The Potter's Freedom Part 1

Dr. Norman Geisler reminds us in a brand new book that belief affects behavior and so ideas have consequences.

Likewise, false doctrine will lead to false deeds, he says. In looking at a particular theological perspective,

Dr. Geisler indicates that this viewpoint leads people to fail to take personal responsibility for their actions.

He also says that this particular viewpoint leads people to blame God for evil.

He says that in point of fact, this viewpoint can have a devastating effect on one's salvation to say nothing of one's enthusiasm to reach others for Christ.

He says that this viewpoint lays the ground for universalism. He says that it undermines trust in the love of God and says, quote, indeed this has been the occasion for disbelief and even atheism for many, end quote.

He likewise indicates that this viewpoint undermines the motivation for evangelism and that it undermines the motivation for intercessory prayer.

In concluding his remarks on this particular perspective, he says that a careful examination of scripture reveals that this viewpoint is unsupported by the many texts employed by those people who promote it.

When properly understood in their context, those passages do not support their interpretation and the fact the

Bible does not present this viewpoint at all. We are told in this book that the position under examination is contradictory, that proponents of this view, quote, go through exegetical contortions in order to make a text say what their preconceived theology mandates that it must say.

He says that the Bible is, quote, seriously lacking, end quote, in verses that support some of the main elements of this system of belief.

He says that these people, quote, misuse, end quote, the text of scripture and he bluntly says that the

God worshipped by these people, quote, is not all loving. He describes central aspects of this belief as, quote, shocking.

And on page 205 of this new book by Dr. Geisler, he even refers to elements of this belief as a hideous error, a hideous error.

What is Dr. Geisler referring to? What horrible belief could be described by all of these words?

This horrible belief, my friends, is called Calvinism. Yes, indeed.

These are all words from a new book entitled Chosen But Free, A Balanced View of Divine Election by Dr.

Norman Geisler. And they are all applied to Calvinism. Now if you have seen the book, you say, not really

Calvinism, instead, extreme Calvinism, a new term that maybe you haven't heard of before because Dr.

Geisler identifies himself as a moderate Calvinist. Well, beginning this week, we're going to be taking a look at this new book called

Chosen But Free, A Balanced View of Divine Election. There are many, many things to look at, many issues to address, but first and fundamentally,

I think the first thing that has to be made clear to anyone who picks up this book to obtain a balanced view of divine election is that you need to know something.

This is not a balanced view of divine election. This is a thoroughly anti -reformed, anti -Calvinistic book.

The author may call himself a moderate Calvinist, but in point of fact, as we will see, the author rejects

John Calvin's doctrine in regards to the sovereignty of God and how that works, that is based upon the decrees of God.

He rejects the concept of the total depravity of man as taught by John Calvin.

He rejects the concept of the unconditional electing grace of God as taught by John Calvin.

He rejects the irresistible grace bringing regeneration to the enslaved will that John Calvin taught.

The only thing that could identify this individual as a

Calvinist in any way, shape, or form is the fact that he does believe in eternal security and he rejects the standard

Arminian viewpoint that God looks down through the corridors of time and elects people on the basis of seeing that they will have faith in him.

However, in four out of the five points of the system known as Calvinism, Dr.

Geisler is opposed to them. So to call someone who is a four -point Arminian a moderate

Calvinist is to completely change the meaning of words and that is,

I think, my first and most fundamental concern about this book. I believe these issues are very, very important and I welcome opportunities to hear a vigorous debate on this subject and to, in fact, dialogue in a vigorous debate on this subject.

I have often in the past purchased Arminian works, works that directly denied the fundamental elements of the faith that I call my own, that I proclaim to others, and obviously as an individual who engages in debates all across the

United States, I can't consistently have any problem whatsoever with someone publishing a book where they present their views and argue for their views, especially when those views are against my own.

But in each one of those instances of those other books that I've purchased, it was very clear from the title or from the opening arguments that this was an argument against the

Reformed position. What I fear in regards to this work is the tremendous amount of confusion that can come into the mind of a person who is attempting to fairly weigh these issues.

Because by calling himself a moderate Calvinist while denying and rejecting the fundamental aspects of the

Reformed faith, Dr. Geisler is in point of fact creating a whole new redefinition of the entire argument.

And it is that redefinition that really concerns me. You see, there is a chapter, an appeal for moderation, an appeal that we would please try to take the center road, shall we say, and not go to extremes.

This use of the term extreme is very popular in our culture today. Nobody wants to be an extremist. You don't want to be an extreme

Arminian, and you don't want to be an extreme Calvinist. Let's all be moderate Calvinists. So what's a moderate Calvinist? It's an Arminian.

