not been the kind of thing that gets people to call the phone.

Anyways, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

I know, I can see that there are people who disagree. However, there aren't very many people who want to talk to me about it.

Let me see here. SillyBrit would like a definition when NA, that's me for those of you who are wondering, which does not mean not available or not applicable, though some people would think that that is an appropriate way of understanding

NA. My nick is NA27 from the STL and 27th edition, but anyways.

SillyBrit just got kicked out of channel. When NA refers to the channel, does he mean

PrasapalaGyan or Apologetic, since he has both open? Good question, SillyBrit.

It really sort of would be both. It's a generic term, sort of a a monadic hole.

Why don't you write a paper on what a monadic hole would be, and that will keep you busy and you can stop messing around with me and asking silly questions in the channel that's on the left of the screen, rather than the channels on the right of the screen.

But anyways, 877 -753 -3341. I was going to discuss this last week and we couldn't get on to the live streaming, and I was actually going to go over a sort of a spiritual self -diagnostic that I had given to my high school students just a few weeks ago.

It's sort of interesting, it was only after that inability to get on the air last week that I read through,

I asked the students to write a little short, just a few paragraphs, about what they were going to do in light of the spiritual self -diagnostic that I had given to them.

And it was really, of all the things that we had done over the course of the year, one of the most revealing things, for me anyways, in the responses that were given to me.

The class took it very, very seriously. Now, I'm sad that it was toward the end of the class that I really came to fully understand that high school students do everything in their power to make sure that the teacher doesn't realize that he's actually getting through to them.

And they do everything in their power to make sure that you are completely convinced that they are ignoring every word that you say.

Well, there were a couple exceptions, but most of them do that. Obviously, what I'd said did get through to a lot of them and in fact,

I'd say the vast majority and some of the most honest self -examination that I had seen came through in those papers that were given to me as a result.

It was very encouraging, in fact, to me to see the result of spiritual self -diagnostic.

And I was going to go over some of that last week. I would prefer to hear from folks in the audience, but you know, we'll do whatever we need to do to deal with things.

I have a question. I'm looking in here, Revelation. 19 Do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do.

Ah, well, I would say that the question was asked by Revelation 22 19 that you know, in fact,

I think this is a good examination, a good passage to look at. A Roman Catholic has just asked, what do you do with Revelation 22 19?

Well, I believe it, of course. And it is fascinating. It says

Revelation 22 19 biblically proves you can lose your place in the kingdom. Well, does it?

Well, it says God will take away his part from the tree of life from the holy city where it's written in this book if you take away from the words of prophecy the book of this prophecy.

Now, here's a perfect example, I think, of the difference between a theocentric theology and an anthropocentric theology.

And I think my Roman Catholic questioner is not going to appreciate what what

I'm going to say here, but Rome is the essence of anthropocentrism.

What is, what am I saying? Rome is the absolute and then

I see that we just had someone else and I don't know what Duke Toma's background is, but he just quoted Philippians 2 12.

Whenever you see, and I'm going to get back to Revelation 22 19, whenever you see anyone quote,

Reveille, Philippians 2 12 without quoting Philippians 2 13, you know, they've never looked at the passage.

Because you see Philippians 2 12 says work out your salvation with fear and trembling. That's half a sentence.

The rest of the sentence is for it is God who is at work within you both to will and to do according to his good pleasure.

Why is the fear and trembling? Because it's God who is at work within us and it's not work for your salvation.

It's work out the salvation that God gives to you. So whenever I see someone quote

Philippians 2 12 without Philippians 2 13, I just automatically just I sort of like Moomagoon, I roll my eyes or I roll

Moomagoon's eyes and and just go, ah, read the context. The context does not substantiate that kind of use of the passage, but we'll get back to Revelation 22 19.

Rome is the essence of anthropocentrism. Why do I say that? Because of her sacramentalism.

Rome's sacramentalism is the very essence of human religion.

Why do I say that? Because it not only is founded upon the unbiblical notion of the autonomous will of man.

Look at the Council of Trent. You can see they're very very strong in having to affirm that. But it provides through its sacramentalism the means for man by his actions to control the grace of God.

