July 8, 2003

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

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And good morning and welcome to The Dividing Line.

My name is James White and we are going to be listening to some comments that I downloaded yesterday from the

Berean Call website. The reason being, some of you will recall that in our last installment

I made reference to the fact, and boy this sounds really, really strange today,

I'm not sure exactly what's going on. The music sounded weird and I sound like I'm on Zork, the planets next to the 13th stellar whatever.

It sounds really strange, but hey, you know, that's how you start programs off. Hopefully we'll be able to get it fixed and working here and that's sounding better.

I'm sounding like a little bit more like myself now. It doesn't sound like I've been smoking camels all day, which

I don't do and find utterly disgusting. But anyway, it sounds much better except now

I'm disappearing. But other than all those things, you may recall a couple of weeks ago I took the time to mention, actually

I think it was in the last installment, the fact that we have attempted to encourage

Mr. Hunt and the folks at the Berean Call to, in essence, live up to their name and function as Bereans and help all the rest of us deal with these issues.

I think there's a clear lack of willingness on the part of many of those who will stand before audiences and proclaim

Reformed theology to be unbiblical and inconsistent and damaging to the church and damaging to the gospel and so on and so forth.

There is an unwillingness on the part of these individuals to then interact meaningfully with those of us who believe these things and believe that it's important to be consistent in our theology, consistent in our proclamation, and that in fact these issues are becoming more important as we live in a more and more post -Christian society.

And so we have tried to arrange debates. We've tried to have debates on this program with folks who weren't all that well known, but of course we have sought to engage

Norman Geisler and other individuals and especially Dave Hunt in debate. And I mentioned just a few weeks ago that Mr.

Hunt has made the statement that our book, which currently is scheduled for release in February of 2004, even though I have inquired as to why the long delay.

The book is done for all intents and purposes. I would imagine it's due to catalogs and scheduling and I understand all those things.

I certainly would like to see it earlier than that. But Mr. Hunt believes that the publication of our book is sufficient.

There is no need for a person -to -person dialogue and debate on this issue. Now I reject that.

I reject that for many reasons which I have enunciated to Mr. Hunt. I have pointed out that there are numerous questions and the issues that I have raised to him that he has not addressed in his responses in the book.

I have pointed out errors that he has made that he simply glosses over and that in a debate those things would be brought out.

And if what he says is true concerning the inconsistency of Calvinism, the alleged constant tactic of Calvinists to just explain verses away,

I think a public moderated debate, not just one debate, but I in fact had initially got an agreement from Mr.

Hunt to do something that would involve something like a Friday night, Saturday morning, Saturday evening. Three sessions as much as seven to nine hours of debate on specific subjects with lots of interaction, cross -examination.

I think that is extremely important. I think many people would be benefited. I firmly believe that when it comes to issues that cause people confusion, and no one is going to deny that there are people who are very much confused, there are going to be people who listen to Dave Hunt and they are going to hear what

Dave Hunt has to say, and they like Dave Hunt and they hear Dave Hunt saying that Jesus is God and the Bible is true, and then the next program on the air is

Ligonier Ministries and R .C. Sproul, and R .C. Sproul is saying that Jesus is

God and the Bible is true, and yet the issues of the atonement and the issue of God's sovereignty and the nature of grace and man's will, this can be very confusing to people.

Well, the best way to get rid of that confusion is to have both sides come together in a situation where there is control, there is a moderator, there is equal amounts of time, it is not one person talking over another person, and there is cross -examination where you follow the rules, you answer the questions, you in essence pony up to the bar, shall we say, and you plunk your money down and you do what you are supposed to do, and that is what we have invited

Mr. Hunt to do, and he has chosen to decline, though he had once agreed to do so, in light of the publication of this book, and there are people who said that is exactly what is going to happen,

I recognize that, but I certainly never had the idea, well, we will write this book and then that is going to be it, no.

