Radio Free Geneva: Kerrigan Skelly Tries to Break the Golden Chain, and Fails

A mighty fortress is our God.

A bulwark never failing. I don't like Calvinists because they've chosen to follow

John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. I have a problem with them. They're following men instead of the word of God.

Our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.

He died for all.

Those who elected were selected. For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe.

His craft and power are great and armed with cruel hate.

Well, first of all, James, I'm very ignorant of the reformers. On earth is not his equal.

I think I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves Calvinists.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever were not the right man on our side, the man of God's own choosing.

Ladies and gentlemen, James White is a hyper -Calvinist. Now, whatever we do in Baptist life, we don't need to be teaming up with hyper -Calvinists.

Just ask who that may be. Christ Jesus, it is he.

I've said the other day in class that I don't understand the difference between hyper -Calvinism and Calvinism.

It seems to me that Calvin was a hyper -Calvinist. Right, I don't think there is typically any difference between Calvinism and hyper -Calvinism.

Lord, sever off his name. Read my book. From age to age the same.

And he must win the battle. And now, from our underground bunker hidden deep beneath Liberty University where no one would think to look, safe from those moderate

Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who've read and re -read George Bryson's book, we are

Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to save to his own eternal glory.

And welcome to The Dividing Line, Radio Free Geneva on a Thursday afternoon. I forget how many months ago it was.

Well, it was only posted five months ago, so it must have been within the past five months. Someone dropped me a link to an amazing video by a fellow by the name of Kerrigan Skelly of Pinpoint Evangelism.

And the video was on scopolamine, devil's breath or devil's plant.

It was a video about this drug and its effect upon people and how this was relevant to Calvinism.

Well, at that point I put a checkmark in my mind that there are some really odd people on YouTube.

Not that I didn't already know that, but I found this particularly reprehensible. So a few days ago when

I was directed to a new video titled

Breaking the Golden Chain of Redemption, a little alarm bell in the back of my mind sort of went off going, this is the same guy, but interestingly enough,

I took the time, download the video, listen to the audio while I was writing and decided then that it was such a classic example of eisegesis, such a classic example of numerous common exegetical errors that many people make that just its educational value just by itself would be more than a good enough reason to review the presentation.

And it wasn't until about five minutes before the program that I actually bothered to look up and find out that yes indeed, the scopolamine video did come from the same guy, which makes me just shake my head.

But thankfully, I had done all the work to get all this queued up and ready to go beforehand. So we're going to do it anyways.

So we're dealing with Kerrigan Skelly. Now, I do not claim to be an expert in everything else

Kerrigan Skelly says. It looks like he's pretty much a full on Pelagian from just looking through his videos.

So there's obviously some serious problems all through here. But as far as this particular presentation,

I'm just going to be looking at what he said in the video that was uploaded very, very recently on the subject of breaking the golden chain of redemption, which, of course, is found in Romans chapter eight, beginning at verse twenty eight.

So I'm gonna be looking at what he had to say. Hopefully you will find that analysis to be useful if we have time.

Once we wrap up with this, we'll move back to the William Lane Craig Paul Helm discussion, depending on how much time we spend on this.

So let's jump right into the presentation made by Kerrigan Skelly. The beginning of the presentation, there are a couple of things that are relevant, because what you're going to hear as we listen to what

Kerrigan Skelly has to say is one of the classic examples of man centered biblical interpretation.

If you want to see the difference between interpreting the text in a

God centered way versus a man centered way, this is I cannot think of a better example, especially in Romans chapter eight, where you have just such obvious and clear focus upon God's accomplishment in Christ, God's glory,

God's purpose, God's action. God is the one who does the actions. Man is the object of of the actions.

It's just so clear and compelling. And yet, people can actually turn that upside down to where God's trying,

God's making available, but man is the one who must actuate. Man is the one who must do these things.

And in this case, what the primary methodology, aside from completely face planting and dealing with prognosco, prognosis, prophesis, and various other

Greek terms is that it's going to be a study in how not to handle the Greek language.

Aside from that, the amazing thing here is, in essence, what you get is, well, you see the context here is persecution.

And what you have to do is you have to suffer with Jesus. And that's what makes all the rest of this possible is your suffering with Jesus.

It is missing the point of the entire presentation of the apostle on the same level as Mormons missing the point in regards to the fact there's only one true

God. It's just that bad. It's that upside down. It is that cataclysmically, chaotically wrong.

And yet, that's what you have. And that's what happens when you do everything in your power to try to avoid the clear teaching of scripture in regards to freedom of God and salvation.

So that's what you're going to see here. And so let's pick up at least a couple of the points at the beginning before we get into the specific comments on the golden chain so you can hear some of this kind.

Again, just for full disclosure, my son came in last evening before we went to church together.

And I was listening to this at two times speed. And when he walked in, he says, no one can understand that. But then after he listened to it for a while, he said, okay, he's in Romans 8.

Okay. And he started figuring out, yeah, you sort of can follow that, but it makes it a whole lot easier.

I will be playing this at 1 .2. So it'll be a little bit faster, but it allows us to get through things.

And most people can't even tell the difference, but here we go anyways. Verses 28 to 30 is oftentimes called the golden chain of redemption in Calvinistic circles.

They'll say, well, look, God predestined you, and he called you, he justified you, and he will also glorify you.

So it's a golden chain. It can't be broken. If you've been called or if you've been predestined, you will be called, you will be justified, you will be glorified.

It's a golden chain that can't be broken. That's what they'll say about verse 30. And so I intend to break it today. Not because I don't want every single person who's been called to be justified or been justified to be glorified, but because it's simply not true.

It's not what it says. Okay, so that was actually a semi -accurate representation of the

Reformed understanding that those whom God foreknew, and that's going to be the key issue, is his not only misrepresentation of what we mean by foreknew, but his just complete mishandling of the

Greek at that point. But those whom he foreknew, he predestined, whom he predestined, he called, justified, and glorified, and that this is a golden chain, and that all those who experience the beginning, those who experience the act, and all of these are actions of God.

They're all finite verbs where God is acting. God is the one who does all these things. This is not just a general calling that results in some people being justified.

That's another area that he does not address, is the fact that you have the exact same audience all the way through.

I guess he does in the sense of basically trying to limit this to just people in the past, as you're going to see. It's an amazing, amazing interpretation driven by his man -centered theology, but we'll get to that in a moment.

Okay, a little bit, a few minutes later, we hear him say, But, what's the condition there? If indeed we suffer with him.

If you don't suffer with him, you will not be glorified together with him. Glorified together means that you receive honor with him, you're receiving glory with him, you're joining him.

It doesn't necessarily mean a glorified body, he doesn't say that there, although I do believe, of course, when we're in the new heaven, new earth, you will have a glorified body.

But you must suffer with him. You will be glorified together with him. Verse 18. So, what's important to understand in this, again, very man -centered interpretation, is that rather the description that we have of the spirit's role, and certainly the idea of suffering with Christ, the power of the spirit in bearing us up in our sufferings, these are all present in Romans chapter 8, there's no question about it.