In essence, that is exactly what's going on in regards to the definitions provided in this book. But people like this appeal to moderation.

But the result is going to be very, very, very confusing, because I just want you to realize that what this book is going to present to you is that Theodore Beza, Zankeus, the

Westminster Divines, the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, J.

Gresham Machen, B. B. Warfield, Roger Nicole, John Piper, R. C. Sproul, were not actually

Calvinists. They were extreme Calvinists. And now we have a new group called moderate

Calvinists, who reject almost every single thing John Calvin taught on the subject of salvation, and yet can be called moderate

Calvinists. I think the result of this changing of language is going to be a lot of confusion.

I think as we work through the arguments presented here, it will become very, very clear that Dr. Geisler is not a moderate

Calvinist. He is a moderate Arminian. That is, he agrees with four out of the five perspectives of the

Arminian, and on the one point where he believes in eternal security,

I have to wonder at that point exactly how he believes that in light of some other things that he says.

But we're going to be examining these things, and obviously in light of referring to quote unquote extreme

Calvinism and its fundamental assertions as a hideous error, as certain things as shocking, and I could have culled a number of other citations from the book if I had wanted to, it's very obvious that there needs to be a dialogue about this.

Because these are very serious charges. When you talk about things as a hideous error,

I'll have to admit, I don't recall, and I could be wrong, and I should sit down and double check, but I don't recall words like shocking and hideous error being used in Dr.

Geisler's book about Roman Catholicism. And so if it can be used of the

Reformed faith, but not of Roman Catholicism, what does that tell you in regards to the perspectives that are being taken?

I think these are issues, and obviously from my perspective, there needs to be a dialogue and a response, and most importantly, it needs to be done so in a fair manner.

That's why I'm going to quote from the book, and I'm also going to be quoting from the books that are quoted in the book, and hope that the individuals listening today and over the next number of weeks will take the time to maybe jot a few things down, jot down a few references, look at a few things, and judge for yourself.

Now it's interesting, a number of years ago, the late Dr. John Gerstner wrote a book called Wrongly Dividing the

Word of Truth, and R .C. Sproul quotes from this book in his book called

Willing to Believe, the Controversy over Free Will, which is cited in Dr. Geisler's new book.

Dr. Geisler is mentioned by the late John Gerstner, and here's the words that he said. This is from page 115 of Wrongly Dividing the

Word of Truth. God will save as many as God can, quote, without violating their free choice, end quote.

Divine election is clearly dependent on the human sinner's free choice. Norm Indian has ever been more specific in his denial of Calvinistic doctrine than this self -designated dispensational

Calvinist. Geisler not only denies the fourth point, irresistible grace, but unconditional election as well, because emphatically he makes divine election the result of fallen man's free will.

Now the next paragraph I think would have been very, very helpful if it had appeared in Dr. Geisler's new book, because this is an issue that I believe he does not understand in regards to Reformed theology.

Quote, incidentally the Bible, according to the Reformed understanding, does not teach any divine, quote, violence, end quote, to the will of man.

Violence means compulsion and coercion, which Calvinists do not believe any more than do Arminians.

Dr. Geisler does not seem to grasp that fact. This was written in 1991, as I recall, and that seems to be the case in 1999 as well, as we will see when we look at the constant attack upon irresistible grace found in Dr.

Geisler's book. Now, that very same section is quoted by R .C. Sproul in a much newer work called

Willing to Believe. It's a fairly new book. Let me see here, 1997 is the date on that.

And Dr. Sproul makes the following comments. What exactly does Geisler mean when he says that God cannot save all men?

I assume Geisler agrees that God has the power to change the disposition of the fallen sinner's will to the end that the sinner would then believe.

I am confident that Geisler's cannot really means may not. That is, he sees the Reformed view of regeneration and effectual calling as violating the sinner's free will.

Such a violation would not be, quote, right, end quote, for God to do. Since the perfect moral character of God restrains him from doing anything wrong, it follows that God cannot do what he may not do.

In other words, Geisler's cannot is shorthand for will not. God will not act in such a way that violates the free will of man.

This is small consolation to the sinner in hell who would probably be more than willing to have his will violated to get out of that place.

That's Sproul's comment. I continue quoting. The monergistic regeneration, that means one power,

God alone regenerates. The monergistic regeneration of Reformed theology, however, does not violate the sinner's will.

Indeed, it is a change of the sinner's will wrought by the sovereign agency of God. It is precisely this work of God that liberates the sinner from slavery.