Man by his actions in in working the sacraments, going to mass, going to confession, doing the penances, using these alleged channels of grace, man controls the grace of God, and that's why there is no doctrine of the perseverance of the saints or eternal security in Roman Catholicism because fundamentally it comes down to whether man will use the sacraments so as to gain the grace of God.

God's grace becomes a substance that is channeled through these sacraments, and that's why the

Reformed understanding the biblical proclamation of the perfection of the Saviorhood of Christ. That's why, for example, the the fact that the the

Reformers proclaimed a finished sacrifice is so vociferously attacked in Roman Catholicism because Roman Catholicism does not have a finished sacrifice.

You can't have a finished sacrifice. Even the mass itself becomes something that you go to over and over and over and over again, and yet Aquinas, in the chat channel, does the mass perfect anyone?

You'll have to answer that honestly. Does the mass perfect anyone?

Is there any person who comes before the Roman Catholic mass and is perfected by appearing before that mass?

You know the answer to that. You know the answer to this statement as well, that there can be many persons who have appeared before the mass, which is allegedly the very same sacrifice of Christ, who will end up in hell.

If that is true, then you can't be saying that I'm wrong in what I'm saying. Because if the very sacrifice of Christ can be made dependent upon a sacramental distribution of its graces, then what

I'm saying is exactly right. No, no. Are you saying that...

I'm saying no, no, no. What's the answer? Why don't you call in? If you want to have this back and forth you call in.

You know, I don't know what... No, all I'm seeing is Aquinas saying no, no, no, no, no.

So you're saying is what you're saying then? That a person...

If you're saying no, my first question was, is a person perfected by attending mass and you're saying no?

Are you now saying that a person can attend mass and every single person who attends mass is going to end up in heaven?

Is that what you're saying? Of course, you're not saying that. So you've just proven my point. If the mass does not perfect, it's not the same sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews chapter 10 tells us, by one sacrifice he... See, no one is perfected.

Exactly. Well, let me... In fact, I'll do this for you in channel. NAS, Hebrew, 10, 14.

Okay, let's see if... For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

There it is. Well, no one is perfected. Okay, I understand exactly what you're saying.

And there you've made my point. Because biblically, we are. There's the issue.

There's the issue. When you take our break, invite you to participate, 877 -753 -3341.

Warren and I will start singing together a duet after the break if there's no one on the phone. Warren, warm up that voice.

We're gonna get ready to go and we'll be right back. What is

Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free? A New Cult? Secularism?

False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Potter's Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, but The Potter's Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself.

In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture. The Potter's Freedom, a defense of the

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at AOMN .org.

Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co -redeemer with Christ, elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

In his book, Mary, Another Redeemer, James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic.

He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant, and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed

Queen of Heaven, viewed as co -mediator with Christ, and now recognized as co -redeemer by many in the

Roman Catholic Church. Mary, Another Redeemer is fresh insight into the woman the

Bible calls blessed among women, and an invitation to single -minded devotion to God's truth.

You can order your copy of James White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer, at AOMN .org.

Incorporating the most recent research and solid biblical truth, Letters to a Mormon Elder by James White is a series of personal letters written to a fictional

Mormon missionary. Examining the teaching and theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, the book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style.

James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity.

With well -defined arguments, James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the

Book of Mormon, the prophecies, visions, and teachings of Joseph Smith, the theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism, and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the

LDS Church. This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons, and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons.

Letters to a Mormon Elder. Get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at AOMN .org.

And welcome back. Yes, Warren is warming up in the other room. I can hear it now. All the glass is breaking in this office and Anyways, we've got

Silly Britt posting the phone number in multiple colors. It almost looks Christmassy in there and Given that it's a hundred and who knows how many degrees in here.

Oh, that's an ugly green I've always hated that green that lime green type thing. It just looks disgusting.

Anyways, Revelation chapter 22 Was raised and I went off on a discussion of the man -centeredness of Romanism When you look at passages like this, and and I think this is an important we can go ahead and And a once you believe that God convinces people of wrong beliefs dot dot dot

This is a problem when you're reading stuff like this because people don't type very fast, you know Dude, how can you rule out the possibility that that that is happening to you?