But to take our experience of suffering with Christ and make it the action on the part of human beings that then determines whether all the rest of this is going to be true is, again, just an amazing insertion of a concept that clearly never crossed

Paul's mind. And it flows from this idea of needing to control the power and freedom of God by human action.

And those of you, especially, that deal with Roman Catholicism all the time, you've run into this over and over again.

This is the very same motivation, the very same type of thing that we get in Roman Catholic reading of texts as well.

Rather than drawing that from the text, it is an external concept that's enforced upon the text.

But we're going to see that coming in when we get into the actual golden chain itself here as we move into that material.

So, a few minutes later, we pick up. There's all things working together for good under the context of all this suffering they're enduring.

That when you're enduring suffering, not only should you look forward to what is to come, but that God will work it together for the good, if not in this life, in the life to come.

But notice, it only works together for the good for those who love God. Now, how do you know you love

God? You're keeping His commandments. So, for those who are keeping His commandments, all things work together for good.

Listen, if you're enduring suffering, which is seen as bad in our eyes sometimes, and you're giving into it, maybe you're denying

Christ, maybe you're sinning in some way, you're not one of those who are currently loving God. So, eventually, it will not work together for your good.

It's going to work together for your bad because you're allowing the suffering to change you, and you're giving into temptation. What you're hearing, in essence, now, again,

Romans 8, 28. We know that God causes all things to work together for good, those who love

God, those who are called according to His purpose. Now, you'll notice the called according to His purpose part is going to get a rather interesting treatment by Mr.

Skelly. In fact, everything in here about the elect, the called, doesn't get treated very well at all in reality.

But what you're hearing is basically a statement that if you're sinning, then this promise can't be yours any longer.

Now, I recognize what he's saying. Let me recognize at least the partial truth in the statement that is being made.

This is a family promise. Romans 8, 28 cannot, in any way, shape, or form, be embraced, confessed, grabbed hold of by anyone other than the children of God.

Those who have fled for refuge Jesus Christ, those who have bowed the knee in repentance and faith, these are the individuals who will find this promise to be true.

But there is a vast difference between recognizing that we love God because He first loved us, that our love of God is due to the fact that He has changed our hearts, that He has taken out a heart of stone to give us a heart of flesh, that we are indwelt by the

Holy Spirit of God, that we are being conformed to the image of Christ and made like Christ.

There is a vast difference between recognizing that and the idea that we have to keep up that love for God, and we have to do this, that, and the other thing, and we have to be making sure that we're not sinning.

The wonder of this promise is that all things, not just some things,

God causes to work for our good. All things, that means we can even look back over those difficulties in our lives that at the time were so dark and so difficult and confess and recognize that in reality,

God was working all things for our good. This bent toward a sinless perfectionism would certainly rob many a believer that I know of, of the only foundation they have for their belief that God will continue to work in their lives.

But you'll notice as well in Romans 8 .28 that when it talks about those who love

God, that they are the called according to His purpose, and we're going to find out what that purpose was, but we're not going to find out much about what the calling is.

You'll see that as we move along, so we continue on. So what is this purpose here?

This word for purpose here is prothesis, and it means to set forth something in public, a presentation that has a plan or a purpose.

So you've set forth something in public that has a plan or a purpose. So what is this purpose that God had?

Well, this purpose that God had, this plan that God had that He made in public, this purpose that He made in advance, this plan in advance, the pro part of it is,

He planned this in advance, was to redeem a people for Himself in Christ.

Now, was that a specific people? What's being said here is that God made a plan that He was going to redeem someone, that He was going to make redemption a possibility.

The reality is that His purpose is to redeem a particular people in Christ Jesus.

Look at Titus chapter 2, verses 11 through 14, if you want to have a really good example of that.

But the comments that were just made, I want to look at them a little bit more closely because we have our first error.

Looking at accordance here, the term prothesis that is found in Romans 8 .28.

Let me show you something here. Let's look this up. And here, let's look it up in BDAG.

Here is the definition that He was giving to us, setting forth something in public, setting forth, putting out presentation.

Now, when you use a Greek lexicon, such as Bauer, Dunker, Arndt, and Gingrich, BDAG, you need to be somewhat careful that you note that the authors of the lexicon will indicate for you which part of the definition they understand to be relevant to the text that you are utilizing.

So, when we look at prothesis here and we see this first definition, we will notice that there is a second definition down the road, and that is that which is planned and advanced, planned, purpose, resolve, will.

If we look down beneath that, we see that there are subcategories. There isn't a subcategory to the first part of the definition.

There is a subcategory to the second definition, A, of humans, and B, of divine purpose.

And what you want to do, first and foremost, if you want to accurately represent the lexicon correctly, is that you need to find where the authors of that particular lexicon place the text that you're utilizing.

Now, if we look back at the definition that included the term setting forth something in public, we will not find

Romans 8 .28, because the authors of BDAG do not place it there.

It is placed under meaning number two, and it's not put under meaning number two,

A, of humans, but two B, of divine purpose, it's the first one listed right here, those who are called in accordance with God's purpose,

Romans 8 .28. The reason I emphasize this is because Mr.

Skelly puts a lot of emphasis upon the public aspect of the proclamation of this purpose,

I would imagine, so as to avoid the idea of any secret or divine decree.

But the reality is that that's not what BDAG says, and if he wanted to emphasize that and the meaning of prothesis, he would have to provide us with some kind of contextual evidence for this.

The reality is that when we look at the Greek text itself, that those who love

God, that is being described, again, by tois kata prothesin kleitos usin, and it is kata prothesin kleitos, those who are called according to purpose.

In fact, kata prothesin is put between tois and kleitos, so it's sandwiched between them, so it's the according to purpose called ones.

So, the point is that Paul is telling us that those who love

God, love God, why? Because they're called according to his purpose.

Mr. Skelly wants us to believe that if you love God, then you will be called according to God's public purpose, and that is to redeem people who love

God. Now, one of the two of those, well, it's not like the other.

They are coming from completely different angles. Something tells me that if we were to ask

Mr. Skelly about the rather famous issue in 1

John, in fact, let's just pop over there just for the educational purpose of it.

Remember 1 John 5 .1? Remember this? Whoever, pas hapistuon hati jesus est in hachristas ectu theu gegeneitai.

Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born from God.

And my argument at this point has been that the hapistuon, the present tense substantival participle here at the beginning of 1

John 5 .1, in relationship to gegeneitai, has been born from God, that perfect passive, that the present tense and perfect passive consistently in 1

John would be that if you are believing that Jesus is the Christ, it is because you have been born of God.

You do not believe so as to become born of God. You are believing because you have been born of God.

And the argument is that we have been able to look at other texts.

1 John 2, is it 29? Yes. 1

John 2 .29 says, If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.

Well look again, here is pas hapoyon tein dekayasunen ectu gegeneitai.

The one doing righteousness, there is your present tense participle again, has been born from him.

