Radio Free Geneva Jumbo Edition: Steven Anderson on Limited Atonement; WLC on Loving God

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing.

I don't like Calvinists because they've chosen to follow John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. I have a problem with them.

They're following men instead of the Word of God. Our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.

And I have prepared, standing on top of my feet, standing on a stump and crying out,

He died for all those who elected, were selected. For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us low.

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

Well, first of all, James, I'm very ignorant of the reformers.

On earth is not his equal. I think

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

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

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever.

Were not the right man on our side, the man of God's own choosing.

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

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

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

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

Lord Sabbaoth his name. Read my book. From age to age the same.

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

Safe from those moderate Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who've read and re -read George Bryson's book.

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

And we're still working on the Bruton Parker spot there. The ground's a little bit hard right now because they've had so many hard freezes there in the snow and stuff.

It's been hard to get the workers in, especially because the only way we can get the workers in is if they're dressed as Jehovah's Witnesses.

And so it's really slow going, because they're having to use rolled -up watchtowers to dig out.

And it's real slow, it really is. But they're dedicated. They are very dedicated.

Every one of them is a former student of Eric N. Cannon that wants their money back. That's what we're working on.

Welcome to Radio Free Geneva. I had not thought about that before we got started. I have a special guest in studio with me today.

This morning I was playing one of his favorite videos for folks in our channel. It was this amazing video of a squirrel on a

Yankee flipper that just would not give up. It just kept sitting there. I almost threw up for the squirrel as I watched this, because it just went around and around.

And we're talking. I don't know. I could only watch for about two and a half minutes before I was starting to get queasy.

And I just could not imagine that little teeny tiny squirrel brain, what it was experiencing.

But your name actually is not Squirrel. It is not actually

Squirrel. That is amazing. It's in your idea. I see. Actually, I haven't told it.

It's actually Gene. What's going to happen here is we're going to launch off a bunch of speculation here on the part of conspiracy theorists.

Because you're one of the few nasty people that has posted stuff on the web about him.

Yes, I have. And so his people always listen to this program.

I think they're looking for me. Yeah. And so now they're going to go, uh -huh, uh -huh. And then they're going to know that I actually spoke up at Reformation Montana last year.

And that I met that other guy. The other guy. The other guy with the guns.

Yeah, that scary guy. And so they're going to put it all together and realize it's a cabal. Am I the first actual

Southern Baptist to ever visit this studio? No. No. No.

I'm thinking. I'm thinking. I just might be. I know Tarleton Fanda is not a

Southern Baptist. No, that would not be the case. And let's see.

John Samson's not a Southern Baptist. Never has been a Southern Baptist. I don't think

I've had Jeff Neal on, because he was once years and years ago. I don't think.

No, you might be the first Southern Baptist to have found the bunker. That's a possibility. It was hard.

Well, it's meant to be that way. It's specifically designed to be that way. Because if you could find it easily, then lots of people could be.

If I hadn't bribed Rich with In -N -Out Burger, I never would have gotten there. That is true. Fred Butler has tweeted to you already.

Will you guys be doing the squirrel racing today? Not on four hours sleep.

Yes, yes. Radio -free squirrel. Now with more nuts from Wonky. So you do have your fans out there,

I guess. But they can't see you, unfortunately. Because the tilt and pan mechanism on the cheapo camera over there really doesn't exist.

There actually is a little bit of one. I'd try it, but I'm afraid I'd freeze the whole computer up. Well, digitally you can do that.

But you'd have to pan over to catch them. I've actually tried that in tests before while we're running

Wirecast. And suddenly the computer, which is being stressed right at the moment, would probably just freeze up and game over.

My chair's on wheels. I can co -ordinate. Can you see that?

You got that now? No? You've got to go all the way over to here. Yeah, there you go. Okay, now we got you.

I just wanted people to know I was not doing a really good ventriloquism thing here. That screenshot will end up on a

Bruton Parker bulletin board someplace. Dart board. And shoot on sight.

Have you seen this squirrel? Yes, Lumpy's printing it out right now. Yeah, something like that.

That'd be great. Anyway, Radio Free Geneva, that's what we're here for. So Squirrel says he's just here for the comic relief.

When I get bored or something like that, I can throw it in. You do the serious analysis.

I make the comic asides. Okay, all right. I'll do my best for that. But we do have some interesting material.

I was directed, again, on Twitter. I should be very careful what

I click on on Twitter. Oh, by the way, before we jump in, I'm sorry,

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I did want to mention something.

Because last evening, I tweeted a prayer request for Dr.

Michael Brown. And I wasn't able to explain why, but since he has gone public with it now,

I can. Because nobody can stop it now, because it's over. But Michael told me back when we debated in Spain back in January, that he had an opportunity and was at that time working on firming up an opportunity that was just incredible.

And that was that friends of his, people who knew his expertise in the field of homosexuality, biblical response, defense of Christian marriage, over against the homosexual agenda, etc.,

etc., you know that his book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, still one of the best books available on that subject, and I've highly recommended it to you, that he had friends in Peru who had contacted him and asked if he would take advantage of an opportunity.

And the opportunity was to appear before the entire

Congress of the nation of Peru to speak on the subject of human sexuality and marriage from a

Christian perspective. Obviously, Peru, like every other nation in the world, has people who are pushing it to redefine marriage, to profane marriage, as is being done via judicial fiat here in the

United States. And, you know, I immediately recognized that if Michael did this, and if his time there was blessed and the nation voted to not extend these rights and these redefinitions, it's not a right, it's to completely redefine the very nature of rights, that it could be very costly for Michael back here in the

United States. I mean, do not underestimate the tremendous zeal that the homosexual lobby and the homosexual forces will exert against someone.

And if you were to have a role in something like that, you would just be demonized.

Not argued against, because we already know that Michael can handle himself on that. We saw what he did to Pierce Morgan.

But he would just be demonized. And obviously, he recognized that as well and decided that it was well worth the risk.

He's in the Lord's hands. And so that took place today. I have not heard what the results have been.

I mean, obviously, I don't expect some news today as far as what Peru does, but I haven't heard back from Michael yet as to how he felt things went.

He is in Lima right now. And I recall my internet access in Lima was highly sporadic anyways.

So maybe during the course of the program, I'll hear back from him. I've dropped him a note to ask him how he felt that it went.

But I certainly had been praying for that opportunity ever since January, and I hope you saw my request last evening and prayed for it as well, and now pray that the word would have its effect there.