Oh Okay, someone asked that you're being so convinced. That's simple by reference to God's revelation in his

Word That's how you know whether what you believe is true or not the

Spirit of God is The one who draws us to obedience to the

Word of God. Anyways back to Revelation chapter 22 when you look at passages like this and You hear people say ah see look see it's it says

Right here. It says God will take away his part from the tree of life. So he must have been a believer and so The result of that is what?

Well that true believers Who have been given by the Father to the Son? Who Christ has died to perfect the

Spirit and dwells to guide and lead? Could take away from the words the book of this prophecy that they could be so evil and have so little regard for God's truth that they could do this and Therefore the work of the

Father in decreeing their salvation and the Son in obtaining their salvation the Spirit and applying that salvation

Can all be thrown away by who? by the creature That's Man -centeredness, that's anthropocentrism

Well, what if you accept all the theocentric teaching of the Bible and you believe the Bible's consistent with itself

Well, then what would you have to say about a person who takes away from the book of this prophecy the words the book of this

Prophecy are they one of Christ's sheep? Do they hear his voice? Are they united with Christ the wrath of God has no place in them.

Well, of course not of course not Just saw a personal message

I have Idea what its relevant is relevance is Other than to see online or something.

I don't see anything online. Nothing's blinking in there. Yes Well, it's not blinking. I need to see blinking lights.

We need blinking lights. We have You know, we really need a little more techno stuff here

Okay, he is online. And so what you're telling me rich is I shouldn't make any more jokes about in -and -out burger

Is that what is that what you're telling me? Okay. All right I'm supposed to them no more.

No. Yes. No mate Thank you very much appreciate the clear guidance that's being given to me.

All right We're supposed to take to take the call maybe take the call or no not, okay,

I'll take the call stop it silly Brit You've posted the number 47 ,000 times it's and in every color possibly known

Anyways, let's go ahead and take our first phone caller who evidently does not want to hear Warren and I singing so And I'm not supposed to say anything more about in -and -out burger because you've moved on to corporate

America No, I have the job still oh, so you're working two jobs.

Yeah I'm working Usually the cleanup over at in -and -out burger like get there in like around four and five in the morning

And I got a job at Target where I'm gonna work once or twice, but it's gonna be graveyard shift.

Oh Cool. Okay. Well anyways, yeah, I got a question, but it's off -topic.

Okay. Hold on a second. Somebody kick banned CDS Okay, just get him out of there. He's he's flooding the channel with with the phone number and We just need to you know, what

I would anyways, but now before you do that, I don't know if you've been watching Let me see. Are you over in apologetics to are you just not one of those?

Multitasking type people. No, I can be in there. But since I'm on the phone with you, I can't be online at the same time

Oh, I'm sorry. You're on dial -up. I'm Sorry, that's a that's a sad thing.

Some of us don't do that. Anyways Before you take us totally off topic we have

I just have to mention something here It's fascinating to notice That we have two people in channel right now.

And this is the other person I mentioned before we have Arminius and that's his Nick and he is an

Arminian and he's been in channel for about a week and and it's been amazing to watch the the confluence when the

Roman Catholic comes in between Arminius and Aquinas because and And this is gonna make some Arminians upset but it shouldn't on the issue of grace and faith and the will the

Arminian and the Roman Catholic are hand in hand and It's fascinating to watch as they're going away to me.

He doesn't he doesn't have a share to lose anyways Well, that's that's similar to what we have

In what is that Passage I'm trying to remember what it is the illustration

I've used When we I've talked about Michael Jordan before what is that passage that I use that on I can't remember what it is

But anyways, it's fascinating to see the confluence of these two arguing for the exact same points

Arminian ism is philosophical non papalistic Roman Catholicism When it comes to the nature of grace and will of man, that's what it is fascinating absolutely fascinating anyways

Johnny I went and put you on the air and then then had to make a comment about that. Go ahead well, you know what

I did want to comment one thing though, I guess in a formal question and You you're friends with Hank Cantergraft the president of CRI.

Uh -huh, and I've spoken with Hank on on the Bible answer me before maybe you've heard me baby.

Maybe you haven't yes We actually we actually did hear you when you called in once I've I've you've called in more than once though Haven't you?