And when we talk to most of our Arminian friends, we can point this and say, Now are you comfortable saying that if you are doing righteousness, that is how you become born again?

Because if what you are saying in 1 John 5 is that by believing you become born again, the parallel here syntactically in the

Greek is the doing of righteousness. So do you do righteousness to become born again? Something tells me that Mr.

Skelly would say, Yup, exactly. That is exactly what happens. It is the doing of righteousness that causes you to be born again.

I don't know. Maybe I could be wrong about this, but I have a feeling that is probably where he is coming from.

And then in 1 John, is it 4 .9 I believe? Let's see if we can find it here.

There it is, 4 .7. Yes, there it is, 4 .7. Look at 4 .7.

There is kay pas ha agapoyn ectu teyu gegeneitai. So everyone loving, whoever loves has been born of God and knows

God. So do you have to love God so as to be born of God? I get the feeling that probably

Mr. Skelly would say yes. So if he would, at least he would be consistent. So either

John is saying in each one of these instances that the one who has been born of God is the one who is going to be loving

God, the one who is born of God is the one who is going to be doing works of righteousness, the one who is born of God is the one who is going to be believing in Him, believing that Jesus is the

Christ. This is all the result of God's action of causing us to be born again. Or, man -centered perspective, that is the

God -centered perspective. That is what God does, the result then is these things in those who follow

Christ. This is the result of God's work. Or, you have the man -centered perspective, which is you do these things, the result is you are born of God.

Now, of course, you are going to get quite a list there. I mean, you need to be loving God, you need to be believing God, and you need to be doing works of righteousness to be born of God.

Very works -oriented, but that is how that would work, I guess.

So we go back here to Romans chapter 8 and continue on.

Again, so first point, prothesis. The emphasis upon the public setting forth or something like that is not what we have here.

We have God's purpose, and that purpose is in the calling of a specific people who love

God, and therefore God works all things for their good according to his purpose.

And there was a strange reading of the lexical material there, not looking at what

BDAG was actually emphasizing as far as the use of the term there. And then a de -emphasis of the concept of calling.

There wasn't any recognition. This is very common amongst people who don't actually read the language, because you can look at this word, and one of the first things that is obvious to someone who would be translating this, when you look at tois kata, prothesin, kleitos, usin, you see tois, you see the article.

And then you see the word it's going with, which is kleitos, and there's words in between it.

So you're used to this article, important descriptor term, and then the word you're modifying, and it just becomes second nature in your thinking that you're not going to define kata, prothesin, especially because you've got the particle right in front of it.

You're not going to interpret that separately from the calling.

It has been put together for a purpose by the author, and when you've got that preposition standing there as well, it all becomes one thought in your mind, and you're going to interpret it all together, rather than taking apart, which very frequently is what you get in a lot of sermons.

Let's just put it that way. Sermons that aren't necessarily overly good sermons. So we continue on with Mr.

Skelly's presentation. And the people who are loving God, they are part of those who are called according, because they respond to the calling of God properly, by loving

Him, by enduring suffering. They're responding to the purpose that He set forth in public long ago.

So there you have, again, the turning of this on its head. Listen to that again and notice what's being said here.

Rather than God has a purpose, God calls these people to Himself according to His purpose.

This is God's activities, God's self -glorification. If you don't believe that, if you don't want to have the centrality of grace, and you want to control grace by the actions of man, this is what you've got to do.

And the people who are loving God, they are part of those who are called according, because they respond to the calling of God properly, by loving

Him, by enduring suffering. They're responding to the purpose that He set forth in public long ago.

So they respond to the calling of God properly. So this is the universal general type of a call, not a specific call that actually results in their salvation.

Everybody receives this. But they respond properly by loving, and by enduring suffering, and so on and so forth.

So it's their actions of loving, enduring suffering, so on and so forth, that makes them...

Well, it doesn't make them the called, can it? Because everybody's called. See, it doesn't really make sense, but at least you can hear.

You getting this? Okay, we've got a studio audience today, so I'll make sure that we acknowledge the studio audience.

When you get out from behind the monitor there, because I can't see you... And then this is parallel just 30 seconds later.

All there is to be said, that's the purpose He has for those people. Now they must respond to that purpose properly by loving

Him, by enduring the suffering we saw laid out in verses 16 through 27. So this purpose is not personal.

It's general. It's this general idea that if these people will do these things, if they will suffer, if they will love, then these things will be true for them.

God's purpose is just a general thing that does not actually result in the salvation of anyone. It just makes this a possibility.

All right? So there you have the background, and He continues on. But things only work to good for those who love

God. So if someone comes along to these three verses, 20 through 30, and says, well, I sin every single day, but I'm part of this group that's predestined, called, justified, and glorified.

Would that be true of them? It couldn't possibly be true. Because all things were not worked together for good for them.

It would be bad for them. Now, insofar as the Scriptures tell us that those who are born of God do not practice sin, and it sounds like He's talking about people who practice sin, people who have no concern for the glory of God, have no concern for anything as far as holiness.

If that's all He was saying, then I can understand where He's coming from. That's not all He's saying. That's the problem. Because, again, it's a covenant promise.

It's a promise for the people who have been called, who have been regenerated. But when you're dealing with someone where regeneration and salvation is actually the result of things that we do, we have a completely different foundation.

We're talking about a completely different gospel. We're miles apart here. And you see the result in how we look at the text of Scripture itself.

Okay, we continue on. Now, the word foreknew here doesn't mean this.

Some Calvinist would have you believe that foreknow means that God knew people, had a relationship with them before they were born, before they were created.

But I want to give you every single instance of this word in the New Testament. You can decide for yourself what it means. Acts 26.

Okay, so now we get into the real heart of why I wanted to deal with this. And that is aside from creating a completely backwards context that's focused upon the actions of man rather than the actions of God, the primary argument he's going to use here is he's going to go after progenosko, pro -egno, as it occurs at the beginning of Romans 8 .29.

Hati hus pro -egno, chi pro -orison, to predestine.

The lesson to be learned here is how not to do

Greek word studies. Because the argument placed before us here is, well, just, again,

I've taught Greek for years. And if any of my students,

I had the opportunity of teaching at Grand Canyon yesterday morning. And the professor for that class is one of my former students.

And I remember to ask him, I asked him, so what did I teach you? What class did I have you in? This is back, I don't know, 14 years ago or so.

Even more, longer than that, 15 years ago. And Greek was one of the classes that I managed to get him through. And if he had made this kind of an argument in my

Greek class, he would not have passed my Greek class. Because what you're going to find out here, and again,

I'm sorry, but you're going to hear a lot of preachers that are going to put forward word studies like this.

And they're not word studies. They can only be done by people who don't actually read the language.

Or have never even given thought to such things as what's called lexical semantics. Where you really try to define words according to their usage so that you really are understanding how the author intended his words to be utilized.

I have, for example, many times recommended a very important book by Moises Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meanings.

I think the current edition of that has a new title, but when I read it, it was Biblical Words and Their Meanings. If you really want to dig into this.