And likewise, if the homosexual movement comes after Michael Brown for daring to speak the truth in that area,

I think there needs to be some serious standing with a brother on that subject against the attacks that will come.

So that was just today. Michael had contacted me as he got on the plane yesterday, and so I've certainly been praying for that opportunity.

So I wanted to mention that, and we'll be looking with great interest at what is going to happen in the future.

Now, yeah, Farshad says in Channel, I wish our own Congress would listen to Michael Brown for two hours on that subject, and every member of Congress read his book.

Me too. Believe you me. But we already know that there is a sizable minority in that body that have no interest in hearing what he has to say, or what we have to say.

They are already very intent upon promoting the redefinition and profaning of marriage and the destruction of that godly institution which they gift from God.

That is their intention, and that is the reality. Now, Radio Free Geneva dealing with attacks upon Reformed theology, and I was directed last evening on Twitter to a three, not quite four minute clip of Pastor Steven Anderson.

Yes, Pastor Steven Anderson. I saw another trailer promo for the new movie.

They showed it somewhere in California, and again, we're talking little teeny tiny churches with storefront type little single churches, 50, 60 people, but filled with eight and nine year olds telling us that we need to be

King James only, which I guess is their version of, well, they had this one guy who was probably 40 or something going,

I've never heard about any of this stuff before. That's amazing. Yeah, I'm going to take his word for it.

I'm going to adopt an entire perspective on biblical translation based on that. So anyway, but Steven Anderson, as you know, has some very unique views.

I was unaware, unfortunately, when we did the interview a while back, that he is strongly opposed to repentance as a part of the gospel, which means he has no gospel at all.

But we did know for a very long time that he was strongly opposed to Calvinism.

You may recall the pulpit kicking incident where he kicked the pulpit, and I asked him if the pulpit was damaged by that, and he said no, but he didn't even know which one it was because I guess he's kicked the pulpit many times.

So he loses it, and he sort of loses it in this one too. At least he has the option now of just going, well, it's because I was tased.

When those cops reached through that window, I've just never been the same ever since then. That did look painful.

I'm sure it is. I'm sure it is very painful, and it probably has had an effect.

We could ask Ergen Kanner. He's been tased. Well, I really am not certain that that actually took place from what

I've heard, but anyway, that's another issue. But he posted a video, or someone posted a video called,

Hard Preaching Against Limited Atonement. So I listened to it, and I just sort of like, okay, that's hard preaching, huh?

All right. It's loud preaching, but I don't consider loud and hard necessarily to be synonymous things.

Then I looked at the tags on the video, and there's only one name other than his in the tags, and it was mine.

So he talks about people in here, but he doesn't name them, but mine's the only name in the tags.

So you can sort of figure out who he's talking about. So let's listen to the whole thing here, and then

I'll go back through it. There's only really two verses to look at really closely, the only ones he really read.

It's more of the scattergun type thing, but here's Stephen Anderson, Hard Preaching Against Limited Atonement.

Hebrews 2 .9, but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man.

So did Jesus just die for certain people? I mean, how can you call yourself a Bible -believing Christian and say,

I believe the Bible's the word of God, and then look at this verse, Hebrews 2 .9, and say

Jesus didn't die for everybody. You're a liar is what you are. You're a false prophet is what you are.

You don't believe this book. You believe in lies written by man. Whether that man's named

John Calvin or whatever his name is, you are believing in lies and heresy. Let me tell you something.

Jesus Christ tasted death for every man. I believe it. Do you believe it? Anybody who doesn't believe it is rejecting the

Bible. They're just rejecting the Bible. I mean, they're just looking at the Bible and say, he tasted death for every man.

They just say, no, he didn't die for everybody. That's a lie, and we've seen how many scriptures.

1 Timothy 2, he said it twice. 1 Timothy 4, Titus chapter 2, Romans 5, Hebrews 2, 1

John 2, he died for all. He died for all. He died for all. He died for all. He died for the world. He died for the world.

Every man. Every man. Limited atonement. Let me explain to you why two people cannot be punished for the same sin.

Shut up, you intellectual fool. You uber intellectual. You Dr. Fat Bottom from so -and -so the seminary with all your degrees and all your accolades of man.

You are a fool. And you know what? If any man think himself to be wise, let him become a fool.

Because you know what? The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. And all these man -made, logical, rational arguments against Jesus dying for everybody are the foolishness of the world.

It's nonsense. Look at 2 Peter chapter 2. I will prove to you yet again.

I mean, we've already proved it sufficiently. Let's prove again that Jesus died for the unsaved.

He died for everybody. He died for the lost. Look if you would at 2 Peter chapter 2. You say, well, are

Calvinists saved? You know, it makes me doubt the salvation of anybody who can look at Hebrews 2 and 9 and just not believe it.

I mean, look, if somebody walked up to me and said, I believe in evolution, wouldn't you doubt their salvation?

If somebody came to you and said, I believe in evolution, wouldn't you doubt their salvation? You'd be like, well, it doesn't sound like you believe the Bible. You know what

I mean? You're coming to me and telling me you believe in evolution. That's not what the Bible says. It sounds like you don't believe

God's word. Someone on Twitter just said, man, sounds like he needs a hug.

And then somebody comes to you and says, well, I don't believe Jesus died for everybody. That's they're not basing that on scripture.

They're just basically just denying the word of God. I mean, you know, why wouldn't I doubt the salvation of someone who believes this stuff?

You know, that's you say, well, I can't believe you say that. Look, anybody who's saved can understand the word of God because the

Holy Spirit will guide them in all truth. How can you read the Bible and not understand that Jesus died for everybody?

You know, so therefore it does make you doubt their salvation. Look at Second Peter, chapter two, verse one.

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you who privilege shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the

Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction. They're denying the Lord that bought them. So did Jesus pay for them?

But are they saved? Well, look at the last part of verse three. Their damnation slumbereth not. These people are described in Jude as being twice dead.

These people, for them is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. Yet the

Lord bought them. Yet he paid for their sins because he died for all. Let me just quickly, I'm going to have to skip a point for time.

And that's where that particular clip ended, was right there.

Basically only covering Hebrews 2 .9 and Second Peter 2 .1. Though he mentioned all the other big ones just in passing.

Evidently, maybe he had already dealt with them or did the same thing he did with these, which is you read it and go, well, that's plain.