Oh, I've called. Oh More than a dozen times over the past six years. I Called every once every three or four months or so, they don't allow me to call as often as I do your show

Oh, yeah. Well, you know, there's there's a reason for that. They Hank has never had to threaten to sing to get phone callers.

So But one of the things that I have talked to Hank about in the past and remember

I've only been reformed for about a year and a half now Yes, you remember my discussion of the cage stage last week

No other week before that. Okay, you need to listen to the archive. Okay One of the things though is when

I when I spoke to Hank I asked him if he was an Armenian or a Calvinist and he felt that he doesn't

Like the labels and and since he's good friends with dr. Geisler, I guess dr. Geisler's Influences thinking a lot.

Uh -huh. And when I spoke with dr. Geisler, I met him once over at Biola when he came to do a lecture on Moanism and He told me that in many ways

James Arminius himself was very reformed because he believed He told me that James Arminius believed that the gift of faith

Was only for the elect as well and that he believed in eternal security. Whereas you have the five points of Arminianism that teaches that a person can lose his salvation and Though I agree with you that anything that does not hold to the

Reform doctrines of grace the five points of Calvinism Is in essence Arminianism How do you

I mean, how do we how are we to understand the fact that among Arminians? We have this diversity of you and how the term

Arminian has become such a dirty word that no one really wants to call himself Like Hank or dr. Geisler or many of the people will don't agree with the terminology and yet They're in essence holding to that same view

Well a couple things first of all Arminius was considerably more reformed than most Arminians as far as He he came out of a reformed tradition.

And so That that is true Secondly, however, dr.

Geisler His main problem is he redefined the key terms in the discussion and that's why

I documented the potter's freedom is that he when you when you say that you believe in Unconditional election, but it's only unconditional from God's perspective.

It's conditional man's perspective You're not using that term in a meaningful fashion first of all, and you're not using it in a historical fashion

That's that's that's important the same thing with the limited atonement and irresistible grace Grace is irresistible only on the willing.

I mean, come on. That's this is utilization of terms That absolutely

Makes them useless in the discussion. That was the main problem there the positions that he defended

Were anti -reform positions and are in the classical terminology Arminian positions as Arminian ism developed as a system as there were

Arminian theologians in the 16th 17th centuries When you look at what they wrote the positions that Geisler takes on most those things the same things that they said except he also is inconsistent in holding to substitutionary atonement when classical

Arminian theology denied substitutionary atonement Now why has it become a dirty word

I would suggest Partially first of all, there are people today who use the term of themselves and they do so proudly but many of them have ended up going into such things as Open theism and as a result many people who recognize that open theism is a is a blatant heresy

Do not want to be associated with those who would say yes, I'm an Arminian and I believe in open theism so I think there's

Somewhat of a I think that plays into it a little bit and by the way, I would like to suggest that open theism is the consistent logical outcome of what

Arminian ism is really all about what it's trying to accomplish and I just think that They're unwilling to go that far those who who do

I'm not suggesting anyone become an open theist But I don't see how logically once you make the free will the autonomous will the creature

The central aspect of your theology that you can avoid falling into that pit and I I made that's that that that statement

Before the term open theism became popular in dealing with Clark Pinnock In the appendix to a god -sovereign grace that I wrote back in I don't know

I forget how long ago it was now, but came out in 1990 1991. So that's That's been a criticism.

I've had for a very very long time at least I've been consistent and what I've said about that, but I also think that there's there's a there's a level of not wanting to utilize labels

So as to fit into our postmodern society What I mean by that is well if I accept a label that says

I believe X Y or Z then I can't really be as as Loving and accepting and non -judgmental as the world would like me to be and I think that's a part of it as well

I think there's a An unwillingness to clearly identify the position that a person is espousing

So as to be able to have allegedly a broader ministry or something along those lines.

Let's let's face it Johnny There's all sorts of doors that are closed to me. I Invite me to come speak.

It's just just ain't gonna happen so Because I've been to Calvary Chapel that I'm sure you have many times

Yeah, well not and I haven't spoken to the Calvary Chapel in Southern, California But after the debate with with George Bryson who heads up church planning and missions for Calvary Chapel There are many

Calvary chapels, especially in that area where it's known That simply would not would not be open to having me speak there on any subject or And this has happened sort of it.

