The Potter's Freedom Part 7

Second Timothy 2 15 be diligent to present yourself approved to God a worker who does not need to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth

Alpha and Omega ministries presents the dividing line radio broadcast The Apostle Peter commanded all

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence

Your host is dr. James white director of Alpha and Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reform to Baptist Church If you'd like to talk with dr.

White, you can call now by dialing 5 0 8 0 9 60. That's 5 0 8 0 9 60 and now with today's topic.

Here's James White And welcome to the dividing line My name is James White and we continue this week looking at a review of the book chosen

But free by Norman Geisler. We hope that you're enjoying this review. We're getting a lot of response

From many individuals who have taken the time to contact us and thank us for Addressing this particular issue.

It is not an easy issue to address, but it is a very very Important issue. I want to share with you first some words today that come from J.

I Packer and OR Johnston in writing the introduction to their translation of Martin Luther's the bondage of the will and here's what they had to say

What is the modern reader to make of the bondage of the will? That it is a brilliant and exhilarating performance a masterpiece the controversialist difficult art

He will no doubt readily admit But now comes the question is Luther's case any part of God's truth and if so, has it a message for Christians today?

No doubt the reader will find the way by which Luther leads him to be a strange new road an approach Which in all probability he has never considered a line of thought which he would normally label

Calvinistic and hastily pass by That is what Lutheran orthodoxy itself has done in the present -day

Evangelical Christian who has semi Pelagian ism in his blood will be inclined to do the same

But both history and scripture if I allowed to speak counsel, otherwise

Historically, it is a simple matter of fact that Martin Luther and John Calvin and for that matter Ulrich Zwingli Martin Bucer and all the leading

Protestant theologians of the first epoch of the Reformation Stood on precisely the same ground here on other points

They had their differences but in asserting the helplessness of man and sin and the sovereignty of God and grace they were entirely at one to all of them these doctrines were the very lifeblood of the

Christian faith a Modern editor of Luther's great work underscores this fact quote whoever puts this book down without having realized that Evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain

End quote the doctrine of free justification by faith only which became the storm center of so much controversy during the

Reformation period Is often regarded as the heart of the reformers theology, but this is hardly accurate the truth is that their thinking was really centered upon the contention of Paul echoed with varying degrees of adequacy by Augustine and Gottschalk and Bradward Dean and Wycliffe and the sinners entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only

The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace

But it actually expressed for them only one aspect of this principle and that not its deepest aspect the sovereignty of God found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration

The doctrine that is that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign

God bestowed by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling

To the Reformers the crucial question was not simply whether God justifies believers without works of law

It was the broader question where the sinners are wholly helpless in their sin and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free unconditional invincible grace

Not only justifying them for Christ's sake when they come to faith But also raising them from the death of sin by his quickening spirit in order to bring them to faith

Here was the crucial issue whether God is the author not merely of justification, but also of faith whether in the last analysis

Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it or of self -reliance and self -effort

Justification by faith only is a truth that needs interpretation The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia

What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God -given means whereby the God -given justification is received or is it a condition of justification?

Which is left to man to fulfill Is it a part of God's gift of salvation or is it man's own contribution to salvation?

Is our salvation holy of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves?

Those who say the latter as the Arminians later did thereby deny man's utter helplessness and sin and affirm that a form of Semipelagianism is true after all it is no wonder then that later reformed theology condemned

Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work and a betrayal of the

Reformation Because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the

Reformers thought Arminianism was indeed in reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works and The one is an un as as unchristian and anti -christian as the other in the light of what

Luther says to Erasmus There is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment These things need to be pondered by Protestants today with what right may we call ourselves children of the

Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer reformers

The bondage of the will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of lost mankind in the light of it

We are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther's day and our own

Has not Protestantism today become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimize and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of interparty peace?

Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferent ISM with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters?

Or do we now with Erasmus rate a deceptive appearance of unity as of more importance than truth?