Anybody can see that. And then you just move on. Now, some of you look at that and go, you know, you shouldn't deal with this.

The problem is the majority of anti -reformed diatribes are of this nature.

They are based upon ignorance. They are based upon this kind of argumentation where you misquote the

Bible in the sense of going, well, you know, the wisdom of man. What you're really doing when you quote those texts, you're saying, well,

I'm giving you wisdom, but it's God's wisdom. And the position I disagree with, I'm not going to explain to you how their position's wrong.

I'm just going to identify their position as the wisdom of the world and therefore expect you to dismiss them.

I mean, that's cultic thinking. I've seen it amongst the Mormons many, many times, and Anderson does represent the cultic branch of King James -only -ism.

And so, you know, it works for that kind of an audience, unfortunately. But that gives you an idea of the kind of sermonizing that you have.

Now, some people say, you know, why don't we just stick to higher end stuff? I did want to mention, I apologize,

I was going to do this right at the top of the program, then I got distracted by rodents in the office here.

But before I get back to that, you know, when people address these subjects, very often

I mention on the blog this morning, people will say, well, you know, Pastor Anderson mentioned 2

Peter 2. Could you direct me to some books I could read on this? People think that if you're online, you're an online bibliography machine.

You know, I thought Google worked the same for everybody, but evidently not. I mean, it's amazing how many people, well, what about this?

I know what they're wanting me to do. They're wanting me to cut through their Google responses by saying, well, this is the best and that's the best, so on and so forth.

I mentioned on the blog this morning 2 resources. Logos just came out with a new one and there's one that's been out for quite some time.

That if you enjoy Radio Free Geneva and you want to have resources, now, they're both electronic, so those of you who are

Calvinists and you just love sitting in your library and looking around at your silent books and going, there's my

Puritan paperbacks and there's my Calvin commentaries. Look at how many shelves that takes up.

If you're one of those folks that just sits there sniffing at the smell of the pages and doing that kind of thing, you're not going to really like these resources because they're electronic and so they don't take up shelf space and you can't turn the pages and things like that.

I realize you folks are just sort of out of it. The resource has been around for a long time.

It's called the Puritan Hard Drive and it is a PDF -based massive library of obviously primarily

Puritan works, but other works as well, all from a reformed perspective. If PDF is your way of doing things, if you know how to utilize

PDFs, and stuff like that, then the Puritan Hard Drive is well worth your taking a look at.

Just Google Puritan Hard Drive and you will find all sorts of videos about it, things like that.

But Lagos just put out a huge, massive, I think the highest, it comes in different gradations, so you've got your basic and then you've got gold and platinum and so on and so forth.

If I recall correctly, the platinum has 997 volumes in it, which includes,

I didn't put the two side by side, but I would imagine that the Lagos collection has a lot of commentaries and things that might not be the

Puritan Hard Drive. The Puritan Hard Drive probably has more Puritan works and stuff that would not be. I have not compared the two.

I'm sure you can do that for yourself. Just open two browser windows and put them side by side and you can see.

But if you already are invested in Lagos, as many of us are, then that particular resource would be a real nice way of grabbing a bunch of stuff rather than getting them individually, because when you get them as groups, they're less expensive.

So I linked on the blog to the Lagos and the

Puritan Hard Drive links. You can take a look at those. Because, hey, face it. You today could carry around on your laptop, or if they keep increasing the size of the drives and the iPad, eventually on your iPad as well, libraries of Reformed works that weren't even available only a few decades ago in any one library.

That's what is amazing. Now, just having access to the information doesn't mean that you're going to take it all in or even understand all of it, but it is nice to be able to do searches and to be able to find out what people said about X, Y, and Z, and about text and things like that as well.

So hit the blog, see the links for that. If you want to stop asking me for bibliographical productions on the fly in our chat channel or things like that.

Now, getting back to Steven Anderson here, we're going to replay this, and that may be painful for you to have to go through this while we replay it, but this time we'll stop and start and we'll respond.

But before I do so, I want to point something out. Evidently, I'm Dr. Fat Bottom, and those of you who know me know that that's not really the most accurate description of the guy.

Folks, the dude bikes like 300 miles before breakfast most days. That's a little bit of exaggeration.

A little bit of an exaggeration, yes. Okay, you're obviously not picking up on the double entendre that he's using there.

Freddie Mercury, certain kinds of women ride bicycles.

The song name was Fat Bottom Girls. You're right. So that's the double entendre he's using there.

He's backhandedly referring to your cycling. Really? Yes. I had no idea. Yes. Now isn't that funny that the independent fundamentalist

Baptist separatist knows Freddie Mercury, and I have no earthly idea. I know

Freddie Mercury sang a song about champions. Yeah. Am I right about that?

Yeah. That's the only one I know. Yes, there is in the song Fat Bottom Girls, there is the line, get on your bikes and ride.

Wow, there you go. Thank you. I'm glad that in your pagan years you knew that.

Well, we'll just leave it at that, that it was pagan years. Yes, it was. Well, there you go.

So I'm Dr. Fat Bottom. And, yeah,

Tquid and Channel just said, my log off software always takes forever to index the books. Yeah, mine too. I will confess that that is a problem that I have as well.

But it's a good problem to have, I guess. But anyways, okay, so I am definitely Dr. Fat Bottom with all the degrees and all the rest of that stuff.

So that's me, myself, and I. So aside from the rather childish element of it, which we've already seen that in sticking my face on the screen when you're talking about the devil and all the rest of that kind of stuff that Anderson and his gang does, that's just part of that mindset.

King James -only -ism produces aberrant behavior on the part of the people that get really deeply into it.

But more importantly than all of that, yeah, people are making fun of my deer -in -the -headlights look about that.

Sorry! I actually...

Anyways, I wasn't good at that. The key issue for me here, for the person who really wants to know what the

Bible teaches and doesn't just want the surface level, let's read one verse, let's not ask questions, let's not think, you know, just read one translation of the

Bible, believe what the pastor of your church says, and that's the extent of it. The person who wants to go beyond that and actually understand

Scripture and read all of Scripture, it's funny, in both of the texts we're going to notice the very next verse pretty much refutes what was said from the preceding verse.

This kind of quote -unquote preaching where you're yelling at people and intimidating people, it's rife for this kind of abuse of the text of Scripture itself.

But what have I said over and over again about this particular subject of the Atonement? We're going to be looking at Dr.