But here's, let me talk to you about how to do this right, and then we'll listen to Kerrigan and Skelly doing it all wrong.

Let me run through some of the fundamental assertions that we need to keep in mind about pro -egno at Romans 8 -29 as I laid them out in The Potter's Freedom.

Because this is such an important term, it's such an important text that I think it's important if you have

The Potter's Freedom, you can look this up. I actually had to buy my own book on Kindle today because I didn't have it in Kindle.

I suppose I should have that. I did just recently get the James White Lagos collection.

Thank you to Lagos for giving that to me. But that doesn't include The Potter's Freedom because that's not one of the

Baker books. So, oh well. I suppose I could be wrong. I didn't check.

I assumed it was from Baker, so it wouldn't be that. So if you look it up, let's summarize a few things about pro -egno -sco that should be just common sense for us.

But unfortunately, they aren't necessarily the case. Let's think about it.

The primary passages that should inform our understanding of the term are those that have

God as the subject of the verbal form as it is in Romans 8 -29. In other words, when we look at Romans 8 -29, for those whom he foreknew.

Now, one of the things that Kerrigan Skelly is going to do is he's just going to look at all of the verbal forms.

Now, again, keep in mind, there is a noun form for knowledge and then there is a verbal form to foreknow.

And most people never think about what the relationship of those terms would be. Because for us, foreknowing something doesn't...

In Greek, it's an active verb. It's something God actually does. For us, foreknowing is very passive.

We're taking in knowledge of something. So is it the same thing for God to foreknow someone that it is for a man to foreknow something?

And the irony is, in the example he's going to give, he refutes his own position but doesn't seem to realize it. He refutes his own position.

But you need to distinguish between the noun and the verb. Most of my Arminian friends do not make that proper distinction.

They do not distinguish between the noun and the verb. They do not answer the question, what does it mean for God to foreknow something?

Because that asks questions about God's relationship to time and creation. And they can be very uncomfortable things for Arminians to deal with.

Because I really don't find... I've said it a million times before, I'll say it again. The only consistent

Arminian is an open theist. And Kerrigan Skelly is not an open theist. So I can understand why they're very uncomfortable trying to deal with the relationship of God and time.

Because they're just not really able to deal with this in an appropriate way. But if we want to know what it means here, then our first range of text is going to be where God is the one who is performing the action of the verb.

Where God is foreknowing. If you throw everything else in, which is what Kerrigan Skelly does, then what would be the presupposition you're adopting?

That God's activity of foreknowing and man's activity of foreknowing are absolutely identical.

And given the illustrations, he himself is going to use. That isn't true. Because, for example, he mentions another fella in the group there.

And he says, I can guarantee you that if we go out to eat after witnessing and he goes to use the restroom,

I can order a tea half sweet, half unsweet for him. Because that's what he always does.

And then he goes, well, maybe not anymore. Because evidently the guy's trying to lose some weight or something like that.

And so it's changed. And what does that tell you? It tells you that man's foreknowing is always fallible.

But God's foreknowing can't be. Or there's an imperfection in God. So it's rather funny that he refutes his own position, not even realizing that he has embraced.

He's made an assertion, but he's never proven the assertion, that by pulling in all of the examples of man foreknowing and say, oh, see, this doesn't mean having a relationship with someone in the future.

As if that was all we were saying. That that, in some way, shape, or form, is parallel.

That man and God's knowledge, they're parallel to each other. So, obviously passages that have humans as a subject would differ substantially in their meaning.

For God's knowledge is vastly different than man's. Number two, the verb progenosko is used three times in New Testament with God as a subject.

Romans 8, 29. Romans 11, 2. And 1 Peter 1, 20. The key issue, normally unaddressed by Arminian writers, lies in the objects of God's action of foreknowing.

And this, Mr. Skelly completely ignores. Again, if you're going to be serious in dealing with the language, you're going to look at the verb.

You're going to look at the subject of the verb, whether it's God or man. And then you're going to look at the object.

What is it that God foreknows? Because what's the normal Arminian utilization of the foreknowledge defense?

Oh, God just looks down the corridors of time and he sees what? What does he see?

He sees who, that's personal, but who does something.

Who chooses to believe in Christ. So he sees the actions of individuals, and therefore he acts on the basis of foreseen actions.

That's the normal Arminian understanding of this. But as I point out, the key issue lies in the objects of God's action of foreknowing.

What or who is foreknown by God? In Romans 8, 29, the direct object of the verb is a pronoun that refers back to the elect of verse 28.

For whom he foreknew, that's those that he called in verse 28.

In Romans 11, 2, the object is his people. And in 1 Peter 1, 20, the object is

Christ. What is the consistency here? The consistency is that what is foreknown is a person.

It's personal. God foreknows people. And so if you're going to try to say, well, what

God foreknew is what someone was going to do in the future, you've got a tall mountain to climb if you're going to be consistent in looking at utilization of these terms.

Every time God is portrayed as foreknowing, the object of the verb is personal.

Now, this is not saying, I'm not addressing foreknowledge here. I would affirm that God foreknows all the actions of everyone.

But foreknowledge, and how God has foreknowledge, is different than foreknowing, which is an active verb.

And all sorts of folks, including scholars, Norm Geisser made this mistake, will ignore that part and mix the categories together and just not be consistent, clear, accurate in their analysis of these things.

Therefore, to say that God foreknows acts, faith, behavior, choices, etc., is to assume something about the term that is not witnessed in the biblical text.

God foreknows persons, not things, in the three texts where it says God foreknows someone.

This New Testament usage then decides for us which elements of the Old Testament stream most informs these passages.

Now, here is something that Mr. Skelly doesn't do at all. Doesn't even begin to do.

Doesn't even bring this in. When you're looking, especially at the

Apostle Paul, when you're looking at what he is saying and what he is doing, you're going to look at the

Old Testament background, especially in the Greek Septuagint. And so, when we look at what the

Old Testament says about knowing, the Hebrew term yada is used in many different ways in the

Old Testament. Is there a discernible usage in the Old Testament that comes through to the New Testament that would see this in an action that has only persons as its object?

The answer is a definite yes. Here are some of the key passages where the very same element of personal choice and knowledge is part of God's knowing in the

Old Testament. One that comes up all the time. And that is

Jeremiah 1 .5. Here, God's knowledge of Jeremiah is clearly personal.

It is parallel with the term consecrated and appointed, pointing us toward the element of choice on God's part.

This knowledge of Jeremiah is not limited to time. In some manner,

God knew Jeremiah before Jeremiah came into existence. And he appointed him.

He consecrated him before the existence of Jeremiah. Now, Mr. Skelly is going to mock this idea, but he's not going to do so by actually answering

Jeremiah 1 .5 or even showing any real knowledge that Jeremiah 1 .5 is relevant to our discussion.

Exodus 33 .17 Now, that very tremendous passage in Exodus 33, which

Paul draws upon in the next chapter in Romans 9, reveals the very personal aspect of God's knowing of an individual.

Obviously, the Lord is not revealing to Moses, I know your name! This knowing is intimate, personal, and is connected with the fact that Moses found favor in the sight of God.