There needs to be a dialogue, there needs to be a discussion, so I happen to be on the Bree and Call website, and there is archives of the radio programs, and so I went through and looked at the topics, and I grabbed a number of them, and is there anything new here in comparison to, for example, a couple of,

I don't know how many months ago it was, we were sent the videotape of the talk at the Calvary Chapel, discussing this issue of Calvinism, not really, except that what you have here is you have not so much extemporaneous comments in a

Calvary Chapel setting, instead you have a nationally broadcast radio program, and what you have mainly are answers to questions that have been written in by individuals who read the

Bree and Call or listen to the program and things like that, and so I want to play some of these, respond to them, and hopefully so doing, again, since this material is going out, since What Love Is This is all over the place,

I was looking at, in fact, wait a minute, I think I've got it right over here, yeah, here it is, I have here, what edition is this, this is the summer 2002 edition of the

Calvary Chapel magazine, issue 12, summer 2002, under CCM recommends book reviews, we have right in the middle here

What Love Is This, and here's what CCM says in regards to What Love Is This, What Love Is This provides a comprehensive overview of the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism.

Chuck Smith considers author Dave Hunt a modern day prophet of God, that's in quotes, and has called the book a quote, must read for those who are serious in their desire to understand the influence that Calvin has had, end quote.

As Calvinism comes into Calvary Chapels worldwide, Mr. Hunt's demonstration of Calvinism's misrepresentation of God, the book's subtitle, will keep many from falling for its siren call.

As with all of Dave Hunt's books, What Love Is This points to the confidence we can have in God's word, and to the love that he has for his sheep, which

I find ultimately ironic, since it denies that God has any special love for his sheep.

Dave Hunt's position, at least as we will hear it enunciated here, and it's in that book, is that God's love for his sheep is identical for his love for his enemies, who stand upon the parapets of hell screaming their hatred at him, and that his love is unfulfilled for all of eternity in their case.

Now, interestingly enough, when we got into that subject in the book, even though much of his opening presentations were based upon what

I am going to identify as mono benevolence. Mono benevolence, that is the idea that God can only have one kind of love.

It cannot be differentiated, it cannot be special, it cannot be specific. Unlike mankind,

God can only have one kind of love, and it's the same for everybody.

Mono benevolence, that's the position that he holds. Once I demonstrated, biblically, that that's ridiculous, that it makes

God less than his own creature, that God gave to his creature capacities he himself does not have, and that there are numerous biblical passages that demonstrate the special love of God, the love of God that he has redemptively, which differs in substance and in purpose from the love that he has non -redemptively for all of creation, or the love that he would have that is expressed in the

Bible for non -sentient beings, animals, and plants, and trees, and things like that.

He agreed to all that, but then never connected the dots and made that work, and we're going to hear that over and over again in the sections we're going to listen to today on the program.

And so let's start with the first question that is asked on the

Berean Call radio program. Now, contending for the faith, in this regular feature

Dave and Tom respond to questions from listeners and readers of the Berean Call. And here's this week's question.

Dear T .A. and Dave, I just met someone the other day who said he was a five -point

Calvinist. I don't know whether I was more shocked by what he said he believed or by how convinced he was about his beliefs.

I've been a Christian for about five years, and I attend a small church which is very

Bible -oriented. Even so, I've never heard such teachings before.

Could you give me a brief biblical definition of the following terms? Foreknowledge, predestination, election, and chosen.

Thanks. Well, Dave, you know, one of the things that I've learned from this book here you've finished, and hopefully it'll be out by the time this program airs, it's called

What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God, was that prior to reading the book,

I would sort of avoid doctrines like predestination, foreknowledge, election.

I had some ideas about them, but I didn't wrestle with them. But I found from reading your book that they're wonderful.

I mean, why wouldn't they be wonderful doctrines? They're in the Word of God. But I never really understood them or took a close look at them until I read your book.

So foreknowledge, that should be straightforward enough. The Greek word is the one we use for prognosis, prognosko.

And it simply means to know ahead of time. Now, the Bible links, always links foreknowledge with election and predestination.

First Peter chapter one, elect according to the foreknowledge of God, or Romans 8, whom he foreknew, he did predestinate.

Now, the Calvinist, of course, does not want to have any basis for predestination or election.

Let me stop it right there for just a moment, please. Two things. And since it's going to go on for about another minute or so,

I didn't want to lose track of this. In our debate book, I specifically point out, and of course, remember, even at this point, and you can tell this was in around March or April of 2002, because the book was just then coming out.