Have we not grown used to an Erasmian brand of teaching from our pulpits and message that rests on the same shallow synergistic

Conceptions which Luther refuted picturing God and man approaching each other almost on equal terms

Each having his own contribution to make to man's salvation and each depending on the dutiful cooperation of the other

For the attainment of that end as if God exists for man's convenience rather than man for God's glory

Is it not true conversely that it is rare today to hear proclaimed the diagnosis of our predicament which

Luther and scripture put forward? That man is hopeless and helpless in sin fast bound in Satan's slavery at enmity with God blind and dead of the things the

Spirit and Hence how rarely do we hear faith spoken of as scripture depicts it as it is expressed in the cry of self -committal

With which the contrite heart humbled to see its need and made conscious of its own utter helplessness even to trust

Cast itself and the God -given confidence of self to spare upon the mercy of Christ Jesus Lord.

I believe help thou my unbelief Can we deny the essential rightness of Luther's exegesis of the text?

If not, dare we ignore the implications of his exposition To accept the principles which

Martin Luther vindicates in the bondage The will would certainly involve a mental and spiritual revolution for many Christians at the present time

It would involve a radically different approach to preaching and the practice of evangelism and to most other departments of theology and pastoral work as well

God centered thinking is out of fashion today and its recovery will involve something of a Copernican revolution in our outlook on many matters

But ought we to shrink from this Do we not stand in urgent need of such teaching as Luther here gives us teaching which humbles man

Strengthens faith and glorifies God and is not the contemporary church weak for the lack of it The issue is clear

We are compelled to ask ourselves that the Almighty God of the Bible is to be our God if the New Testament Gospel is to be our message if Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever is any other position than Luther's possible

Are we not in all honesty bound to stand with him and ascribing all might and majesty and dominion and power and all the glory of our salvation to God alone

Surely no more important or far -reaching question confronts the church Today that was written

Almost 50 years ago, and if it was true, then it is far more true today

This week we look at the subject of unconditional election The 1689

Baptist confession of faith, which we use as a statement of faith the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church says the following By the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory

Some men and angels are predestinated or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ to the praise of his glorious grace

Others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation to the praise of his glorious justice

These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained are particularly and unchangeably designed and their numbers so certain and Definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished

In other words, it was the statement of the Westminster confession of faith and of the Baptist confession of faith that God by his decree has

Unconditionally elected a people unto Jesus Christ and it is not a nebulous faceless group of people

It is not the concept that God has simply Designed and decreed that he is going to elect to save somebody who he doesn't really know

Or who he only knows by looking into the future and going. Oh, isn't that wonderful someone took me up on my offer

No, the specific assertion of the reformed position has always been that God decrees and elect people unto himself and This is seen very very clearly and we have discussed this in past programs but it is seen very very clearly in the first chapter of Ephesians Ephesians chapter 1 and Here the

Apostle Paul lays out for us in in tremendous detail the sovereignty of God in salvation his electing grace

He says beginning in verse 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ Just as he chose us

He selected us The Greek term there is a klegami to choose to select

Just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world That we would be holy and blameless before him now stop right there

Because right there you have the direct assertion of the Apostle Paul that we were chosen in Christ The direct object of the verb is the

Greek term Hamas We were the ones chosen or selected.

It was not a faceless class It was not a plan God is not the cosmic designer of the

Amway system And then he says here you all just work work the circles sell the products and you can become a part of the elect class

That's not what it says It says he chose us and I really don't know why anyone would want to opt for an election on the part of God That is impersonal

Because one of the most amazing things that any person can consider is that before I took my first breath

Before time itself began God chose to be merciful to me a sinner

To me as an individual not to a simple generic class but to me a person

The scripture says that he chose us in him That is in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world

There is no salvation in any other way other than in Jesus Christ he is the only way in which there is forgiveness of sins the only source of eternal life and By God's will he has chosen to save only in him

There are those today that don't like that there are many Roman Catholics indeed the

Pope himself has made comments where he has said that as long as you follow the Directions of your heart and with integrity do the things that whatever religious group you're associated with you

Demands of you that that you can have eternal life The scriptures have none of that God has chosen in and of himself

To save and elect people in one way in Christ and he made this choice before the foundation of the world and We can see how personal this is because it says

To be holy and blameless in his sight holiness and blamelessness

Yes can be said of all of the elect taken together But only because each as an individual has experienced salvation holiness and blamelessness our personal attributes that result from the work of the

Spirit of God in the life of the believer and So Paul does not shrink back from proclaiming the fact that before we ever existed

God chose us in Christ he predestined us verse 5 unto adoption as Sons through Jesus Christ to himself according to the kind intention of his will

There is that word Predestined it's right there in Scripture. The direct object of the verb is again us

Unto adoption Again, that's something we experience in our lives. It's not just a class thing.