This is a gracious knowing, a gracious choosing of Moses to receive the benefits of God's mercy.

And then the next is Amos 3 .2. You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth, therefore

I will punish you for all your iniquities, speaking of the people of Israel. Here, the

New American Standard translates Yadah as chosen. So strongly is this element found in the context of the passage.

Literally, it says, you, speaking of Israel, only have I known. Obviously, God is not denying knowledge of the mere existence of other nations and peoples.

There is a special element to this knowing, an element of gracious choice.

Indeed, so personal and intimate can be the use of Yadah that is said in Genesis 4 .1, that when Adam knew his wife, the result was she became pregnant.

Therefore, the use of verbal concept of foreknowing in the New Testament, together with these testimonies from the

Old Testament, are more than sufficient basis for asserting that when Paul says, and those whom he foreknew,

Paul is speaking about an action on God's part that is just as solitary, just as God -centered, just as personal as every other action in the golden chain of redemption.

God foreknows. He chooses to enter into relationship with. He foreloves.

God predestines. God calls. God justifies. God glorifies. From the first to the last, it is

God who is active. God who accomplishes all these things. And it is the burden of the

Arminian to break this golden chain of redemption. Prove to us that God's foreknowing is a mere passive gathering of infallible knowledge of the future actions of free creatures.

And establish this passage is not telling us that all salvation, from initiation to accomplishment, is the work of God for his own glory.

That's what Mr. Skelly is going to try to do. But in the process, he is simply going to give us, in reality, an example of how not to handle the biblical text.

So having now looked at what you do, who's the subject, recognize verbal forms, look at the object, be fair, look at the

Old Testament background. Now let's see how he handles this in the examples he's going to give.

Acts 26. Let's see if it means knowing someone beforehand.

Now, immediately, I stop and say, wait a minute. Who has said that every single time with any subject and any object that progenosco is going to have that meaning?

We have said that when God does this, in the three times that it appears, that this is its meaning.

But notice, Acts 26 wasn't one of those texts. And so a straw man is now being set up.

Very, very common for Arminians to do this. Well, it doesn't mean it that way over here, as if we were arguing that it did or would, when of course it doesn't.

Like for example, I can give an example of this. If me and my wife were to go on a date this coming Tuesday, which we are,

I would know after we got done eating dinner that she wanted to go get a coffee. I just foreknow her.

Right. But I can say, in that day, I foreknew. I foreknew her. I'm saying that because in the future

I foreknow her, but when it happens on Tuesday, I can say I foreknew my wife, and this is what she's going to want.

Gentlemen in the audience, men who are married, I have a question for you.

Has your wife ever surprised you? No, never, never.

No, no, no, no, no. So when he was moving the couch, did he foreknow that she actually wanted over there, but not over there, where she first had him?

Well, wait, no. No, not over there. But then it went over there, after it was over there, which was, no, it's not, yeah, okay.

This works real good. Well, well said,

Rich. Now, up a little. No, no, no, no.

Back down. We all have had the same experience at that particular point in time.

That was a really bad illustration, followed by a worse illustration.

I mean, me and Brother John, we've been on so many outreaches together that if we go to a restaurant, and I sit down,

I use the restaurant, Brother, I can order him a sweet tea, half sweet, half unsweet. Now, that sounds good, except...

That's what he gets every single time. Now, I know he might be changing that now, but I know that in the past, he's gotten that every single time.

So I know what to order for him, because I foreknow him. I foreknew him before that time comes. Okay. I could not have come up with better illustrations of why his approach is completely wrong than what he himself just gave us.

I could not have done it. Because, you know, you could come up with illustrations like this.

I mean, there was a day when we went to Salt Lake City. You would have known where I wanted to go and what

I wanted to eat. Right? Yes, we used to call it the Taco Time Bomb.

The Taco Time Bomb. That's exactly right. Chris Meat Burrito. Chris Meat Burrito. You got it, man.

And I still would love those things. Have you seen me eat a Chris Meat Burrito recently? No.

No. Not even close. No. And I probably still wouldn't.

Because I've actually looked at the nutritional information thing. And there's enough sodium in there to cause 47 heart attacks.

There really is. It's amazing. They're still really good.

But they're just horrible for you. So, yeah, things change. Things change. And so he has just illustrated those things for us.

Thank you very much. All right. So, having allowed Mr. Scully to refute his own position, without even having us try, we press on.

Acts 26, verses 4 and 5. Paul is talking to Agrippa. It says in verse 4,

My manner of life from my youth, which was spent from the beginning among my own nation, Jewish people, at Jerusalem, all the

Jews know. They knew me from the first. That's the word right there. They knew me from the first.

If they were willing to testify, according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a pharisee. Now, is this talking about these people knowing about Paul before he was born?

No. It's talking about in the present time, if they're willing to testify right now, that they knew about me back then.

They knew about me. That's what it means. Wrong subject.

And nothing even close to any type of infallible knowledge of his activities, choices, anything like that.

Straw man, because no Reformed person would say that Praganosko always has this type of eternal meaning or something like that, because it's only when

God does it. Straw man, I'm not sure which number of straw man we're up to now, but that was...

Okay, we continue on. Okay, let's go to the next one. Romans 11, verses 1 and 2. Okay, this one's actually relevant because it's

God doing it. Now, he's got them talking about Israel, meeting the gospel, rejecting the gospel in Romans 10 and Romans 9.

We saw how many times we've gone through this, how they were chosen nation, but they're trying to get salvation the wrong way, through obeying the laws of the faith in Christ.

Now we have in Romans 11, it says, I say then, has God cast away his people, the Israelites? Certainly not.

For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. So Paul isn't an Israelite. Listen, he hasn't cast me away. It says, for God has not cast away his people whom he foreknew.

So at this point in time, when Paul's writing this in the 60s somewhere, A .D., he's saying, listen, God knows about his people, the Israelites.

He's foreknown them for a long time. He's not talking about God having a foreknowledge of the Israelites before they were ever born, although God does have that knowledge.

No one's disputing that. That's not what the word means in context. He's not casting away his people whom he foreknew.

Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleased the God against Israel, saying, Lord, you have killed your prophets and torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.

But what does the divine response say to him? I have reserved for myself 7 ,000 men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.

Even so then, at this present time, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And so we see, even though most of Israel is rejecting

God, they're rejecting the Gospel, the only means God provided for salvation, they have clung to the law, instead of the law of Moses, and reject the promise of God through Abraham, the seed,

Jesus Christ. He's not casting away all of his people that he's foreknown, just some of them who rejected his

Gospel. That's it. Let's go on to 1 Peter 1 .20. Okay.

Did you catch that? Again, it amazes me how you can read a text of Scripture where the sovereignty and grace of God is right there in the foreground, and you miss it.

You just walk right past it. Did you catch it? Okay. God does not reject his people whom he foreknew.

He has talked here about himself, so he is part of the what? What's Paul a part of?

What's talked about here? I have kept for myself 7 ,000 men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.