It is a strange thing to deem the liberation of an enslaved will as a violation of freedom.

It is God's work of freeing, not violating, that is in view.

That paragraph should have been in this new book called

Chosen but Free, but it is not because that issue comes up over and over and over again.

Now, I turn to the book itself and point out some of the basis upon which this new definition is given.

Throughout the text of the book, it is said that there are individuals who are extreme

Calvinists and that would be R .C. Sproul, that would be John Piper, that would be myself.

These extreme Calvinists are called extreme Calvinists, according to Dr. Geisler, because they disagree with John Calvin on other issues.

Unfortunately, the only issue that is raised at this particular point is the idea of limited atonement.

Now, on page 20 of the book, we have a footnote that says, We should note that theologians we classify as extreme

Calvinists consider themselves simply Calvinists and would probably object to our categorizing them in this manner.

I inject the comment, he is exactly right, we do. I continue. In their view, anyone who does not espouse all five points of Calvinism as they interpret them is not, strictly speaking, a true

Calvinist. Nonetheless, we call them extreme Calvinists because they are more extreme than John Calvin himself and to distinguish them from moderate

Calvinists. On what basis are they, in point of fact, individuals who are extreme

Calvinists? On what basis do they disagree with John Calvin? Well, page 50 says the following,

Even John Calvin was not an extreme Calvinist on this point, for he believed that by Christ's death all the sins of the world have been expiated.

Commenting on the many for whom Christ died in Mark 14, 24, Calvin said, The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race.

This means that people like Jonathan Edwards, John Gerstner, and R .C. Sproul who believe in limited atonement are more extreme than John Calvin, hence they have earned the title extreme

Calvinists. So this is the basis upon which the presentation is made and the assertion is made that these are extreme

Calvinists and therefore there's this other group called moderate Calvinists. Now logically, if that's the only issue, and that is the only issue that I see raised, then a person who would be an

Amaraldian or a four -point Calvinist would be a moderate Calvinist because they'd agree with Calvin, not

Dr. Geisser's perspective where he doesn't agree with any of those other points either except for the perseverance of the saints or eternal security.

So I'm not sure exactly how that works, but throughout the book, this term extreme Calvinism is used to refer to anyone who is a historic

Calvinist. Now I will just mention in passing, and I'm planning on doing an entire program on this later on, probably in the month of July, but I completely disagree with Dr.

Geisser's conclusion that John Calvin taught an unlimited atonement as Dr.

Geisser presents it. In point of fact, I was deeply disappointed because as I look through the book, and as I look through the entire appendix provided that presents quotations from John Calvin, this is as I believe appendix number two in regards to John Calvin, I did not find a single, in fact it's called

Was Calvin a Calvinist? I did not find a single citation of any of the major works currently available on Calvin and the atonement.

For example, Roger Nicole wrote an article in the Westminster Theological Journal in the fall of 1985,

John Calvin's view of the extent of the atonement. There is no interaction with Nicole's survey.

Robert Peterson wrote Calvin and the atonement. There is no citation of that. Paul Helm wrote

Calvin and the Calvinists. There is no reference to Calvin and the Calvinists in the book. There is an entire doctoral thesis that was published as a book in 1990 by Jonathan Rainbow.

Extensive work on the subject of Calvin's view of the atonement, coming to the conclusion that he preached a definite atonement.

There is no discussion of that in the book. It is very, very clear that Calvin connected the work of Christ on the cross with Christ's work as high priest and intercessor, and his comments on Christ's intercession and the results of that intercession are picked up by pretty much any

Reformed theologian writing in the area. John Owen, obviously, in The Death of Death, in The Death of Christ, focused upon this, but there is no discussion of that either.

There is, instead, just a number of quotations with very little commentary attached.

And in fact, just to give you an example, and I'll get back to the main point here in a moment, just to give you an example, at the end of this particular appendix,

Dr. Geisler says, Whatever else Calvin may have said to encourage extreme Calvinism's tulip, he certainly denied limited atonement as they understand it.

For Calvin, the atonement is universal in extent and limited only in its application, namely to those who believe. Now, notice he says he certainly denied limited atonement, except most of the scholars that I read say, well, what we need to determine is his view of the atonement in regards to what he taught about intercession and the intercessory work of Christ and things like that.

And then we might be able to come to some conclusions from that. They are not, any of them talk about the word certainly.

But even this passage is quoted on page 159 of the new book, and this is from John Calvin's commentary on 1

John 2 .2. And just listen to what Calvin says and see for yourself what you think. He put this in for application that believers might be convinced that the expiation made by Christ extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

But here the question may be asked as to how the sins of the whole world have been expiated. I pass over the dreams of the fanatics who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate and even to Satan himself.

Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ suffered as sufficiently for the whole world, but effectively only for the elect.

This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Although I allow the truth of this, I deny that it fits this passage.

For John's purpose was only to make this blessing common to the whole church. Therefore, under the word all in 1

John 2 .2, he does not include the reprobate, but refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth.

For as is meet, the grace of Christ is really made clear when it is declared to be the only salvation of the world.

Now very clearly, Calvin says that he does not believe that the distinction that was prevalent in the schoolman fits this passage.

Instead, he says, therefore, under the word all in 1 John 2 .2, he does not include the reprobate, but refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth.

And when you ask, what did John Calvin believe about who would believe, there's only one answer to that question.

And that is the elect and the elect were chosen by God, not on the basis of foreseeing their faith, but on the basis of a positive decree, an active decree on God's part.

Not merely this idea that God had infallible knowledge of the future and his decree and his knowledge of the same thing, which seems to be what some people would like to present.

He even quotes this particular statement from John Calvin. How can the wicked drink

Christ's blood, which was not shed to expiate their sins, and Christ's flesh, which was not crucified for them?

Well, sounds to me like those passages and many others are very consistent with the concept of definite atonement.

And yet, the entire redefinition of the concept of what

Calvinism is, is based upon saying, well, all those other people are extreme

Calvinists because John Calvin didn't believe in limited atonement. Well, I believe that he did.

And I believe that that particular perspective is completely consistent with what he taught about everything else.

And therefore, I guess the whole basis of redefining who is and who is not a

Calvinist, sort of evaporated to that particular point. Now, since we have a redefinition of terms, there's a lot of confusion presented.

I'd like to look at a section of the book that says, a moderate Calvinist understanding of TULIP.

But how does a modern, I'm sorry, a moderate Calvinist understand the five points of Calvinism?

Well, let's take a look at it. It's pages 116 through 117. T, total depravity, is amply supported by scripture in the moderate

Calvinist sense. All the scriptures used by extreme Calvinists are accepted by moderate

Calvinists. The only difference is that moderates insist that being dead in sin does not mean that unsaved people cannot understand and receive the truth of the gospel as the spirit of God works on their hearts.

That is, it does not in effect erase the image of God, but only effaces it.

Now, I'm not sure what quote unquote extreme Calvinists Dr. Geisler is referring to.

Reformed theology refers to man as the image bearer of God.

It speaks of the effacing of that image, the damaging of that image by sin.

But it does not refer to man as losing the image of God. There is a note that is provided.

Some extreme Calvinists deny they believe the image of God is destroyed and fallen humans. Well, that's quite true.

In fact, the vast majority of Calvinists recognize that, at least formally.

But Dr. Geisler then says, but logically this is what their view demands, and practically this is what they hold.

Well, Dr. Geisler, that is not the case. In point of fact, total depravity simply means that man is spiritually dead.

And we will go through the section where the alleged verses supporting this are presented, but one of the key elements that I gleaned from working through that section earlier was the fact that from Dr.

Geisler's perspective, he seems to understand our viewpoint of total depravity as meaning that not only must man sin, man cannot keep himself from sinning.

And what he means by that is man can't be sinlessly perfect, of course, but it comes across as the idea that man is almost compelled to sin.

But even beyond that, the argument was presented by Dr. Geisler that, well, we see in Romans chapter 1 that men know that God exists, therefore total depravity can't be true.

The problem is that the Reformed perspective is not that man does not know that God exists, but that that knowledge of God is a part of general revelation, it is a part of God's creation, it's in fact,

I would believe, a part of the Imago Dei, the image of God itself. We're talking here about the inability of man to free himself from the slavery of sin.

We're talking about the inability, the phrase, u dunatai, not able, found in John 6, 44.

No man is able to come unto me unless the Father who sent me draws him. There is an inability in man to his deadness and sin.

Interestingly enough, that phrase isn't addressed in regards to John 6, 44. When John 6, 44 is addressed in this book, the only discussion is on the meaning of the word draw, elcuso, and its use in John chapter 12, verse 32, not a sound exegesis of John 6, 44.

Unconditional election, going back to the book, is also held by moderate Calvinists. It is unconditional from the standpoint of the giver, even though there is one condition for the receiver, faith.

Now, how you put those two together will take us into the topic of the second half hour.

We do have one caller on the line, but in the second half hour, I want to attempt to explain to you

Dr. Geisler's rather unique view of the relationship between God's decree, God's predetermination, his sovereignty, and the concept of man's free will, his free agency.