It's a personal thing We experience adoption whereby we cry out Abba Father Again, it is only through Jesus Christ.

It is unto himself That is under the Father and when people ask why does

God do this? Why does he choose one person over another the biblical answer is in accordance?

To the kind intention of his will To the praise the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the one

He loves in the beloved one that is in Jesus Christ. You want to know why? There's only one answer to why it is to the praise of his glorious grace.

It's based upon the kind intention of whose will the kind intention of his will not the human will and that is

I believe the clearest refutation of the entire presentation of Election presented by dr.

Norman Geisler in chosen but free And chosen but free dr. Geisler makes the foundation of election the will of man not the will of God it is

I think an empty thing to say that God has elected to save anyone who will believe but That decree of election does not include who will believe

Except that's exactly what we have presented to us in chosen, but free. Let me give you an example on page 73

I Read quote in short we were chosen but free which is directly contrary to the conclusion of the extreme

Calvinists and as we have mentioned many times if you haven't been with us before in this book the historic

Calvinistic or reform perspective is called extreme Calvinism and Arminianism is called moderate

Calvinism, but we find such terminology to be rather confusing and so we just use what everybody else before this book has used as their terminology and So dr.

Geisler is saying which is directly contrary the conclusion of the Reformation and the Reformers the

Calvinists in summary the error of Calvinism regarding unconditional election is the failure to adhere to an election that is

Unconditional from the standpoint of the giver God But has one condition for the receiver faith

This in turn is based on the mistaken notion that faith is a gift only to the elect

Who have no choice in receiving it? That's from page 73 a few pages later just so you can get a flavor of the strong Arminianism of chosen

But free few teachings are more evident in the New Testament than that God loves all people that Christ died for the sins of all human beings and that God desires all persons to be saved

That is the conclusion that has arrived at now The issue that we need to first address and there are three issues

And I don't know that I'm gonna be able to get through them today These are very important issues. These are issues that people talk about all the time

There are many many discussions going on all over the place because of this Three issues unconditional election

What is called the omnibenevolence of God that is is God all -loving dr

Geisler says and chosen but free that the Calvinist. God is not all -loving and the concept of faith as a gift so Insistent is dr.

Geisler on this point that he even includes not only commentary in the text but an entire appendix

Where he attacks the concept of faith as a gift and we will be looking at some of the errors that he makes in His comments on that particular issue during the program today

On pages 69 through 70. We read the following words First even if this is true it is irrelevant since extreme

Calvinists believe in God's infallible foreknowledge regardless of what these verses teach and If God does foreknow infallibly

Then he would still foreknow what people would freely believe and he would still have to decide whether he would have to force them to believe in him or Else elect those he knew could be persuaded to freely accept his grace

Now let me run over that last section again because this lays out for you how

Geisler presents the difference between his view and the Reformed view and I think you can see that it's it's contained some fairly major misrepresentation that we brought up last week

He would still foreknow what people would freely believe and he would still have to decide whether and here's his representation of the

Calvinistic viewpoint whether he would have to force them to believe in him or Else elect those he knew could be persuaded to freely accept his grace

So the the false dichotomy that chosen but free presents is

That either you believe with the Calvinist that God forces people to believe in him now. We addressed this last week

We demonstrated that this type of assertion is as silly as saying that God forced Lazarus to come out of the grave

When you give someone resurrection life When you raise them from the dead

Terms like force are meaningless Certainly, it's a powerful act on God's part

Certainly, it's a wondrous thing that God in his grace would take a sinner who is spiritually dead an enemy of everything that is righteous and true and Do as the