Verse 5. So at the present time, there is what? The Greek term is lima.

Remnant. The remnant. Those are the ones who are foreknown.

That's perfectly consistent with Romans 8. Those whom he's foreknown, he's called, justified, glorified.

It's the exact same thing. It's right there. So at the present time, there is a remnant, and what does it say?

Chosen, elected by grace. Not on the basis of what they did.

Not on the basis of their fulfilling laws. Chosen by grace.

It's right there, and they just right on by it. Right on by it.

It's like, keep going, keep going, nothing to see. And instead go, well that doesn't mean that they, that he somehow knew something about them before.

No. There's the exact usage right there. God does it. It's personal.

And it's in the context of God's accomplishing his own purpose in the salvation of a specific people. It's right there in front of him.

Doesn't see it. Doesn't see it. You won't see it. Outside of that very grace, to be honest with you.

Let's go on to 1 Peter 1 .20. 1

Peter 1 .20. This is talking about Jesus. See in verse 9.

Okay, this one is relevant. So let's look at it. With the precious, they are not redeemed with corruptible things like silver gold, but with the precious blood of Christ.

There is a lamb without blemish, without spot. He indeed, talking about Jesus, the Christ, the lamb without blemish, without spot, was foreordained.

That's the word there. It really should be translated foreknown, just like it is every other place. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was manifested in these last times for you.

So what it is saying here is, God knew Christ before the foundations of this world, but in this time, he was manifested to you in the flesh.

Now, think for just a moment. What does it mean that God knew Christ? What does that mean?

I mean, it's in eternity past. Is he saying, well

God, the Father, knew everything the Son was doing. You think that's what it's about?

No. This is, again, personal. It means that the, and in this case,

Christ does pre -exist as a divine person, but this foreknowing has to do with his role that he's going to take in the covenant of redemption, the economy of salvation itself.

And the Father is the one from whom all of this flows. So we're talking inter -trinitarian relationships here too.

Again, all emphasizing God's centrality in salvation. In these latter times. So he had a relation,

God had a relation with Christ before the foundation of the world. Wouldn't that then fit the very definition he's saying this doesn't mean?

But now he's been revealed in these last times to you, manifested to you in the flesh. Who through him believe in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory, so your faith and hope are in God.

Yeah, that one seems to actually fit even the definition he's using, doesn't it? Yeah, it does. It does.

That's interesting. And then one more, 2 Peter. Chapter 3 and verse 17.

We know that Peter's got done talking about being diligent, to look forward to the day of the

Lord, how you should prepare yourself. Let's just read in verse 14. Knowing this beforehand.

Well, know what beforehand? All the things he's just talking about. People twisting Paul's writing to their own destruction. All the things they should be looking forward to in verses 10 -13.

Knowing this beforehand, before they come to pass, beware, lest you fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked.

So these are all the examples, including the one we see in Romans 8, of this word being used. Okay, well, last one had zippity -dippity -doo -da.

There's zippity -dippity -doo -da to do with anything, actually. Because it just contextually, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Not one time is it used of having a relationship with someone before they ever exist.

Actually, it did, didn't it? In fact, in the three that we looked at. Well, of course, he didn't look at Romans 8, but certainly had to do with the choosing of the lima, the remnant.

And it certainly had to do, and he didn't even try to refute this, just sort of stumbled over it, in regards to Christ.

So, gosh! Two of the three places where God does it, it did have that meaning.

And so, the reason it doesn't in Romans 8 is... Well, anyway. Okay. I don't think that's even possible.

How can you have a relationship with someone before they exist? Well, you might want to ask

Jeremiah 1 .5 that. You might want to ask that as a text. How did God know Jeremiah?

Well, he knew about him. That's all he was saying. Because that would be true of everybody.

Again, inconsistent, non -open theist, Arminian here. Okay? So, you've already bought into the inconsistency.

So, it would be true of anybody that God knows that they're going to exist.

The parallel, and if you know Hebrew, when you have three clauses like that, know you, appointed you, consecrated you, they're all supposed to be informing one another as to what they mean.

Which is why the knowing there is choosing. Same thing with, of all the nations of the earth, you alone have I chosen.

Have I known. And please don't tell me that what that's saying is,

I looked at all the nations of the world and it was the Jews that I had to choose because they were the only ones who chose me.

Really? Okay. I haven't been reading judges or anything very recently, have you?

No. Clear consistency here. I can't think of how that's possible.

Now, God does have exhausted foreknowledge, but this word Progonosko does not mean that.

So the word here for foreknew is Progonosko. It means to know beforehand or in times past to have foreknowledge of something or someone.

Of something or someone. But it does not refer to God knowing about someone or having a relationship with someone before they existed or were born.

Does not mean that. Um, and you are the greatest

Greek expert because of what? We haven't gotten much evidence from that so far because we haven't seen any evidence that you recognize how to actually deal with this material so that assertion is left unfounded.

So, those who me foreknew is talking about some saint from the past. Now catch this, folks.

Now, having pretty much incapacitated the text now let's get the interpretation.

What is the interpretation? When we look at Romans 8 .28

Uh, we we know that God causes all things to work together for those who love

God. Not for those who loved God. This isn't some past tense thing. Those who are the called according to his purpose for those who me foreknew.

He's gonna have to put a wall here and now he's changing subject and he's saying, well, let's talk about some people in the past now.

And this is all about people in the past but then at the end of it when it says what shall we say these things if God is for us all of a sudden we switch from people in the past to us now.

It is again eisegesis to its height it is abusing the text because you don't want to believe what the text is actually saying.

Um, but that's what's going on. So here's the interpretation. So those who me foreknew is talking about some saint from the past.

It's not talking about the present saints who Paul is writing to that God knew in the past time. It's about saints he knew in the past.

And these saints he knew in the past because he knew them and he loved them and because they loved him he also predestined them to be conformed to the image of God.

Because they loved him. I mean this is this is the essence of man centeredness.

See he denies original sin denies total depravity you know, and obviously denies the total sovereignty of God.

So once you've lost the two fundamental pillars of biblical revelation then you end up turning the gospel into, well it can't be

God centered. It has to be man centered. It's deplorable, but that's what it is. He also predestined them to be conformed to the image of the

Son, to be resurrected in the first resurrection and have the same body that Christ had at this point in time.

That he might see that right there? That he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Now by the way, when he emphasizes the term might he is pulling the standard, again

I don't actually read this language I just pretend to, Trek where you use the

English and you emphasize the probability or possibility element of the word might not recognizing that in Greek some subjunctives can have that possibility element to them.

There are certain forms of the Greek language where the subjunctive is talking about what the possibility might be.

You also have the optative. But the subjunctive in the

Greek language is also used in purpose clauses, Hinnah clauses. God did this in order that this might happen.

And the emphasis doesn't even contain the idea that it's improbable or probable or we don't know or it's doubtful.

It's just simply a purpose clause. Christ came that he might redeem sinners.