It is an unusual perspective, but it allows him to affirm both things at the same time.

But in essence, I think we need to recognize something, that in light of those citations given by Gerstner from Geisler's work elsewhere, and some of the things that he says in a book,

Predestination and Free Will, Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom, this was by Basinger and Basinger, a 1985

IVP publication, that it is quite clear that what is being said is unconditional election is the provision of salvation, but the condition on the part of the receiver determines whether salvation is actually going to take place, which means that he's using the term election here in a different way than John Calvin did and that Reformed theologians do today.

So there is, again, a redefinition of the term. So far, both the total depravity and the unconditional election don't have the same meanings that they have when we talk about them from the historical standpoint.

The L, even limited atonement, is affirmed by moderate Calvinists in the sense that it is limited in its application.

That is, although redemption was purchased for all and is available to all, nonetheless, it will only be applied to those whom

God chose from all eternity, that is, the elect. I'm getting the indication that I need to pick that point up on the other side of the break.

So stick with us. We'll continue looking at the new book, Chosen but Free, looking at the redefinition of the five points of Calvinism.

We'll be right back. Chosen but Free, a balanced view of divine election, and what it says about the terrible, horrible system that contains hideous errors is shocking, called

Calvinism. In other words, this is a strong frontal attack on the Reformed faith.

I hope everyone realizes that that's what it is so that we can deal with it from that perspective. I hope that a debate can take place that's meaningful on the basis of this, but I just hope people recognize it for what it is.

Now, we were looking at the subjects of the moderate

Calvinist understanding of TULIP, and I had read the L, even limited atonement, is affirmed by moderate

Calvinists in the sense that it is limited in its application. That is, although redemption was purchased for all and available to all, nonetheless, it will only be applied to those whom

God chose from all eternity elect. Now, the problem is that God's choosing them from all eternity is not a positive decree.

It is a simultaneous thing with his knowing that they are going to believe him, and we'll try to get into this, try to explain how

Dr. Geisser can say both things at the same time. I don't believe that you can. I completely accept what

John Feinberg said in Predestination and Free Will, that Dr. Geisser's perspective does not answer the question that is laid before us and is based upon the assumption that you cannot determine the logical relationship between God's decree and God's knowledge of future events.

But also completely missing from the book is a discussion, even though it started to come up once or twice, it would never be dealt with, and we'll look into this, a discussion of the fact that from the

Reformed perspective, the concept of limited atonement is directly related to what the atonement accomplishes.

And one thing you need to realize is that Geisser's position in this book is that the atonement makes man savable.

It makes man savable. And as we get into that, there are two perspectives on that.

There is, at the time of the Reformation, there were two perspectives, that man is savable, and then by his action, he actuates that salvation.

And then there's the viewpoint that God saves. And this is one of the great dividing lines, not to use a pun there, in regards to that particular issue.

This one is the one that blew me away the most. I'll be perfectly honest with you, then we'll go to our calls. Irresistible grace comes in for a tremendous amount of attack in this book.

Back in 1985, in Dr. Geisser's presentation there, he said, irresistible force used by God and his free creatures would be a violation of both the charity of God and the dignity of humans.

God is love, true love never forces itself on anyone, forced love is rape, and God is not a divine rapist.

Those are pretty strong words. They appear again in this book, but the term rape has been removed. In fact, a majority of the presentation from 1985 does appear in this book in slightly edited form.

That's a pretty strong perspective. And over and over and over again, in almost every chapter, there is some sort of attack upon the concept of the irresistible grace of God.

There is some sort of a denial that since man is dead in sin, that God by his grace raises him up.

That God by his grace frees him from the slavery to sin. And that's why

I felt it was so important to read that section from Sproul about what we believe about this, because what we really believe about this is nowhere presented in this book.

Not once. It is badly misrepresented. I think that's probably the worst misrepresentation in the book, is on irresistible grace.

But here's the moderate Calvinistic viewpoint. Irresistible grace is held by moderate

Calvinists. Irresistible grace is exercised on all who are willing, as was stated in chapter 5.

That is, anyone who is receptive to God's work in his heart will be overwhelmed by his grace. Again, anyone who knows what the historical meaning of the phrase irresistible grace is, likewise knows that that is on the exact same level as my saying,

I believe in transubstantiation. I just don't believe that the substance of the bread and wine ever changes.

I don't believe in transubstantiation. But if I want to redefine the term, I guess

I can say that I believe in transubstantiation. And you see, there's so many people struggling with these issues that want to know, well, what is irresistible grace?