Already, Mr. Hunt has claimed to have read more on Calvinism than most

Calvinists have, to know more about the most Calvinists have. And obviously, since the book is done, and my book,

The Potter's Freedom, is certainly one of the most often cited sources, one of the main targets that Mr.

Hunt shoots at, then he would have to be aware, if he is able to take off his blinders, and to simply read the text as it stands, and to listen to what's being said, he would have to, at this point, have read the material in regards to the meaning of foreknowledge as a noun, and foreknown, to foreknow as a verb.

But as you listen to Mr. Hunt, he does not distinguish between the two.

Now remember, this is the same gentleman who just a short period of time before this,

I stood in a church in Indianapolis, and listened to him say from the pulpit,

I do not read Greek, it might as well be Chinese, but I can read

English. And here he's going to be allegedly offering to us a definition of prognosco.

However, he doesn't differentiate between prognosco, a verb, and prognosis, a noun, a substantive.

He confuses the two, and in fact, when in our debate book, I pointed this out,

I made the presentation, I summarized the issues concerning the use of to foreknow as a verb, over against merely having foreknowledge, a philosophical concept of having knowledge of future events.

I laid out the fact that every time God is the one who's doing the foreknowing, the verbal form, that the object of the verb is personal, it is persons who are foreknown, not actions.

In his response, in the debate book, he went ballistic and said,

I can't believe that White would so misrepresent these things and say God doesn't know future events.

I didn't say God didn't know future events. I said that the verb to foreknow, every time it's used with God as its subject, has a personal object.

And hence, the verbal form and the philosophical noun form are not being used in the identical way in Scripture.

This is simple exegesis, but it is something that Mr. Hunt is not able to do and not willing to listen to those who do do it.

And this leads to this kind of just simply mushing the text up and saying, well, foreknowledge means this, and therefore

I'm going to stick that definition in everywhere. As we will see, once you recognize that he does not differentiate between the verb and the noun, his entire position from a logical perspective collapses.

And, I think everyone can see, that this would be something that would come out in the debate.

I would challenge him. Since he's using the terms, since he's saying progenosco means this, then

I would be able to say, Mr. Hunt, where are the places where progenosco is used in the New Testament?

Mr. Hunt, when progenosco is used in the New Testament, with God as its subject, what is the nature of its object?

Now, it's very obvious Dave Hunt has not done the study to know the answers to those questions, and you might say, well, you're just picking on someone who hasn't had the opportunities you have.

If you are going to go on national radio and make the kinds of comments that Dave Hunt makes here, and did you notice what was just happening here?

Let me stop this here for just a moment, hoping I don't crash the program. What was happening just here?

Now, listen to what Dave says when he recognizes that there are answers to what he's saying about foreknowledge.

But, it's painfully obvious he doesn't know how to respond to him. So, how does he respond to him? By saying that Calvinists are dishonest in how they handle a text.

Listen to what he says. Now, you see that?

See, the Calvinist doesn't want this. The allegation is very clear. He is saying that we are the ones mishandling the text of Scripture.

If you're going to go on national radio, you're going to go to print and make that kind of allegation.

I'm simply saying you need to have done your homework, and I am consistent on this point.

I have, throughout the entirety of my ministry, insisted that if you're going to do that kind of thing, if you're going to write a book on Mormonism, for example, know something about Mormonism.

Listen to what they have to say. Try to understand it from their perspective, and I have done so. I know there are many

Mormons who say, oh, no, no, no. But, I've had many other Mormons say, you know, you certainly have. You've gone beyond what most people ever do in trying to be honest in what we believe, etc.,

etc. So, I have been consistent at that point, and that's one of the reasons I don't like to comment on things outside of my area of study, is because people will assume that I'm bringing that same level of expertise to those areas outside my area of study, and I don't want to do that.

And so, we've been consistent, and so when we say to folks, look, we need to hold

Dave Hunt accountable here, I'm saying that as a person who not only has contacted him before the writing of this book, attempted to be of assistance to him, attempted to warn him as a brother in Christ that this was coming, that he was going to be held accountable for the words that he says, because it's causing confusion.