It didn't really happen There's one situation where we only afterwards found out that we They would have appreciated if we hadn't brought some of my reform materials with us, but there would be a you know, let's say

Something on Mormonism came up and they recognized that the book that I've written on Mormonism was good But could you avoid talking about that stuff and I I can't put myself in that kind of position

Why is it that these men and one of the Calvary chapels that I went to in Montebello? They sell books by J.

I Packer who's referring reformed. Dr. Sproul and and John MacArthur who's a

Calvinist But I just don't seem to understand why it is that they're so opposed to the reformed doctrines of grace

Even if they disagree with it, I'm I've always been ecumenical in this way myself, even when I was not a Calvinist They'll still sell the books by some of the most sponsored they were they were selling a book by Jonathan Edwards Well, it's it's quite possible that they have not read the book.

I Mean, let's let's be honest ourselves. There's I know of individuals who are fairly well known who

Have positions of leadership and who will make statements concerning these issues

When if you sit down and say have you ever actually read John Calvin? We've ever actually read

Jonathan Edwards Have you ever actually read anything by a Francis Turretin or a BB Warfield and they'll admit they have not

And yet they will they will make comments concerning These issues as if they have done the the the research and and they haven't and So I you know a lot of those names, you know, they'll they'll hear someone like sproll on the radio talking about Apologetics or something like that go man.

That's that's really good. That's really great. And oh, here's a book by him Let's go ahead and and and make it available And until someone, you know buys and goes, uh, do you you know what he's talking about here?

You know that that happens a lot a lot of folks even especially in church bookstores will have books

They really don't know what it's all about That sounds like a true. Well, I wanted to ask you a question about the atonement.

Yeah. Yeah, okay I need to phrase the question so that you can really get at it.

It all depends on on what the question is Okay, I remember in the debate that you had against Robertson Janice on the mass

Transplantation you were talking about how when he was quoting from your book.

I think it was the fatal flaw, right? And He was saying that you had said that when

Christ offered himself once for all on the cross Completing the atonement he ascended to the to the right hand of the

Father I guess it was to to apply the grace or what or Did I miss it misunderstand what it was apply the grace?

No I I had the argument that I had made in the book is that Christ's work as high priest is not a supplementary work that adds to the atonement, but it is merely the

Presentation of that work before the Father it is not something that is is separate from it

It is not something that is An additional element that brings in something outside of the work of the atonement

Itself, especially because he is seated at the right hand of the Father unlike the high priest who?

There was no place to sit in the holy place because his work was never done Christ's work is finished and that's the whole point

That the book of Hebrews is making and if you try to make his intercessory work where he is representing us before the

Father Some separate thing and then you of necessity Create an imperfection in the atonement that is contradicted by the text of the book of Hebrews itself

He not only by misciting the book and and avoiding The context by saying well,

I was saying faith wasn't necessary and all the rest that stuff Was in essence attempting to turn the debate from a focus upon the mass and transubstantiation to something else

I was only alluding to that to try to understand something because I was reading

John Owen And I spoke with with sky man in the chat room chat channel about this where I was reading John Owen on his commentary in the book of Hebrews and he was talking about how and this is

John Owen where he says that That the sacrifice or the the oblation of the death of Christ I guess does away with the old covenant the atonement is finished on the cross

But somehow his priestly work Is finished in heaven, I guess at the

Ascension or something like that Well that he continues That he is continues today as our high priest

Not in the repetitive offering of sacrifices, but in the fact that because he is in the presence of the father

He represents us before the father as Hebrews chapter 9 says actually

Owen is very clear on the very same point That's that I just made and that is that you cannot divide that work up and make the one work supplement supplementary to the other he actually makes that very kind of Assertion as well.