Allen, David Allen's presentation at Liberty. I've already played you a few clips from it, but more in -depth.

And one of the things that I noted in criticism of Dr. Allen's presentation is that he separated intention and extent and dealt with extent before intention.

You can't do that. You will never come to understand and have a fully biblical understanding of the

Atonement if you start with, well, I'm going to talk about extent before I ever talk about intent.

Think about that. When you think about what God does in almost any situation, isn't

His intention in doing so more logically basic to then asking questions about the extent of His action?

Now, one may shed light upon the other, obviously, but especially when it comes to this issue.

My assertion has been for a long time that the vast majority of evangelicals spend far more time talking about extent than they ever do about intent if they have ever even once been challenged to think about what was the triune

God's intention as that Roman soldier raised that mallet for the first time to drive that first nail into the body of the sinless

Son of God. What was God's intention at that point? Did He even have an intention?

Now, it's not that these folks are not giving an answer to that question. They are. The problem is, they're giving it 99 % of the time presuppositionally and out of ignorance, not out of actual examining the text of Scripture and coming to a solid conclusion on the subject.

They are assuming that the intention of God was to make all men savable, but even then that doesn't work, does it?

Because you immediately have to then ask the question, was it the intention of the triune

God to make those millions of people who had already died before the crucifixion, savable?

Is that really what God was intending to do? Well, it would make them savable if they had believed,

I suppose might be one approach. If they had believed in God's revelation through the

God of Israel, like Abraham did, then now they're made savable and so their faith allows them to be saved,

I guess. But, isn't not a mockery of God's intention to say that the intention of the triune

God in the sacrifice of Christ was to make the Amorite high priest who had been under the punishment of God for a thousand years at this point in time, savable?

Why? He's already under the punishment of God. So, they've never been challenged to think about this.

They've never been challenged to think this through. And even leaving the past behind, when you then come to the current situation, are you really comfortable saying that the intention of God was simply to make a hypothetical atonement so that salvation would be a possibility?

That's what they're saying, whether they want to admit it or not, whether they've even thought about it or not. The sad thing is,

I doubt there's almost anybody in the audience of Stephen Anderson's church over there in Tempe who has ever even been challenged to think about the intention of God in the atonement of Jesus Christ.

What was his intention? What was he trying to do? That doesn't come up. That doesn't come up.

What you have with both of the texts that are cited, reading of the text, no exegesis of the text, you simply read the text within a context that communicates what you think the meaning is.

This sermon was evidently all on the same subject. So, if you want to be in the group, then you need to get with the program and read the text the way the guy yelling at the front of the room is reading the text.

That's why I say this kind of quote -unquote preaching is rife for abuse and rife for cultism.

It really is. It's frightening.

So let's listen again and this time we'll respond. So did

Jesus just die for certain people? I mean, how can you call yourself a Bible -believing Christian and say,

I believe the Bible's the word of God and then look at this verse, Hebrews 2 .9 and say

Jesus didn't die for everybody? You're a liar! Okay, let's see if we're a liar or if maybe the text goes, yeah,

I'm going to freeze him right there. Isn't that a good shot? If maybe the text says a little bit more than Pastor Anderson has allowed it to say.

But we do see him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely

Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor.

Now stop for a moment. Why is Jesus crowned with glory and honor?

Because of death. I would suggest to you that a fully biblical response to that has to involve the accomplishment of the intention of the

Father in his death, which was not merely making atonement possible or salvation possible.

Especially in the book of Hebrews. The book of Hebrews, he is able to save the uttermost those who draw nigh unto

God by him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. By that one will, by that one sacrifice he perfects for all time.

So only by ignoring the rest of the book can you come up with this kind of simplistic reading.

Because the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor by the grace of God.

Now let me mention I think it would be inappropriate Let me wake

Squirrel up here. Hebrews 2 .9, do you remember some other guy that really likes to talk about Hebrews 2 .9?

I've had four hours of sleep. No, his name is not, I've had four hours of sleep.

No, I'm sorry, that doesn't work. How about, so that by the grace of God.

Sound familiar at all? It does sound familiar. Yes, and you're going to go, oh yeah. This is one of Bart Ehrman's big texts.

It is. Because the Greek is hapos karati theou and he recognizes he points out that there is a very small number of manuscripts that say koros theou, apart from God or separated from God and he makes this big, huge case about changing the entire meaning of the book of Hebrews based upon the difference between karos and koros.

So I just want to mention that. Obviously Anderson doesn't bring it up and probably could care less.

And of course anyone who is taught by people like Anderson are going to be utterly incapacitated to engage in apologetic dialogue with the world of Bart Ehrman's.

Now what people like Anderson and his church have is a theological anemia.

Oh yeah. It's incredibly shallow and as a result I can't tell you how many people who came out of a fundamentalism like this

I've encountered who are now atheists and things like that because they just found somebody who could yell louder and longer.

And if that's what your authority is then there's your problem. So that by the grace of God huper pantas gyusetai thanatu in behalf of all he might taste death.

Now obviously the question is all of who? And whether independent fundamentalist

Baptist anti -Calvinist want to admit it or not there are many places in the

New Testament especially because huper is used here so this is substitutionary. Pas pasapan or in its form here pantas has a meaning that is other than universally every single human being who has ever lived.

And logically and rationally to the mind that is not being forced to a conclusion by yelling and screaming but wants to come to a conclusion based upon reason rather than emotion.

And notice he's going to go off about logic and theology and all the rest of that stuff.

Well you know God made us as logical creatures and he will demand you use logic at other points in time.

So he's grossly inconsistent at this point. But again what does pantas mean?

When it says for everyone that could mean for Jews and Gentiles that could mean everyone of a certain group or it could mean everyone as in every single human being.

So you have to ask yourself the question well if it's in behalf of every single human being then what does the book of Hebrews teach about the result of his death the intention of his death that's why you have to look at all of this together you have to have a fully orbed understanding but I want to point something out how about we keep reading?

That's always a good thing to do. Sadly in most conversations that's not what happens.

You get little proof texts and you don't keep reading. And I understand,

I've been in situations on a plane or something like that where you just you've got to give your proof texts and hopefully you've done the work to be able to demonstrate that you're not misrepresenting things but when he sits there as he's right there, you liar pointing his finger at everybody and calling you a liar has he actually established his case?

Has he actually handled the text in any meaningful fashion so as to establish a particular understanding of this?