Folks, irresistible grace is real simple. Irresistible grace is what happened to Lazarus. Jesus performed irresistible grace when he said,

Lazarus, come forth. Now, was Jesus being violent?

Was Jesus engaging in divine rape? Of course not.

Lazarus was dead. And Jesus, by his divine power, raised him to life.

That's what irresistible grace is. It's taking a person enslaved to sin who's spiritually dead and giving them spiritual life.

Constantly, it said, well, it's against their will. An enslaved will? It's not free?

It has no spiritual life to animate it? I think not. I think not.

This redefinition of terms will lead to nothing but confusion unless someone stands up and says, wait a minute, let's define our terms here.

And I think since we've got about 400 years behind us, those who've been using the term for 400 years have a little better basis for saying, this is how we're using it.

I think that's an important aspect to point out. We have some callers on the line. In fact, we have a call from way back.

Way, way back in Normal, Illinois. I'm not going to say a thing about what normal means,

Chris, okay? This is a good friend of mine, Chris, from back in Normal, Illinois.

As some of you may remember, I went back that direction early this year and bothered them for a few days and they got rid of me very quickly and haven't had me back since.

But actually having me back in October, so I guess that means I wasn't too rough to have around, was

I? We're looking forward to it. All righty. Have you been listening to what I've been saying? Yes, I have.

Yes, I have. You've got my blood boiling. Well, okay, what's your comment today?

Well, I noticed that you were dealing specifically with Dr. Geisler's book,

Chosen But Free, and it seems that quite a few people who reject historic

Calvinism seem to have a problem with the particular redemption. My question, that seemed what you were dealing with, my question is for a proof text, and what your thoughts are about 1

Peter 2, verse 8, with regard to the sovereignty of God and reprobation. Well, specifically, let's let everybody know what that is.

Let me read it from the New American Standard here. And a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

Now, guess what? During the break, since I saw what your question was, I took the time to look up Dr.

Geisler's comments in this book on 1 Peter 2, verse 8, and let me read them to you. This is in chapter three, viewing the alternatives, the twin truths of sovereignty and responsibility.

Now, this is most interesting because the first part of the chapter, most of us would agree with, as long as we don't realize what actually is being said.

Here's the question, stumbling over Christ, both disobedience and destiny. In his first letter, Peter cites

Isaiah. He, Christ, is a, quote, stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.

They stumble because they disobey the message, which is also what they were destined for, 1 Peter 2, verse 8.

With no sense, excuse me, with no sense of difficulty or disjunction, Peter records in the same verse that men reject

Christ, the stone, both because of their own disobedience and because God had destined them to it.

There is no contradiction since God knew exactly what they would freely do.

I heard that. End quote. So, there is the, that's all, that's all the, that's all the discussion of it, is with no sense of difficulty or disjunction,

Peter records in the same verse that men reject Christ, the stone, both because of their own disobedience and because God had destined them to it.

There is no contradiction since God knew exactly what they would freely do. And every time there is a positive action of God's sovereignty found in the text, this becomes the answer.

That is, that from Geisler's perspective, God has perfect knowledge of everything that will take place in time.

So, he has perfect knowledge of the actions of free creatures. Now, when you immediately ask the question, well, wait a minute, then what is the relationship between God's appointment, his predetermination?

What you end up discovering is that from his perspective, there is no relationship, they are one.

In point of fact, and it's in the same chapter, and I know that this book isn't everywhere yet because I've had people looking for it.

Here is, here, here is the key paragraph for you to understand, Chris. God is a simple being.

This is on page 52 and 53, if somebody does have it or if they listen to this on the net and pick it up later.

Pages 52 and 53. God is a simple being, all of whose attributes are one with his indivisible essence.

Hence, both foreknowledge and predetermination are one in God. Whatever God knows, he determines.

And whatever he determines, he knows. More properly, we should speak of God knowingly determining and determinantly knowing from all eternity, everything that happens, including all free acts.

For if God is an eternal and simple being, then his thoughts must be eternally coordinate and unified. According to the moderate

Calvinist view, whatever God forechooses cannot be based on what he foreknows, nor can what he foreknows be based on what he forechose.

Both must be simultaneous, eternal and coordinate acts of God. Thus, our actions are truly free and God determined that they would be such.

God is totally sovereign in the sense of actually determining what occurs and yet man is completely free and responsible for what he chooses.

Now, you got to chew on that one for a while. You can't, there's a much fuller presentation of it in Predestination and Free Will, the

Basinger -Basinger book from 1985. It is available. I picked mine up from either Barnes &

Noble or Amazon online, one of the two. Just grabbed it like that, came very quickly. But in essence, the argument is you cannot distinguish between God's decree and God's knowledge of future events.