But now, I do so as a person who has tried to live, even if I've been inconsistent at times, I've certainly tried to live in light of what

I'm trying to do. So, when he knows that there is an answer that he cannot handle in regards to the meaning of foreknowledge, and the verbal form, and the noun form, and all the rest of the stuff, what does he do?

He turns the question to an allegation that it's Calvinists who are misreading the text, misusing the text, because of the fact that they have this system that they're attempting to defend.

We continue with what he had to say here. And he wants to link predestination and election with salvation.

In fact, they are not. Predestination or election is unto a blessing.

Unto something God has marked out ahead of time for those that he knew would respond to the gospel.

Okay, we need to keep me up by the guests on these. Now, hear what's being said there. There's this marking out predestination.

This is found over and over again in all of his talks. Predestination, election is only to blessing, never to salvation.

And I will gladly recognize that the individual who heard this and pointed it out first to me, a fellow by the name of Mark Ennis, who

I believe is enrolled at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr.

Al Mohler and all the folks over there, Southern Seminary. Mark pointed out, he said, you know, what does what does

Hunt say about 2 Thessalonians 2 .13? And 2 Thessalonians 2 .13, of course, says, we shall always give thanks to God for you, brethren, beloved by the

Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the

Spirit and faith in the truth. And, you know, this is one of the popular, very, very popular texts.

And so I grabbed my copy of What Love Is This? And I looked in the index, looked in the scripture index, not a single reference in this entire book on Calvinism to 2

Thessalonians 2 .13, not one reference. And yet I have repeated statements in the book and in Dave Hunt's radio programs, in his talks at Calvary Chapels, never is predestination and election, and in one of these cuts, he will even say it's the same thing, never is it to salvation, it's only to blessing.

Well, this happened during the course of the writing of the book. And so I included a statement in one of my responses in response to him saying that, well,

Mr. Hunt says it's never, we are never chosen for salvation. And yet 2

Thessalonians 2 .13 says, brethren, beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.

And I then pointed out there is not a single reference to this verse in all of What Love Is This?

And so in his response, I'm just waiting, you know, what kind of response are we going to get here? Obviously the best response would be, well, you know,

I hadn't seen that before, and here's how I would understand what is being said there. Instead, the standard response

I got throughout the debate book, when there's a clear error on his part is, well, we don't really need that verse anyway, there are hundreds of verses that teach this, that the

Calvinist ignores, such as, off you go into the sunset, with that kind of response.

And unfortunately, in our experience already, over the past couple of years, since we did that radio program with Dave, what is that, about 3 years, 2 years ago, 2 years, 3 years, 3 years ago, the response has been, yeah, was it 2000?

Yeah, so it was about 3 years ago. The response has been very, very, very consistent. And that is,

Dave's followers, many of them, do not question what he says. They simply will not question his assertions.

They'll just simply attack us as individuals for even daring to point these things out.

But it's right there in front of everybody. 2 Thessalonians 2 .13 is directly contradictory to what he has to say here.

So let me fast forward here just a little bit, and continue on. But the Calvinist says, no, what it means is those that he determined beforehand.

So now we have a redundancy. Those that he determined beforehand, he elected.

No, that is not a redundancy. This is a common element of Dave's teaching.

The only way he can try to deal with the lexical meaning of prognosco is to say, well, it makes it identical to predestination.

It makes it identical to choosing. Now, of course, he makes those things identical to each other, but he doesn't seem to see that as an issue.

And anyone who's read the discussions on the meaning of the term, even though the discussions that I present in the

Potter's Freedom, would recognize that there is a difference. One is a personal choice to enter into relationship with.

Predestination and election is then unto salvation. Since the love of God is unconditionally given in that foreknowing, that foreloving in eternity itself, then that love is going to prompt the redemptive act that is a part of predestination, which then results in time and the calling, justification, glorification.

It's not a redundancy. And again, that would be something that would come out in a debate.

Beforehand, or those that he predestined, he predestined. But foreknowledge, I think from the scriptures, you're going to have to introduce some other ideas to change it.

Simply that God knew ahead of time. And I can't give you the many other examples of that, but we have examples that show that this is what that word means.

I can't give you examples. I can't discuss with you the lexical forms of these terms.

I can't differentiate between verbs and nouns. But just trust me, that's what it means.