So is the heavenly tabernacle Jesus Christ himself? Is the heavenly tabernacle

Jesus Christ himself? No why I the heavenly tabernacle is in the book of Hebrews anyways is is what the earthly tabernacle represented and That it

I'm not sure what you mean is is that Jesus? I it says he entered into it not that he is it not following you

Well, because the book of Hebrews says that the earthly tabernacle represented the heavenly one is the heavenly

Tabernacle something that Jesus goes into in a very literal sense or is or is he the the

I guess the heavenly Tabernacle that the earthly one represented or well,

I again I don't understand how he could be the tabernacle, but I don't think it's a it's a physical thing in the sense of that It's simply the the fact that the heavenly reality that the point of the book of Hebrews is that the the earthly tabernacle was merely a shadow of the reality that would be in Christ, it's it's not that that means that there is a a bigger brighter version in in heaven someplace that's a physical structure or something like that it's just that all of these signs and And shadows and and images in the

Old Covenant were meant to point to the greater fulfillment In the person of Christ. So no, I would not say that Christ is the heavenly tabernacle

But when exactly is Christ a work as a high priest finished is it when he sits down or is or is there an

Intercession that continues on I mean, I'm not talking within the context of transubstantiation I'm not sure what you what you mean by finished.

I guess you could say that at at the Ushering in of the eternal state when when the last of the elect has been gathered and We are in the presence of God first Corinthians 15

Would would picture some sort of of a completion of that kind of work

At the ushering in of the eternal state I'm saying that because Jesus, you know, excuse me in the and I think it was in the book of Romans it speaks of Jesus as our intercessor and First Timothy 2 of course and Is his mediator ship as he intercedes for us to the father and things like that?

Is that part of his priestly work or is that a separate act apart from his priestly office?

No intercession is is absolutely necessarily a part of the the work of the high priest

So no, it is not some separate so his his work of atonement as a high priest is finished on the cross

But his work as priest is the continual thing until the second coming, right? Well when you see

Christ in the book of Revelation, he is a lamb standing as if slain That is a that is a natural the very fact that he is in the presence of the father

Represents that finished sacrifice it there can be nothing added to that Which is where Romanism falls apart and where everything else falls apart and trying to add to that that that finished work

By the way, I just wanted to notice Our mr. Arminius and channel is though early

It's an earlier today what was asking many questions about church history that he certainly seemingly had not studied Now all of a sudden has become an expert on Augustine and Has just told us that there is universal agreement on free will interestingly enough

Augustine's view on free will if you read his section on that is very clear in The limitation thereof and now he's trying to bring up Hebrews chapter 10 verses 26 through 29

Which I would assume is meant to communicate some sort of Attack upon eternal security it does not since obviously the one who does these things is not a person who has been perfected by the sacrifice of Christ in Hebrews 10 14 and If he tries to go to verse 29 and say that this is a person who was sanctified by the blood of the

Covenant That actually is sanctification of Christ not of the person who has done this.

This is an apostate who's gone back to Judaism Really ought to read that section a little bit closer there. Mr. Arminius again, but anyways

That's the same individual who was defending Dave Hunt's Translation quote -unquote of facts 1348 is disposed to eternal life, too

So there is no argument that is not beyond the pale of being used. Anyways, Johnny Thank you very much for your phone call today and don't work too hard Alrighty well

I have I have heard back from Steve camp and Steve is more than than willing to Engage the program that I'd like to do.

I just thought I'd mention this really quickly. I want to do a program with Steve camp in regards to the 20th anniversary of the death of of Keith Green and Keith Green's music has always meant a tremendous amount to me.

And of course Steve knew Keith Green and if you could bring up My computer a little bit behind me here in just a second

There are some just tremendous songs that Keith sang and what I'm hoping to do is to have

Steve on and have him on live and I'll bet you anything. It won't be overly difficult to To get individuals to go ahead and call in when when

Keith or when Steve camp Would be on to take your phone calls, but that's what we're looking forward to doing

Hopefully I'd like to try to do it next week. If we can we will we will see but 20 years ago

July 28th is when Keith Green passed away.

And so hopefully that'll be the program we have go ahead and bring it up I know that it's they were coming to the end here ran out of time, but hopefully it was a program that was useful to you and lots of interaction with with folks here and Our minius just does not get it, but that's okay.

We've seen that over and over again already We'll be back again next week. And if we don't have Steve camp, we'll have somebody else.

See you then 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 0 3 1 8 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