Bible says that is To give him a heart of flesh rather than a heart of stone

To place his spirit with him and to make him a new creation a new creature The Bible says that's what regeneration is the making of a new creation a new creature in Christ Jesus That's a radical transformation

Well, dr. Geisler doesn't like the fact that we say it's such a radical transformation That means that we were dead and were made spiritually alive

Because if that's the case then everything's depend upon God and well, I guess the Calvinists were right all along so he presents it as if God has to decide whether he's going to force people to believe in him and of course the

Reformed perspective that would be whether he's going to give us a new heart and he's going to make us a new creature and he's going to because we are a new creature that is created in the image of Christ are going to Desire to cleave to him and to follow him and to believe in him or else and then here's his perspective

Elect those he knew could be persuaded to freely accept his grace

So what is the basis in that sentence in dr.

Geisler's perspective of election It's in the creature he is specifically they're saying that the basis of election is

His knowledge of who he knows could be Persuaded to freely accept his grace if you're elect

It's because God knew that you could be persuaded to freely as an autonomous creature

Accept his grace and if you're not elect that means God knew that he couldn't persuade you now

I'm gonna tell you something folks if I believe that and I'm looking through the through the studio here at rich Pierce lounging around back there and Rich if I believe that I'm never going to Salt Lake again

You ain't either Simon you're going with us Salt Lake ever again or out to Mesa if I'd give it all up.

I'd give it all up because election becomes dependent upon God making a decision based on men as To who is persuadable or not?

Man, I am awfully glad that I don't believe that Because I wouldn't talk to him to half the people

I talked to if that's what I believed Page 68, but the question is not whether election is unconditional from the vantage point of the giver

But were there any conditions for the receiver? Election is not based on or dependent on foreknowledge rather It is merely in accord with it and what he means by that and we've discussed this before Is that God has perfect knowledge of future events and dr.

Geisler's idea of Predeterminantly knowing and knowingly predetermining all the rest of stuff it all boils down my friends when you take away all the fancy Terminology you boil it all down and the only free will in this matter is man's

It's never God's God simply wills To elect those who can be freely persuaded to believe in response to Romans 8 29

Many extreme Calvinists take foreknown to refer to the fact that God foreloved in this case to foreknow and to choose

Or elect would be the same thing they cite other passages and attempts to support this which is true

If so, then God's foreknowledge would not have any reference to foreknowing how the elect would respond

But this is not the case as our response shows now, that's a whole other issue what foreknowledge means and there's an entire

Appendix on that in my book the sovereign God's sovereign grace, but what I want you to catch is this one line if so if Foreknown in Romans 8 29 refers to to lovingly choose to enter into relationship with which is what it does mean

If so Then God's foreknowledge would not have any reference to foreknowing how the elect would respond here in in essence

Dr. Geisler is sort of slipping a little bit and letting us see again what he's really saying If foreknowledge for dr.

Geisler means that he knows he foreknows how the elect would respond That's the

Arminian position friends. You can say all you want. No, no It's not based on foreknowledge

But every time we get to the point where we start to start digging a little bit deeper and seeing how this works This is how it comes out.

It comes out very clearly That for his perspective foreknowing means foreknowing how the elect will respond and on that basis then we have this idea that God creates the number of The elect and that's a very important concept that we have being presented to us now it's hard to know exactly which direction to go, but let me just give you one example of The type of exegesis that is presented in chosen but free in regards to unconditional election

Ephesians chapter 1 is barely touched upon There is no serious exegesis

Provided to us in Chosen but free on Ephesians chapter 1 because the simple response that is provided as well, of course

That that makes perfect sense because what you've got going on here is it's unconditional from the giver

But it's conditional from the receiver And so we can just go on from there the fact that the direct object of the verb to choose and to predestine is us

It's individual that the effects are individual and all the rest that stuff. We don't address that That's not really talked about in any meaningful sense, but for example

John 5 21 Says for just as the father This is the Lord Jesus speaking for just as the father raises the dead and gives them life

Even so the son also gives life to whom he wishes and dr

Geisler cites this because the fact that it is used by reformed people and He says first of all this on page 78 if this interpretation were true

It would contradict the clear teaching of other texts in John John 3 16 and elsewhere first John 2 2 second

Peter 2 1 Hence the resurrection life given is not limited to the elect both saved and unsaved are resurrected

Now it's interesting and one of the reasons I bring this up. Is that elsewhere? Dr. Geisler will Will speak of for example

He attacks John Piper by saying this is an almost classic example of reading one's theology into the text as opposed to reading

The text he talks about the contorted logic of extreme Calvinists who look at other passages of scripture so on and so forth and yet Here we have exactly what dr.