No he hasn't. This is pure argument from authority.

Nothing more. I'm the guy up front, I'm yelling I'm pointing, you want to be part of the group believe what

I say. Again, that's the cultic aspect. But what does the next verse say?

For it was fitting for him for whom are all things and through whom are all things what does that harken us back to?

Hebrews chapter 1, Colossians chapter 1 Christ as creator of all things in bringing what?

What's the next line? In bringing many sons to glory no wait a minute now is this something different?

From Anderson's perspective this has to be something different we've just completely changed topic but obviously verse 10 starts with Gar so we haven't completely changed topic have we?

Unless your concept trumps context Oh of course, which certainly it does when someone's screaming

In bringing many sons to glory first of all you have many many sons to glory now the presupposition of the

Arminian interpretation of Hebrews 2 .9 is that his death does not bring anyone to glory it makes everyone saveable but that's not how the author is thinking is it?

No, because he can immediately in speaking of the salvific work of Christ the incarnate one for whom are all things and through whom are all things in bringing maybe this is the father for it's fitting for him for whom are all things and through whom are all things normally

Christ to perfect the author of the salvation through suffering so perfecting the author of the salvation through sufferings could refer to the father but whether it refers to the father or the son the point is that the salvific act is in bringing many sons to glory and it's something that he is accomplishing he is accomplishing the bringing of the many sons to glory which is salvation itself and notice that there is a delimiter provided within the text itself, many sons, not all many sons, he's the one accomplishing it so if the extent of the accomplishment in bringing many sons to glory is not bringing everybody to glory then why was the extent of the tasting death for every single human being and not for the many sons both

Jews and Gentiles? Now that would be enough just in context but continue on for both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified, who are those who are sanctified?

Is everyone sanctified? Is every human being sanctified? Certainly not in the book of Hebrews, go to Hebrews chapter 10, the effect of this sacrifice is for those who are sanctified those who are made holy which in Hebrews especially needs to be viewed within that context of covenant relationship to God for both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one father for which reason he is not ashamed to call them who?

Brethren. I will proclaim your name my brethren in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise and again

I'll put my trust in him and again behold I and the children whom God has given me. Sounds like a remnant here, sounds like a specific group sounds like John 8 sure does,

John 6 therefore since the children share in flesh and blood he himself likewise also partook of the same that through death he might render powerless him by the power of death that is the devil and might free who?

Those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives for surely he does not give help to angels but he gives help to whom?

The descendant of Abraham therefore he had to be made like his brethren in all things so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest and things pertain to God to do what?

To make propitiation for who? The sins of the people he will save his people from their sins right?

Sins of the people now Michael Brown and I had an argument about this because Michael insists that the sacrifice on the day of Yom Kippur was for every single one of the

Israelite people and it does say for the people but I would argue obviously my whole point was that the people in the old covenant are those who believe in Yahweh that's why you have the remnant language but let's even let that argument stand aside for the moment the offerings on the day of atonement were for whom?

If you say it's all of Israel was it for the Assyrians? The Egyptians? The Babylonians?

The Chaldeans? No it wasn't so no matter how you look at it there is clearly a delimitation it's right there so you read the rest of Hebrews chapter 2 and it's right there you saw it in verse 10 it's right there this is an exegesis

I point back at Stephen Anderson and say to you you're an abuser of the scripture when you preach like this you're an abuser you're abusing your people and the word because you're not really dealing with it simply reading it and then screaming about it is not exegesis that's abuse it's abuse it's not that you're alone in it but you are you're a false prophet is what you are you don't believe this book you believe in lies written by man whether that man's name

John Calvin or whatever his name is you are believing in lies and heresy let me tell you something

Jesus Christ tasted death for every man I believe it do you believe it? anybody who doesn't believe it is rejecting the

Bible now see that is specifically designed to limit someone's contemplation of the text because if you dare sit back and go but what's the effect of the atonement and what about the intercessory work of Christ if you even start thinking about these things you need to realize that guy up there and the rest of my family goes to this church he's going to come down on me like a ton of bricks that's why

I call this abusive this is pastoral abuse of the sheep on the part of Stephen Anderson using

Calvinism as an excuse to abuse the sheep they're just rejecting the

Bible they're just looking at the Bible and saying he tasted death for every man they just say no he didn't die for everybody that's a lie and we've seen how many scriptures 1st

Timothy 2 he said it twice 1st Timothy 2 he said it twice since he doesn't even bother to read these and someone just mentioned that John Piper I guess has a great sermon on Hebrews chapter 2 maybe someone could give me a link if it's available and I'd be happy to mention it but there is obviously much more than I said to say about it and I've preached in Hebrews 2 as well and that series is available on Sermon Audio but anyway 1st

Timothy chapter 2 is that text where kinds of people are directly addressed in the text pray for all men leaders, those in positions of authority those are kinds of people, it's right there in the text and then it goes on to say there is one mediator between God and man, the man

Christ Jesus so for whom is Jesus mediating? what is he mediating to the people who died before Christ?

what is he mediating to unbelievers under the punishment of God? again, questions that I doubt were answered in the non -exegesis of those texts 1st

Timothy 4, Titus chapter 2 probably I would assume Titus 2 .11

the grace of God which brings salvation to all men and again that's not potential salvation so either you consistently have to be a universalist or a

Calvinist or you have to say it's not really the grace that brings salvation to all men because it's the grace that teaches us so which one are you?

he's neither one so he's not dealing with that text in an appropriate fashion what?

you're just looking at me odd oh, well thank you very much, appreciate that Romans 5 well,

I would imagine once again it's the text that universalists use that ignores there's the humanity in Adam and the humanity in Christ there is one humanity in Adam, there's another humanity in Christ we're all born in Adam but only those who have faith are in Christ and so all

Adam can give you is death if you're in Christ, he gives you his life I assume that's the text he's looking at 1st

John 2 obviously would be for our sins, not for our sins only manas limitation to current believers but for the whole world again the issue is what is propitiation 1st

John 2, he is a propitiation what does propitiation mean? these folks don't have propitiation they do not have a sacrifice that removes the wrath of God they have a potential that if you do certain things but they don't actually have real propitiation he died for all, he died for all, he died for all he died for the world, he died for the world every man, every man let me explain to you why two people cannot be punished for the same sin ok, so there you have the double jeopardy argument now,