My problem with that is that it's based upon saying that God is one. Yes, God is one in his being, but his attributes are not one.

For example, God is justice. God is just. He is holy.

God is also merciful. Logically, I think you can follow that. Logically, there is a difference between justice and mercy.

Logically, there is a relationship between justice and mercy. You don't need mercy unless justice has brought condemnation.

In a sense of logical priority, justice comes before mercy. Since these are both attributes of God, he is just and he is merciful, yet you can distinguish between them, then we can ask the question of Dr.

Geisler, does God predetermine because he foresees or does he foresee because he predetermines?

In essence, what it boils down to, Chris, is that from Geisler's perspective, predetermination is passive. That is,

God determined it was going to happen not by a positive decree, but by relationship to these free acts of men.

When you see that he denies unconditional election and irresistible grace and things like that, it's quite clear this is simply a spin on the

Arminian viewpoint. It's a lot more complex, harder to understand, but functionally, it ends up saying the same thing.

Well, I have a question. How tenable of a position is this, this foreknowledge route? And the reason I ask is because,

Ken, is there a future, so to speak, that God can look into to accomplish these things?

And do you see where I'm going with here? I think so, and I'm going to have to put you on hold for just a moment, and we've got a couple other callers, but I'll answer your question right after this break.

We'll be right back. We're talking about the subject of Calvinism today, and I was talking with Chris in Normal, Illinois, about the issue of 1

Peter 2 .8 and all those things that come up from there, and I understand what you're saying. Just briefly,

Chris, I would just, we've got two other callers online I need to get to, but very quickly, the meaning of the term foreknowledge does come up in the book, and again, this is another one of my criticisms, that is, one of the things that I was deeply disappointed with was the fact that there is no evidence, or no,

I'll take that back, there is no section of the book that shows a familiarity with Reformed apologetics in regards to how

Reformed people defend their position, and one of those issues had to do with dealing with the meaning of prognosco and the meaning of foreknowledge.

Obviously, we need to be very careful in differentiating between the biblical use of foreknown and foreknowledge and the philosophical use.

Most of the time, those two terms end up getting mixed up and everything becomes massive confusion. Dr. Geisser does try to get around the meaning of foreknown as foreloved.

I think he fails to do so, and I will point that out in time, but certainly, the question

I think everyone has to ask themselves is, everyone agrees that God, well, I'll take that back, Orthodox Christians believe that God has perfect knowledge of future events.

There are all sorts of people today offering all sorts of alternatives to that, but Christians have always believed that God had perfect knowledge of future events.

The question is, why? Does he have a magic crystal ball where he's observing from the outside the form of the future, sort of, it took its own shape, and God just has knowledge of that?

Or does God have perfect knowledge of future events because God is the creator of all things, including time itself?

That is the issue that people need to deal with. Okay? Yeah, thanks, James. Hey, thanks for calling in today.

God bless. Let's go real quickly to Dennis in Phoenix. Hello, Dennis. How are you, sir?

Great, how are you? Well, I'm doing all right, trying to get through all my notes here, and try to stay somewhat organized.

There's so many things to say that it's hard to know where to begin. As long as we're redefining terms, maybe from now on I'll call up and say, hey,

I'm a Trinitarian Jehovah's Witness, or hey, I'm a Mormon Monotheist. You need to speak up just a little bit.

The guys in the booth are going, we can't hear you. Okay, how's that? That's a little better.

Well, that is one of my main problems. I mean, when you can take a phrase that has a specific historical meaning, such as irresistible grace, and turn it around and say, yes,

I believe in irresistible grace. It's irresistible to those who are willing. That totally divorces the entire phrase from its historic usage.

And I don't know that it carries any meaning whatsoever. So yeah, that was one of my major frustrations as I read through, is that if people go read

The Justification of God by John Piper, or they go read Chosen by God by R .C. Sproul, then they read this.

There's going to automatically be confusion because the terminological differences. Well, I don't mean to sound judgmental, but it's just flaming humanism to me.

Flaming humanism. Well, I don't think Dr. Geisel would call it flaming humanism, but I would say that in a number of places where exegetical concerns should have been raised, it was philosophical concerns that ended up being the key issue.

Well, the thing is, it's like, well, we've got to be free, and we've got to be free according to this definition, and that makes me feel good, and I do not conceive of a

God who would quote -unquote violate my free will. I mean, basically, it's creatures are running the show, and God just watches. Well, I think if you push it to its final logical conclusion, yes,

God's knowledge of future events is passive in this system. He knows what free creatures are going to do, so yes,

God is watching. And so God's predetermination ends up being, well, something less than the sovereign decree of God that we see in Scripture.