Geisler Accuses others of doing not dealing with the passage itself But saying well it can't mean that because that would then contradict what

I understand John 3 16 or first John 2 2 or a second Peter 2 1 to mean and That doesn't really help us out a whole lot

First John 5 21 does talk about Resurrection, that's quite true, but Read it again for just as the father raises the dead and gives them life

Even so the son also gives life to whom he wishes if this is just simply a

Restatement of the preceding section of the verse if this just saves the saying God raises the dead the son raises the dead

What's the to whom he wishes part what does that have to do with anything that's left completely and totally untouched

There's nothing there to address It becomes a meaningless addition And sadly throughout the attempts to deal with the various and sundry passages of scripture that present these truths

That's what we end up with well We've got some callers online, and I still have a lot of material to go over, but we need to take a break

We'll be taking your phone calls at five zero eight zero nine sixty. We'll be right back And welcome back to the dividing line.

My name is James white and we are looking at the book chosen But free today at unconditional election.

I don't know that we're gonna get to anything else because We've got a full bank of calls already

Let's get a few of them under our belt real quick so we can get back to the topic Let's talk with Jennifer in Tempe.

Hello Jennifer Yes Ephesians 1 4 through 6

Mm -hmm This would Ephesians 1 for the new

American standard just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we would be holy and blameless before him

I have a trouble with understanding Exactly what he meant by that Well since you and I did not exist before the foundation of the world that means that his choice of us is

Free on his part that it is sovereign that it is inalterable unchangeable and totally based upon the kind intention of his will and his grace and The reason that a lot of people don't like that is quite simply because that means it is

God who saves not man who saves himself That's really when you boil it all down and get all the

The other stuff out of the way That's the main problem that people have is that we have to say it is

God and God alone It is not man. It is not God and man cooperating together in a synergistic fashion

It is God and that is why all honor and praise and glory goes to him and to him alone

Well predestined

Sort of a transparent term in the sense that it is to choose beforehand to predestined

God has the ability and power to do that as the creator of all things and That's the term that is used right there in Ephesians chapter 1 as well in verse 5 he predestined us and then predestined us to what to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself and That is a part of salvation itself that he has chosen to bring us into a relationship with himself as adopted sons through Christ and That's that's what he has adopted us to he has adopted us to make us holy and blameless

Everything that is that is good in our lives in regards to the doctrine of salvation

What God has done for us is a part of what he has predestined us to do To experience so again, it's the sovereign

God making these decisions in of himself Well, we

Something like that well you see that turns it upside down though that that's to say that we are that we are chosen because we accept him means that we are the ones who elect ourselves and That's very very common

That's that's very very common for people to preach that and to teach that and so on so forth But the simple fact the matter is that's not the biblical way

In fact when the Lord Jesus addressed this particular issue in John chapter 8

And he was talking to individuals there about the truth of God And they they would not hear what he had to say

They could not understand what he was saying John 8 47 says he who belongs to God Here is what

God says the reason that you do not hear is that you do not belong to God Now most people say if you would just hear then you belong to God But the biblical order is the exact opposite of that if you belong to God, then you'll hear so yes there there's a lot of teaching out there because it's it's

Very common to pander to the desires of man and to the position of man and to to put man in charge of things but you have to test any teaching that you hear on the basis of the

Word of God and These passages say what they say. You can't just simply say well It can't mean that because of what

I understand about a passage over here You have to allow each of these passages to speak for themselves Okay Alrighty Jennifer keep listening.

We've got a few more weeks here and hopefully that'll help you with some of those issues We'll be addressing there.