Stephen Anderson though he behaves in cultic ways is not a stupid man and I would not be overly surprised if he has not actually read at least some of Owen now

I can guarantee you he has no meaningful response to John Owen to the death of death but I would not be surprised if he possesses

Owen and has at least done some reading in it and so what you see here again is this manipulation you've just gotten the emotions going by screaming repetitively and now you're going into the mocking phase all of which is designed to create a mindset in your people that keeps them from listening to what the other side has to say now

I would argue one of the primary reasons they do this is because they know they cannot actually answer what the other side has to say especially when the other side doesn't need to use tactics like this you can listen to all sorts of my sermons and there are a few times when

I get a little loud but never like this that's obvious but when one side utilizes logic, rationality let's look at the text, let's allow the word to speak this side can't allow that to happen and so you have to try to short circuit the willingness of your followers to engage in meaningful thought because your system will collapse if you don't do that shut up you intellectual fool you uber intellectual you dr.

fat bottom from so and so the seminary with all your degrees and all your accolades of man you are a fool and if any man thinks himself to be wise let him become a fool what is that talking about when

Paul talks about making foolish the wisdom of the world is he talking about this kind of abuse the text of scripture, this kind of misreading of the text ignoring of the text, twisting of the text, no so you just add to the sin of abusing these texts by throwing a few others in in the process it's a shame to watch this world is foolishness with God and all these man -made logical rational arguments against...

wait a minute man -made, ok, if they're only man -made but of course he is presenting a man -made theological system, he just isn't honest enough to admit what the origin and source of it is but when you say the wisdom of this world that's not what 1

Corinthians 1 is about when you start utilizing that to say well those people over there who disagree with me on theological issues they're just using the wisdom of the world that's not what

Paul was talking about he was talking about the

Greeks seeking for signs the Greeks seeking for wisdom and the

Jews seeking for signs and saying that by the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom would not come to know

God so this is again misapplication all meant to create a certain mindset in the people that is not a godly mindset ok, so did you have a meaningful exegesis of Hebrews 2 .9?

You did not you didn't have it read in context, you just had it presented this is what it says and if you disagree you're a liar that's all there is to it and this kind of preaching attracts people that's what they want, they don't want to be challenged to think through, they don't want to be challenged to do hard work so there's an abuse on his part but there's also an abuse of the word on their part as well they are not guiltless in this situation but now we're going to move on to 2

Peter now by the way, he died for the lost well, duh of course he died for the lost every elect person has been a a child of wrath is amongst the lost at some point.

The issue again is what was the intention and in light of the intention what therefore is the scope and there is a perfect unity between God's the eternal triune

God's electing decree and the work of the Son to save those the Father has given to the

Son and all the yelling and all the screaming and all the misrepresentation can never change that now some people get frustrated because you struggle so to get people who claim to be

Christians to hear what you're saying and just that logical, rational fact but you can't make anybody see this only the

Spirit of God can cause someone to see through this you don't want anybody doubting your salvation so have you ever had one of those situations?

I've had people come up to me after a talk I talked about Islam or something like that and I just looked over at Twitter is it true that Michael Servat was burned by Calvin for not recanting the oneness of God there's a tweet wow how many times do you deal with that one anyway it just totally threw me off there you don't want anybody questioning your salvation

I just questioned salvation if you disagree with my interpretation folks gotta be really careful here's a man who's gonna have to answer if he's a believer at all and he doesn't believe

I am and I'll be perfectly honest I don't think he is either people who do not preach repentance he doesn't think

I'm a believer and I really don't think he is either but I judge what he teaches I can't judge his heart but if he is and he stands for God someday he's gonna have a lot to answer for because he's adding a lot to the gospel because he's basically making agreement with his interpretation of pretty much every biblical passage part and parcel of the gospel itself hey if you don't agree with my reading of this you must not be a

Christian be careful that is the road to not only hyper -Calvinism for a

Calvinist it's the road to hyper -Arminianism on the other side both of which are rationalist positions and you're sort of hearing what that sounds like here

I mean look if somebody walked up to me and said I believe in evolution wouldn't you doubt their salvation if somebody came to you and said

I believe in evolution wouldn't you doubt their salvation well it doesn't sound like you believe the bible you're coming to me and telling me you believe in evolution that's not what the bible says it sounds like you don't believe

God's word and then somebody comes to you and says I don't believe Jesus died for everybody they're not basing that on scripture they're basically just denying the word of God why wouldn't

I doubt the salvation it's not the first person we've heard who thinks that their interpretation especially one based upon ignorance is the word of God itself because we're not questioning the word of God we're questioning this man's interpretation of the word of God it's not the same thing and given that he has not even begun to attempt to provide meaningful exegesis of the text well that's the problem of someone who believes this stuff you say well

I can't believe you say that look anybody who's saved can understand the word of God because the

Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth how can you read the bible and not understand that Jesus died for everybody so therefore it does make you doubt their salvation look at 2

Peter 2 verse 1 but there were false prophets also among the people even as there shall be false teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies even denying the

Lord that bought them they're denying the Lord that bought them so did Jesus pay for them?

now notice what he did there this is of course exactly how this text is abused by promoters of universal atonement in general there are others who are careful but they are in the minority he focuses upon and that term to purchase he says well

Jesus purchased them but are they saved? so what is he without demonstrating it what is he leading his audience to assume that in every usage has to do with the paying of the sin debt in the death of Jesus Christ he does not mention to them that the term

Lord that is used here is not kurios it's despotos, despotes and that's where we get despot it is sovereign

Lord he doesn't even give indication that he's aware of the possible background in Deuteronomy chapter 32 he doesn't deal with the fact that these are pseudo propheti that are amongst the people what does that mean?

how many times do we have to read the Old Testament to recognize that there were you had the people, you had the remnant, you had false prophets you had true prophets and the warning here is that there could be the same type of situation in the modern day and to be aware of false prophets just because the church now exists doesn't mean that we do not have to look out for false teachers and false prophets and that some of them may even look like ministers of the gospel and this is the same terminology that Paul's going to use to call us pseudo delphoi false brethren,

Galatians chapter 2 we didn't put up with them for even an hour so the truth of the gospel might remain with you but the assumption is that what

Peter's saying here is they're false prophets and swift destruction is going to come upon them for being false prophets amongst the people but they were purchased by the

Lord salvifically so that the purchasing of the work of Christ is put in a passing description with the very next words being the destruction of those, the inability of Christ to actually accomplish the salvation of those whom he has purchased with his blood and that's supposed to be