There's no two ways about that. Well, it's semi -warmed over deism. Well, no, I wouldn't say it's semi -warmed over deism.

But I want to try to be as balanced and fair as possible,

Dennis. I don't understand how the system works because I do not believe that the distinction that Dr.

Geisser draws in saying you cannot determine a logical relationship between God's decree, his predetermination, and God's knowledge,

I don't think that holds. It doesn't make any sense. It certainly doesn't come from a biblical perspective, and I don't think it logically holds.

But one thing is for certain, I think what people need to understand is moderate

Calvinism, as defined in this book, is actually moderate Arminianism as defined in every other book on the subject.

And therefore, if they embrace moderate Calvinism according to this book, they're actually embracing moderate

Arminianism according to every other book. And I just think that confusion is something that needs to be addressed.

People just need to understand, hey, this book's using terms in a way that no one else has ever used it. And that's an important element.

And I've been thinking lately, I don't know how you get a neutral human will anyway. I mean, a person is neutral. I mean, they're not leaning one way or the other.

Well, you're going to be in limbo forever. And if you're inclined toward evil, well, then you'll go to evil. And if you're inclined toward choosing

God, then you'll choose God. And so if a person is saved, well, they must be inclined toward good, so therefore it's meritorious.

Well, that whole issue comes up a lot as to who acts and all the rest of this stuff. It does come up in the book.

But of course, once you come to the point, and I looked for it, I know I read it, so I don't think

I'm misrepresenting it. I need to find the exact page again. I'll have it next week. But there is a statement in here where Dr.

Geisler, in referring to the issue of man's deadness and sin, says that we are not so dead that we cannot do

X, Y, or Z. The degrees of deadness? The degrees of deadness defense that I have encountered before when

I debated James Barker on the subject of these issues on Long Island, he also said we're not that dead.

And I've always found that to be a fascinating direction to go. That type of thing.

Hey, Dennis, I got another call. I got to go real quick. Thanks for calling in today. All righty, bye -bye. And this is

Bill and Glendale. Bill, we got just a few minutes left. What can I do for you? Thank you, Dr. White. I just have a question.

Maybe it goes along with what the last caller said. And I don't mean this in any argumentative sense.

I'm trying to be an understander of the Bible and of the Scripture and of predestination.

And I was wondering in Romans chapter one, where Paul wrote to the Romans in verse 16, he said, for I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the

Jew first and also to the Greek. So I just wondered, does that verse mean that the gospel itself has the, within itself, has the power to, for those who believe, that they can be regenerated because of the power of the gospel?

Now, in other words, the last person said about a neutral will, a person is a neutral will, but when they hear the gospel, if they believe that, that the gospel itself has the power to regenerate them.

Well, I don't think you can differentiate between the gospel and the power of God. They're identified as being the same thing.

It is God who regenerates, and he does so through the proclamation of the gospel.

He doesn't just willy -nilly regenerate a person over here apart from the gospel and regenerate a person over here with the gospel.

It is his revelation that he does so through the gospel, through the proclamation of his word.

The question is, in regards to who can believe, one of the things that unfortunately we don't like to talk about, but the

Bible presents it over and over again, is the fact that the Lord Jesus spoke much of the inabilities of man.

He said that no one is able to come to me. Paul also talked about the inabilities of man.

He says there is no God -seeker, for example, in Romans 3, verse 11. The question is, what is the relationship between man's inability and faith?

One of the things I haven't mentioned yet today is that Dr. Geisler in this book stridently includes an appendix and repeats over and over again during the course of the book,

Calvinists are wrong to believe that faith is a gift. Every man is capable of having saving faith.

It is not a gift. Many of us would point to many passages of Scripture that would say that saving faith is a part of the work of God in the heart of his elect people.

As Paul said to Thessalonians, not all men have faith. This saving faith that actually saves a person,

I believe, is the gift of God, and it is a faith that has an object, and that is

God and his promises, which is delivered in the gospel message. It's all one package. You can't start dividing stuff up and putting it on a flow chart and doing stuff like that.

But one thing is certain, when Paul says, I'm not ashamed of the gospel, for it's the power of God, the salvation of everyone who believes, to the

Jew first and also to the Greek, his point is, it is the power of God only to those who believe.

I went way over my time. Thanks a lot for calling in today. Thanks for listening. We'll continue this subject next week here on The Dividing Line.