Okay. Thanks for calling. Bye. Bye Well, let's go back across the pond now

Hello Martin It's I'm going quite well Got a lot of response from your call last week really jolly old

England Yes, everyone was was good to know that over there across the pond on the little island There's still a few orthodox people left, you know

Yes, well Spurgeon was once there so we need we still honor his memory indeed

I'm trying to discuss actually I'm never going to get to the issues of faith and The omnibenevolence of God today, but we're looking at unconditional election, right?

It's I mean as I mentioned last week I am from the reform position and I meant I must admit

I'm and I struggle with the doctrine as I'm sure a lot of people who are listening do and When I was talking with somebody he gave me a book.

I don't know if I can mention names But it's called an examination of tulip. Hmm Robert L Sumner.

Oh, yes. Okay. Uh -huh Just one of the quotes in there that I thought I'll read out and see how to see what you have to say about it

Hopefully it'll you know what you have to say will help listeners if they've ever come across this basically, he says I'm quoting here if you will forgive us for saying so unconditional election is the kind they have in communist

Russia red China and fascist Spain it is a stuffed ballot box The election is already settled before it goes to the polls

This kind of theology simply makes a taunting of the Savior's charge to the people of his day You will not come to me that you might have life

John 540 according to the philosophers of five -point Calvinism It is not that these sinners would not but rather could not all of the whosoever wills in the

Word of God thereby becomes as Meaningless as the mumbo -jumbo of the African witch doctor Yeah This is the kind of election which five -point adherence boast will bring about the greatest glory to God now

I mean, I mean, I mean I was Pretty much all shot by what he had to say and most of his book is very weak in a caricature of the of the reform

Position, but I mean, you know, what what do you say to somebody who is reading this sort of book? I think oh, yeah, that sounds good Well, unfortunately a lot of the books that come out from that camp

Do engage in that type of a caricature and it is interesting that if you take the logic presented there by mr

Sumner that the result of that Is that if you if you take the idea of a stuffed ballot box

Then what he's saying is is that election and used in scriptural terminology is in point of fact

Election as if as we have it in in Western democracies as if God has has

And and this is this is the way that a a pastor I knew years ago would put it

That God has voted for you. The devil has voted against you and the tie votes up to you

That's that's how it was put. Yeah, the problem is that's not How anyone who has studied the

New Testament and deals with the text and looks at the meaning of the text and says wow It says here that he chose us and this is before the foundation the world how you can then transport that into some

Western Democratic style of a of an election quote -unquote and then say that's what they have in Communist Russia communist

China or fascist Spain as he put it there. That's that's a mere demagoguery

That's that's that's rhetoric without meaning and it's I have found the only

The only times that I have found people who have been willing to bow to these truths is the people that I have found

Within them a true desire to bow to the authority of the Word of God and a willingness to go verse by verse through passages and allow the text to say what the text says and When you do that when you walk through John 6

Ephesians 1 Romans 8 and 9 John 8 John 10 so on so forth There's no way to avoid these things but if you do not wish to bow before the text and if you are not willing to invest that and you're

You're more concerned about just finding a way around these things so as to maintain your traditions There's not much you can do in that situation other than pray for an opportunity in the future when

God has changed the heart But till then you're you're arguing to no avail I can Discover that at the end of the day

I mean, I'm so glad that God is in charge and that God is sovereign in because I mean I can't even go through the day without messing something up You know,

I mean to try and sort of say well my salvation is kind of dependent upon me is scary now

Martin I do have a question from our call screener Yeah, they wanted in light of the the issue of election for for us to ask one of our

English friends over there Do you all elect Kings? No, no the no no election there at all.

It's just sort of a sovereign thing, isn't it? Yeah, but one of the things I was thinking if you're thinking about, you know We have a history in England where we kind of understand sovereignty a little bit better than perhaps

Our transatlantic brothers. Yes. Yes, we tend to have the John Wayne mentality We get on our horse and go out in the wilderness and you know, shoot our food for dinner or something

That's and sometimes sadly we tend to transport that kind of thinking directly into our theology and allowing the text to determine it

Well Martin, I appreciate your participation the program and now did you catch the last week's program on the internet?