Peter's intention if you really believe that you should be consistent should never believe in the perseverance of the saints, never believe in anything called eternal security because the death of Christ does not actually guarantee the salvation of anybody oh sure,

Hebrews 7 is going to say but you have to ignore all that stuff, you have to cut all that stuff out you can't talk about intention that's not this kind of handling of the

Bible but interestingly enough the very next verse says many will follow their sensuality and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned so do you really think that sensuality is a true part of the way of truth?

well no, of course not so those who are the way of truth they're not the ones promoting this kind of sensuality so neither were the false prophets the fact that kurios is not used here and this would be the only place in the

New Testament where the purchase price would not be mentioned tells us that Peter has something else in mind that he's not talking salvificly, he's not talking about the extent of the atonement or the intention of the atonement or anything else he is warning against false prophets who may even have positions of religious authority amongst the people but just as the false prophets of old were allowed by God for a specific purpose so too false prophets today may even wear the garb but it is not even the beginning of his intention to address this subject why not go to where Peter actually addressed the death of Christ and what it accomplished we just have to do it in passing and we have to take a participle that is being used substantively to describe the despotane to come up with our entire theology of atonement let's not worry about Hebrews 7 let's not worry about all those verses piled upon verses that actually talk to us about intention and accomplishment that's too much work too much work let's just throw it out there in the last part of verse 3 these people are described in Judah as being twice dead these people for them is reserved the blackness of darkness forever yet the

Lord bought them yet he paid for their sins because he died for all yet he paid for their sins it's assuming something and this is the kind of preaching this is the kind of teaching that unfortunately many people are exposed to and when someone starts thinking for themselves and starts examining the scriptures for themselves unfortunately in very tightly knit fundamentalist circles like this it can result in splits in families and marriages

I've talked to folks and it can be ugly so that's not hard preaching against limited atonement that wasn't hard preaching against limited atonement that was just simply haranguing haranguing and abuse the sheep abuse the word if you were to debate someone like this

I can guarantee you what would happen one, you'd be turning the volume down on the recording so it doesn't peg the meter all the time and the other would be looking at the original languages and the context and all that kind of stuff but that's not what we have here so anyway there was hard preaching

Dr. Flatbottom? Fatbottom Dr.

Fatbottom there you go thank you very much for telling me that I never would have really known that one other thing

I wanted to get to really quickly here I thought I was going to get farther but I spent more time on that good old

William Lane Craig he knew we would have to comment on this you can tell in his voice that he knows that we are going to comment upon this particular thing brief edition of Reasonable Faith and basically let me just catch up to speed then we'll listen to the last part of it

Craig lives in Georgia, teaches out at Talbot was out doing a class so he's out there for a short period of time intensive class then he goes back to Georgia basically that's how it works so he said he was looking for a place to go to church

I guess he doesn't have a regular place that he attends when he's in Talbot which is weird at least that's what the language suggested to me listen to a sermon by some fellow the transcript is on the

Reasonable Faith website if you want to see who it was who gave a sermon on a mistaken view of love and so they're talking about how we should love

God and our love should be passionate not just out of obedience now what they're talking about is that to correct the secular misapprehension of love many

Christian pastors have had to point out that we are commanded to love God with our heart, soul, mind and strength it's a command.

You can't command your emotions so there is a true element of the fact that biblical love is a commitment it is an act of obedience, it is a decision when you say you're going to love your wife for your entire life it is not

I am going to have the same emotional feeling for her every single day, every single moment our emotions wax and wane but our commitment and it can be a passionate commitment but not merely a passion will abide throughout our lives and so there's been a necessary correction to the worldly idea that love is an emotion and therefore you no longer feel the emotion you're no longer in love, therefore you don't have to marry any longer therefore just get a divorce and that's the end of that so biblically, true biblical love

I believe starts with that recognition of its biblical definition and then becomes deeper as the proper passion is associated with it well, they were talking about that and here's

I'm playing it a little bit faster, here's what he had to say the other person, to be connected with that other person emotionally

God has genuine affection for us and therefore if we think of love merely as a decision and not a feeling we're apt to mischaracterize

God's love for us and in turn that will make it, I think, very difficult to respond to God's love if you think

God really doesn't like you, doesn't really have any affection for you and it occurred to me at the time as I was listening,

Kevin that it may also be the case that not only do some Christians look at God that way, they may also have that kind of affectionless love for God, they give

God his due but they don't really like God, they'll worship him, they'll do the things that they're obligated to do but they don't really like God.

Now I just thought for just a moment, again not trying to, you know, people go,

I just don't understand what you've got against William Lane Craig. It's I don't know how many times

I have to say it apologetics flows from theology theology matters

I think Bill Craig has a really deficient theology and so the people who are interested in this program are also interested in what he does and they see the differences and so we end up probably talking about the differences more than we would with almost anybody else because we're debating many of the same people.

We're in the same arena we're just giving very different answers because we have very different theology and in this instance my concern is that as a person who has done loss support counseling deals with people who are dealing with tremendous trials in their life, a child with a disease that is going to take them before their second birthday or something like that there can be times when in all honesty we have to bow before the sovereignty of God and we must obey his command to love him but that particular point in time we're very confused about the nature of the passion that we have and if we don't recognize that's the reality then

I don't think we're really recognizing how God has made us and the people who seem to love

God with the most abiding, firm passion over time are those who've walked with him through the valley of the shadow of death where they themselves have been most greatly hurt and in their hurt have come to understand the love of God in a way that no mere description of love as passion ever could so I hear what he's saying but I want to keep that in mind and that's really frightening and I've talked to some people who are

Christians I think who labor under that problem they don't really like God now

I think I've listened to William Lane Craig enough to know that right now he is arguing with himself as to whether he's going to mention

Calvinists because that's who he's talking about and remember when he was asked in a debate about false teachers in the

Christian church who was the only people he could come up with? Calvinists. Couldn't come up with the

Mormons, couldn't come up with the Jehovah's Witnesses, couldn't come up with the papacy couldn't come up with Calvinists when

Christopher Hitchens debated him at Biola so when people say you're just focused on him, well why is he focused on the

Calvinists? I mean we could turn this around I just think he recognizes how different we are because of our theologies but I can tell by the stutter there he's arguing with himself.