And it would be abject foolishness. The thing what that means is Yeah, but you know when he came he sure was nervous because he didn't really know whether this was going to work because I'm using the word might.

That is again shows just abject ignorance of the text itself.

There was a chance that even those at that point in time when he knew them there was a chance that some of them could have fallen away and not be a part of those brethren who would rise at the first resurrection and be just like Christ and conform to his image.

So even then they still could have fallen away. He's always got to leave this nowhere can

God actually save anybody. Because it's got to be up to man. Someone's got to look around.

Maybe somebody in channel can see. Has he even tried to do John 6? That might be painful to listen to.

That might be one of those where I ride off the road into a cactus face first just to try to feel a little better. But it might be incredibly educational.

I'm going to have to seek somebody on his YouTube channel. Does he have a John 6 video?

Let's see if we can find it because I can't see how there's any room at all for the perfect salvific work of Christ in John 6, 39 in this very man -centered stuff.

He might rise from the dead just like he rose from the dead in the first resurrection and be one of his brethren. It's only a might thing.

It was only a might thing for those people in the past. See, it's only a might thing. Might happen. Might happen.

If they do this, if they do that. Folks, I hope you understand that on the key issue of the

Reformation this guy is completely on the Roman Catholic side.

He is completely against the Reformation. Please keep that in mind.

Someone might call him a Protestant but as far as theology goes ain't no Protestant. In verse 30 we see

Now you want to see how this completely artificial interpretation falls apart.

Someone found it. There it is. Calvinism Strongholds, John 6.

I'm going to have to scroll back pull that thing down, convert it. I've got almost 130 miles worth of riding to do this next two days.

5 kilometers of running and 100 yeah, right at 200 kilometers of riding.

I've got plenty of time. If I never return, you'll know what happened. He was screaming so loudly that he went off that cliff somewhere.

If you want to see just how again we read this text, and I say we those of us who actually come to the text and want to know what the text is saying and want to be informed by that we read the

Golden Chain we see God is the one who's done all these things it is all in the past tense which only emphasizes its completeness in God's purpose that prophesis beforehand by which we're called and as a result what then shall we say to these things?

If all of this is just talking about well, if you do this and you do that, then you can get that what shall we say?

Oh no! I'll never make it! But that's not what Paul says. His response if God is for us who is against us?

And then he talks about he who did not spare his own son, but delivered him over for us all. Who's the us?

It's the elect! It's for that specific people how will he not also with him freely give us all things?

Who will bring a charge against God's elect according to Kerrigan Skelly? The devil!

Because it's always just a mite. And even if you've been called, even if you've been justified God can still kick you out because the devil will bring a charge against you, you're found guilty, and you're gone.

There is no finished work there is no perfected work, there is no gospel here! This is not the Christian gospel.

This is all man -centered. And yet all this stuff here, God's elect,

God who justified, Christ died for the elect, it's all right here. Listen to just even the way that he reads this.

He knows he's on foreign ground here. It's amazing. Let's listen.

In verse 30 we see, moreover whom he predestined, these he also called whom he called, these he also justified and whom he justified, these he also glorified.

Now who is it talking about here? It's talking about these people who he foreknew. Who are now dead and gone.

Who are now dead and gone. This is about people that the Romans had all they could do is maybe take a moral lesson from.

It's just all about these people in the past. Who are now dead and gone. In fact, every single verb in verse 30 that translates predestined, called, justified, and glorified are all in the past tense.

And so it's talking about in the past. Now Calvinists will twist verse 30 and say, well look, this is talking about a decree

God made in the past. A long time ago. But if they're going to say, they have to say before someone was even born, before they ever sinned, before they were ever in this world, they were justified, they were called, they were predestined, and they were glorified.

No. Completely untrue. Simply because God reveals that he is going to accomplish something in time does not mean that time becomes irrelevant.

It does not mean that justification took place in eternity. God's intention to justify and to glorify is absolutely certain.

That's why it is said we are already seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. From God's perspective, it is in fact an accomplished done deal.

That's why we can glorify him for all of it. That doesn't mean that it does not take place in time.

That is a bogus argument. How is that possible? And so, when it comes to these things, we see in context it's referring to people he foreknew, and it's talking about what they went through, and that they were conformed to the image of the

Son, and that, of course, they weren't risen from the dead yet, even at this point in time, but it's a foregone conclusion for them because they died in the faith.

They persevered to the end. They suffered with him, and they waited with perseverance. So, verse 30 is not saying that everybody who ever will be called by God will be justified or will be glorified.

That's exactly what it's saying, and you have had to create a completely artificial context to escape the chain that is here.

There's no breaking of a chain here. There's just an ignoring of the chain. There's an abuse of the text of Scripture, but this glorious chain of God's activity and God's actions, how has he broken it?

By turning it into a description of people in the past who persevered to the end. That's the only way to get around the golden chain for him.

Based upon this, they loved, they fulfilled, they did these things. That's how you've tried to get around it.

It doesn't mean that, because you can be called by God. We saw this in the parable of the wedding feast. Didn't he call whoever would come?

Didn't a lot of them reject his calling? Of course, failing to distinguish between the specific call and the general call.

Many are called, few are chosen. It's right there, but again. And does everyone who gets justified get glorified?

People can fall away from the faith. And so we see here, from this context here, that the suffering is what he's talking about, enduring the suffering, and that in your suffering you're waiting for the hope that is to come.

So there's the interpretation. We're running close on time here. I still want to get some of the comments that were made toward the end.

I think we might work it all out here. What then shall we say to these things? All these things he just talked about. If God is for us, who can be against us?

It takes a new meaning, doesn't it? Because these people, God was for them. And guess what? If the whole world is against you, but you have

God on your side, you're still in the majority. Now, that sounds wonderful, but what has he just said?

Who is God for? He's for the people who are already dead. Hey, you made it!

You persevered, you got through, you survived, you've been saved, so God's for you.

Now, you living people, well, if you keep loving

God, you keep doing those works of righteousness, you keep working up that faith, then once you croak,

God will be for you. Wow. Zip. Zero.

Nada. Encouragement left here. It's gone. It's history. But then again, how could there be any encouragement?

In a man -centered system, it's mission impossible salvation anyways. And that's what you've got here.

He who did not spare his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Who's the us here, I wonder? I wonder if we're going to get any in -depth discussion. Who shall bring a charge against God's elect?

It's God who justifies. So the us must be God's elect who are justified by God.

Oh, okay. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died. And furthermore, he's also risen. This sounds like a law court where we've got an intercessor in the person of Christ, and he's taken our place.

Who's even at the right hand of God who also makes intercession for us. Not only is the Spirit interceding for us, but Jesus is interceding for us.

So who's Jesus interceding for, specifically? The elect of God. Who are the elect of God?

Well, it must be those who love God, those who do the things that are pleasing to God's sight. We have everything we need set up for us that we should be able to make it to the end.

That we have no excuse to not make it to the end. That we have this glory awaiting us, we have the inheritance waiting for us, the

Spirit's praying for us, we don't have to pray, Jesus is praying for us, and if he's given us Jesus, his Son, he'll give us all things.