I did Well, so you heard yourself? Well, I appreciate your calling all the way to participate with us it's time time to go to bed now

All right. God bless. Thanks for calling Margin from what was that Clapford?

Was that was it? I forget Clapgate Clapgate England. That's where that was from At least I think that's right. So let's sneak

Dennis in so he doesn't whine and complain at me again like he did yesterday Hi Dennis, are you on the air?

Hi Dennis, how are you? Yeah, did

I did I hit another Birmingham Birmingham, is that where he's from? Okay. Well, he said

Clapgate last week. Anyways Suburb, yes. Did I did I hit another button today

Dennis? We have a real problem with authority here

I'm thinking we even have a problem with expertise as in father knows best as in divine father knows. No, I know

We can't figure well, okay You know God's God and you know, he knows everything and he's all power and always been all goodness

Well, I am a little sinful here and I am a little finite But did you hear when

I read that tremendous section from Packer and Johnston's prologue that one of the things that they brought out that really struck me when

I read it was we present the gospel today as If we come to God on an equal basis

Yeah, I was just I was thinking I heard the hissing of a serpent in that little God has a vote Devil has a vote you have a vote.

Oh, wow. My vote is equal to God. That's exactly right But people equal to the devils, but we'll ignore that one. Well, we people just don't think about it along those lines they just again, it's it's an issue of tradition and interestingly enough the people who are the most blind to their traditions are the people who think they don't have any and This is an issue where people have very strong traditions and when you challenge those traditions biblically

I'll tell you I got a I got an email this week from an individual who read the debate that I did with Darrell Barksdale on our website on predestination.

Mr. Barksdale is a Mormon and from what this individual said He is not LDS. At least that is his claim

But he is so opposed to Calvinism that his response to me was well My advice to you is don't bother trying to witness to the

Mormons since you're a Calvinist You have nothing to say to them anyways, and so there is a I've known of bookstores

For example that were extremely quote -unquote anti -catholic They really they'd carry all of Jack Chick stuff and all that kind of thing

They would not carry my books on Catholicism because there was only one thing that they hated more than Catholicism and that was

Calvinism, so People have strong traditions and when you challenge those traditions you can get a lot of a lot of an emotional response

You really kind of funny because I didn't know how long ago that that introduction was written by 52

I think 1952 I think Actually 1957 now that I look at it, but well, you know, there's two classic introductions by Packer You've got you've got the one to the death of death by John Owen and then this one to the bondage of the will by Martin Luther and they they deserve to be put into a single book by themselves.

They're so excellent But yeah, you it causes everyone to go. Hmm. How can you say that and then turn around sign

ECT? It's a turn around and find this thing John Armstrong. I I'm not sure if Jay Packard Signed the recent one with John Armstrong or not.

I'm looking across the thing here I'm getting an affirmative from someone who was reading that to me recently and Packer did sign that recent statement.

Yeah. Yes Well, no, it's called Anglicanism my hair that's that's the only explanation is is

Anglicanism lives in two different worlds a very very difficult to explain. Hey Dennis, we need to take a break

Thanks a lot for your participation today and your patience my brother and thanks a lot for calling in We need to take a break.

We'll be right back right after this One Thing you learn over the years is that you need to be careful of your sources and look very carefully at what people are saying

Because when we look through chosen but free we discover that the primary Means that this book uses to get around the doctrine of unconditional election is to deny that faith is a gift of God Faith is something that every man can exercise

Saving faith, which obviously would be pleasing in God's sight is something that every man every woman

Can exercise it is not a gift it is within the capacity of the fallen dead sinner

Because as dr. Geisler puts it he is not so dead that he cannot respond Well one thing's for sure when a person's dead they are so dead that they can't do anything and so we have here not the

Reformed view but the semi Pelagian view of me injured by sin But not dead in sin

We have an implicit denial though there's no discussion of this in chosen but free of Romans chapter 8 that tells us that the natural man cannot do anything that is pleasing in God's sight obviously

Exercising saving faith in Christ would be pleasing in God's sight and so to say that's something that the natural man can do is to deny what

Paul teaches in Romans 8 but When I say you need to check your sources I found it very interesting and I've discovered this that when you when you especially want to try to take a