Do I go there? Well the other guys can make him go there but they dutifully do their obligations and so this was really a thought -provoking sermon for me and I think he's right.

Well I almost hate to say it but some people that I've talked to who come out of the

Calvinistic and reformed tradition You just had to go there didn't you? Because that's

Dr. Tana's tradition as well but honestly I've talked to people who come out of that tradition who

I think deep down inside really harbor a kind of dislike of God because of his predestinary and all controlling activity he's the one that's responsible for sending their loved ones to hell because that's the way he's chosen to do it and you just give

God his glory because it's due to him give God glory but you don't really like a person such as God has described in that sort of theology

As someone on Twitter it may have been even the person who pointed me to this on Twitter said, oh yeah that objection could never be raised against Molinism well of course it most definitely can be because Molinism has

God micromanaging every single event in time so as to put these free creatures that he knows will do

X because of middle knowledge into the circumstances where they'll do X so how can that not be?

I mean the only way that the Molinists can get around that is by saying, well I just never thought it through before but you have an extensive divine decree in Molinism it's just limited by his middle knowledge of course to the world that he's decided to create given the cards he was dealt and all that kind of stuff but the point is that this kind of an objection could be,

I think much more meaningfully raised against the Molinist God and the

Molinist tradition because you can't say that there is a purpose in any of the evil that we might experience including the death of loved ones that just happens to be the way it was in the best of all possible worlds, it's just the best we could do

I just don't understand why it is that we're the ones that have to explain the need for redemption the

Arminians believe that there is a need for redemption we believe there's a need for redemption mankind has fallen but somehow that's on the

Calvinist shoulders to burden and somehow the Arminian doesn't have to explain this it's all our fault because this is the way

God created everything his answer would be that from his perspective since God has left it up to man's free will then

God has done his best to save each person that's why he does the amazing mind tricks in Molinism of going well, you know,

God could have could have actuated a world where everyone who does not hear the gospel would not have responded positively to the gospel in the first place so he's saying that God's done everything he can and he's actually saving the maximum number of people possible, he's saving everybody who would believe but there are people who would never believe and they're the ones who are actually lost and so you are getting to have all of your cake and eat all of it too you get free will and you get a

God who tries to save everybody and you get the salvation of everyone who could possibly be saved.

Isn't it wonderful? Isn't that Molinism? Now it doesn't make a lick of sense, it's about as biblical as Mormonism is, but you got it all and how is it that this

God could not find it in him's perfect self his immutable self, his immense self, that he couldn't actuate a world where Adam didn't fall?

And there was no fall no, no, we can't go there, that's not allowed. Well, you see, if Adam doesn't fall then that changes the content of middle knowledge and you have to,

I'm sure some of our middle knowledge advocates who write to you after every time

I talk about middle knowledge will explain to you why God didn't and I'm sure there won't be a lick of Bible in any of it as usual Well, thank you for letting us know exactly what you think about that,

Rich I know it's anecdotal and I've talked to at least two people who just became very depressed very devoted to God and everything, very

Calvinistic in their tradition, but it just really depressed them So, depressed

Calvinists are an argument here You look like a tired

Calvinist I'm a tired Calvinist, I'm not particularly depressed I'm happy to be here and not still in DIA Yes, that's

Denver International Airport because it sounds very much like DOA or other three -letter acronyms that could refer to imprisonment legal issues, drug impairments all sorts of things like that, so I just want to make sure

Let's just say that I spent more time in Denver yesterday than I really wanted to But it's a nice airport

Did you go to the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory while you were there? I didn't. There's a cheesesteak place

There's a really good cheesesteak That was dinner last night Anyway, did we take a left turn?

That's what happens when you have a studio audience and you turn a mic on When you have rodents in the office

That's where you just move it Why isn't it what we're talking about right now?

Why is it that William Lane Craig gets to just take these shots across the bow But we're not going to debate that now

I don't want to do that now. It's not my calling My calling is to take shots at you folks and warn everybody against Calvinism But I'm not going to defend myself

Perhaps Bill, someone who's very legalistic Yes, who has a very legalistic concept of God and so obeys

God, tows the line but doesn't really like God I think that is correct as well,

Kevin He's not saying that's what Calvinists are I just want to make sure you understand Is the God of Islam, does he generate easily that kind of reaction?

I think for many majority tradition Muslims that's true, for example in the Sunni tradition where it's just a matter of law keeping

Now there are more mystical traditions in Islam like Sufism, where there is more of a relationship with God that's emphasized

But I think you're right, for many Muslims there would not be this sort of real love for God nor would they affirm that God loves them in this sort of way that we're talking about here

I remember talking to one Muslim man who said it was just inconceivable to him that Allah could love us because we're like worse than ants to him and you wouldn't love ants, you wouldn't love mere insects

So for him, the idea of God's loving us was just inconceivable Well, and at this point

I have to agree with Dr. Craig's insight at that point, the nature of the love that exists between the redeemed in Jesus Christ and any discussion of loving

God in Islam is disrupted by the giant chasm known as incarnation

Incarnation I can guarantee you, any discussion I've ever had or ever will have with a Muslim on the subject of love of God will, of necessity end up focusing upon the demonstration of God's love in the incarnation, which is the very thing that Islam says could never happen

Which is why, Abdullah Kunda and I debated that issue in Sydney, and I'd like to see some more debates on that specific topic in the future because it needs to be addressed it needs to be understood and the

Muslim needs to understand that from our perspective the greatest demonstration of the love of God is found in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and in his voluntary death

That's really where the gospel message a fully biblical gospel message has the greatest power in response to Islam itself, is right at that point

Anyways, I wanted to address that it had been pointed out to me I think maybe even last night or the night before last on Twitter so we wanted to address that.

Well there's Radio Free Geneva a jumbo edition today of Radio Free Geneva.

I hope you enjoyed that discussion. There are people in the chat channel taking bets on how long it takes for Steven Anderson to have a video up, railing at me and pointing his fingers and using various incendiary insults and things like that, but not responding to anything

I said in a meaningful or scholarly fashion so we will see who wins that particular thing

Thank you Mr. Squirrel That's quite a pile of nuts you put together over there during the program.

I've just been munching away Preparing for the, wait a minute You can't be preparing for the winter because it's spring

I'm from Montana, we have two seasons, winter and getting ready for winter. That's true, this is true

Anyways, thanks for sitting in on the program today We'll be back, Lord willing, on Tuesday What day is it?