If Jesus is praying for you, that doesn't mean you're going to make it. All these things should motivate us and influence very strongly to continue and persevere to the end.

Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, who furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

I mean, think about it. Sometimes we are pleased, we have joy, when the saints of God are praying for us.

But think about it. Jesus is praying for you. Who better to ask to pray for you than Jesus?

In the midst of your suffering, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are praying for you. Praying for you.

Jesus is praying for you. And what does that accomplish? Nothing. Nothing.

No recognition here of the role of the High Priest, the relationship of the offering and the intercession.

No connection there at all. You've got to break all those beautiful connections, those beautiful threads of divine truth that are woven through Scripture.

Because once you make man the central aspect, you don't have any choices.

You don't have any choices. You have to. You have to do that. It's truly sad to listen.

But it doesn't say, friends, that if you get back into your sin, that you're still okay with God. To say that in light of these verses is to dismiss the immediate context and dismiss what it says in the beginning of Romans 8, 1 through 14.

People do this all the time. They isolate certain verses and say, look, nothing can separate me from the love of God. I can be a fornicator or a drunkard and still be in the love of God.

It's not true, friends. Sin is not in that list. It's not a creative thing. It's something that's done by someone who is creative.

I catch that. Again, if he thinks that Calvinists say you can just sin and fornicate and have no concern for holiness and so on and so forth and that that's the whole reason we do this, well, obviously that's the straw man.

I don't know. I've lost track of how many straw men we've burned so far. But if what he's saying is that sin can separate us, then he clearly had no concept of what the intercession of Christ, just mentioned in the preceding verses, is all about.

See, he said Jesus is praying for us. It's not what it says, is it? It says he's interceding.

What does intercession mean? What's the mediator? What's the purpose? It has to do with his sacraments.

It has to do with forgiveness of sins. It has to do with union with Christ, the imputation of his righteousness. All those things.

See, Kerrigan -Skelly doesn't have a gospel. He has a system you have to work. And there you see it.

There you see it. And so this passage here, overall, it says nothing about once saved, always saved, or perseverance of the saints, or unconditional eternal security.

In fact, if you go back just a little bit, it's the exact opposite. If you go on in chapter 9, you'll know that the

Israelites who were predestined, most of them fell away. Most of them fell away. Yeah, it's exactly what

Romans 9 says. No, it's not what Romans 9 says, but I'm sure there's a video on that someplace, too.

Anyway, that's his presentation, and then evidently they do this thing where everybody gets to talk type thing.

Maybe it was just a Bible study. It wasn't actually a sermon or something. Two comments were made back to back, and I even got mentioned.

It's amazing the places my name gets used. I even managed to get mentioned in this.

That's the second one. But the first one, I can tell you right where I was on North 51st

Avenue when this hit. I started groaning because I've dealt with Mormonism a few times, but I didn't realize that if you properly understand

Progonosco and properly interpret it in Romans chapter 8, you have to become a

Mormon. Here we go. The whole idea of prior relationship, that leads to a prior existence.

The cult of Mormonism, they believe in pre -existence of humans. For the

Calvinists to say that there was a prior relationship with God in eternity past kind of lends credence to the

Mormons that believe in a prior existence to every single one of us. They believe that we were all spirit babies, we all existed, and we come to live in a fleshly body.

Okay. There you go. Um. Um. You know what?

I feel sorry for the guy because he's listening to a false teacher who's misled him into thinking that what we're saying is that there was this almost, it does sound like a pre -existence type thing which is not what we were saying.

Anyways, so I lay that one at Skelly's feet for having confused the poor guy, but anyways, and then right afterwards, the next guy evidently must have tweeted me or something at some point in time.

I don't have any recollection of it. I do get some odd tweets, but here's his comment.

Well, I mean, when you isolate a verse like that, you miss the woods where the one tree is in front of you. You may think it's the only one tree there, but there's a whole forest around you.

That's kind of what happens sometimes. People isolate. So, evidently, again, the idea for these folks is that suffering, if we should be glorified with him, if we suffer with him, that is the interpretive key.

And everything else has to be subjected to the idea that there is some kind of salvific efficacy to suffering with Christ.

And again, I go, I've heard this someplace before. Yeah, Roman Catholicism.

These folks are popeless Catholics. All they need to do is just go, hey, there's been people promoting this stuff for a long time.

I guess we ought to just join on in. Maybe they just would prefer not have the vestments and the candles and prefer that their priests wear plaid shirts or something.

So maybe it's just a taste thing. But as far as the man -centeredness of this system, wow, they and Rome just perfect partners at that point.

I can't tell you how many times, they're online somewhere, the debates with, oh, what was that priest's name that I debated in 1993 on television?

One of them was on purgatory and indulgences.

The other was on some of the Marian stuff. I can see his face. Fastigi. Fastigi. Fastigi.

I remember very clearly dealing with Colossians 1 .24

and all the Roman Catholic stuff in regards to our sufferings are joined with the sufferings of Christ as if the sufferings of Christ that we enter into are salvific rather than due to the union we have with him and we being the body of Christ.

The reason that we have peace with God is because it's a finished work of Christ, not some type of ongoing work.

And Rome doesn't have a finished work. And I would argue that these folks don't either. Because if the work of Christ only makes salvation possible, then it's really not a finished work anyway.

So there you go. There is the presentation. And I will grab that URL that someone provided and we'll take a look at the

John 6 stuff because something tells me that if we were able to illustrate an entire cadre of common isogetical errors in this particular study, that the

John 6 one should be really amazing. And so maybe we will be able to do that.

Folks, what have you seen today? Well, hopefully you have recognized that there are certain proper parameters in how to do a word study, how to look at a text, how to utilize the great resources we have available to us today.

Maybe even how to look at a lexicon and make sure you're looking at the right definition and things like that.

All of those are important things. They are very common errors that people make. But hopefully what you really saw was just how twisted a man -centered gospel really is.

To where you can look at these texts and the whole emphasis is on God does this.

God does this. God does this. The result is this. The result is this. He glorifies himself. And you can take that and miss all of that and only see oh, but we need to do that over there.

And we need to do that over there. And if we don't do that, then God... That is a tremendous warning.

And obviously for most of us, we just go, how can someone who knows their own heart even want to believe something like this?

If you know your own heart, you don't want a salvation system that is going to be dependent upon you.

Yes, he who endures, the end shall be saved. And oh, my friends, the only reason that any one of us endures is because the grace of God is shed abroad in our hearts and it is fulfilling the purpose of God that Jesus Christ will be a perfect savior of a specific people that he redeems or is zealous for good deeds.

The reason we're zealous for good deeds is not so we can bring about our own salvation, but so that Jesus Christ will be glorified in the salvation of his people.

That's the big difference. It's always been the difference, always will be. Thanks for listening to The Dividing Line today. We will get back to Bart Ehrman on Tuesday as we need to finish up those discussions we were having on the

Carmen Christie and all the related matters. Thanks for listening to the program today.