Well quite simply take a shot at somebody you better be careful because sometimes you make a you make an error and in the

Appendix provided in actually is this yes the appendix number five entitled is faith a gift only to the elect beginning on page 181 on page 182 you have the first passage address and that's

Ephesians chapter 2 verses 8 through 9 and After the quotation I'll just read you what it said here for it is by grace

You have been saved through faith and this not from yourselves. It is a gift of God not by works that no one can boast

Extreme Calvinist often take the it here to refer to faith Mentioned just before this indeed this reference was used by the

Calvinistic Synod of Dort to prove this very point zealous defender of extreme

Calvinism RC Sproul is so confident that this is what the text means that he triumphantly concludes

This passage should seal the matter forever the faith by which we are saved is a gift of God and quote response

The very first section of the response is most interesting It says but even

John Calvin said of this text that quote he does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God or That we obtain it by the gift of God and quote

Hmm that made me immediately go. Well, that's interesting I mean obviously to someone such as myself or to RC Sproul Making that kind of a statement that kind of quotation from John Calvin would would have a fair amount of weight and so I looked it up and Was a little bit disappointed at what

I discovered you see Calvin had discussed this passage.

In fact, he's discussing verse 10 there at the particular point in time

He isn't even actually addressing verses 8 and 9 He has already said things such as ought we not then to be silent about free will and good intentions and fancied preparations and merits and satisfactions

There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men please notice Calvin has said to assert free will is

To claim a share of praise in the salvation of men So that the praise of God of grace would not as Paul shows remain

Undiminished when on the part of man the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone all other means in which men

Are accustomed to rely or discarded Faith then brings a man empty to God that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ And so he adds not of yourselves that claiming nothing for themselves.

They may acknowledge God alone as the author of their salvation But we go to the quote that he actually provided and here's what the actual paragraph says

But it is still more absurd to overlook the Apostles inference lest any man should boast

Some room must always remain for man's boasting so long as independently of grace merits are of any avail

Paul's doctrine is overthrown unless the whole praise is rendered to God alone and to his mercy and Here we must advert to a very common error in the interpretation of this passage many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone

But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment his meaning is not that faith is the gift of God But the salvation is given to us by God or that we obtain it by the gift of God So notice what is not quoted in the appendix and chosen but free is many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone

You see the point of fact is the grammar of the Greek text is very clear And I've always been disappointed because I've seen dr.

Geisler address this for example It's even in his new magnum opus the 800 page book from Baker on Christian apologetics

This managed to sneak in there as well and that is well faith can't be the gift of God in Ephesians 2 8 because The word and that not of yourselves is neuter and faith is feminine

The problem is that I've explained many people is that there is nothing in the first clause that is neuter and As Paul does in other places.

He is using the neuter pronoun to wrap up the entirety of the previous section

Salvation grace faith. It's all a gift of God Not just faith as Calvin said but the entirety of salvation is the gift of God And since in the very passage

Calvin refutes the concept of free will Obviously he would not agree whatsoever with the use of his words in Chosen but free to attempt to get around what this passage is in point of fact actually presenting and that is all praise and all glory and all honor has to go to God because There is nothing from ourselves and remember chosen, but free can look at Romans 9 16 which says therefore is not the one willing or the one running but God who has mercy and Since this book can come with that passage and come up with free will out of that It shouldn't be overly surprising that we can look at Ephesians 2 8 and 9 and come up with the idea that no this faith is somehow an autonomous faith of faith that comes from the heart of any man and is not a part of the regenerating work of the

Holy Spirit of God We'll continue looking at passages that teach that faith is a gift of God and then look at the question

About the love of God the assertion made and chosen but free is if you believe these things

Then you don't believe that God is all -loving is God all -loving or is

God's love so Spread out over everything that he is even less than we are that he can't even exercise freedom in his love

That's a question. We'll be looking at next week here on the dividing line

The dividing line is a presentation of Alpha and Omega ministries You can contact us at 602 9 7 3 0 3 1 8 or you can write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. We are easy to find on the world wide web at www .aomin

.org That's www .aomin .org You can also find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks on our website