Listen to me. It's sort of the Jedi mind trick. Listen to me when I tell you this is what it means.

That's not what it means at all. Dave, predestination then.

I know you included it in the definition of foreknowledge, but just give me a simple definition of it.

It's something that God marked out beforehand as a blessing for certain people.

So predestination is a blessing that God marks out beforehand, but notice it's going to be based upon his foreseeing that he would choose him.

Those that he knew would respond to the gospel. So Romans chapter 8, whom he foreknew, he predestined to be conformed to the image of his son.

Now notice, if his meaning, if his understanding of foreknowledge, which very, very clearly involves the denial of the distinction between verbs and nouns and the fundamental elements of language, if that argument is untrue, if it is inconsistent, then his entire position collapses and he has no answer for the golden chain of redemption.

So the ones that he knew, he marked out beforehand a blessing. Elect according to foreknowledge.

Well, that's the next thing. Election. Well, I believe it's the same thing. Election and predestination.

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

Or in Ephesians chapter 1, we're chosen in him before the foundation of the world.

Now listen carefully to what is about to come up, because I think you could make a case that we dance upon the edge of heresy in what's going to come up here.

Again, that we should be holy without blame before him in love, he's predestined us. We are elected to become the sons of God.

You see, God could save us without making us his children. He could deliver us from his judgment without blessing us to be joint heirs with Christ.

So the blessings that God marked out beforehand, that is what he predestinated.

Now think about that for just a minute. He's had to go so far as to say, well,

God could have done it differently, so these are just blessings. As if in the economy of salvation in the

New Testament, being united with Christ and being a son or daughter of God is somehow merely a blessing and not something that every single believer experiences.

And yet it is so clear, how in the world can anyone read Romans chapter 8, the first number of verses, and not recognize that sonship, adoption, this is part and parcel of the very means of salvation itself.

Every single believer experiences this. Every single believer has the Spirit of God who cries out within their hearts,

Abba, Father, there is no salvation without that union with Christ. And so here to try to avoid the plain teaching of Scripture in regards to God's sovereignty and the meaning of election and calling and all these things, here he's saying, well, that's just a blessing.

You can be saved without all that stuff. An amazing statement. "...to, or elected us to, or chose us to."

Now the word chosen is used in a number of different ways. For example, it doesn't always mean, in fact, as far as I know, it doesn't mean ever chosen to salvation.

Did you catch that? It doesn't mean ever chosen to salvation. Let us remember 2

Thessalonians 2 .13, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.

Just like to sort of repeat that. You are chosen to a particular work, to a ministry.

And it doesn't necessarily mean you are saved. Now keep that in mind.

If you are chosen to a particular work and ministry, there is no question that the term calling and choosing is used in that way.

There's no question about that. But when a person, and this is important, I've mentioned this before, but let me mention it again before we take our break.

One of the reasons why we should learn to do exegesis.

That is one of the reasons why, if we are going to be in a position of teaching others the word of God.

Teaching God's truth to others. One of the reasons that we should learn how to do so.

Not just simply come bopping in and say, well the spirit will zap me. Remember Apollos? Apollos was a man who was great in the word.

But he accepted correction and instruction so as to be able to do so in a better way.

And why is that? Because, honestly folks, think about it. And this has struck me a lot recently and I want to try to communicate it to others.

It is a tremendous affront to God. To think that we can just jump in here and start teaching

God's word. And in so doing we end up inserting into God's mouth our thoughts and our traditions.

And that is what Dave Hunt is doing here. The reason that we learn to do hermeneutics. The reason that there are rules and that there is work involved.

Is so that we can allow the text to speak for itself. And when you allow the text to speak for itself you are allowing

God to speak because it is his word. When you don't do that. When you eschew these things.

When you call people elitists. Who say you are not following the rules of sound hermeneutics. In reality, when you are not willing to do that.

Then in essence you yourself are inserting your concepts and your ideas.

Into the text of the word of God as if your words are God's words. That is showing tremendous disrespect for God.

That is showing tremendous disrespect for his word. If we want to hear

God's word with clarity. Then we will do the work that is necessary to do so.

And that is not elitism in any way, shape or form. That is allowing

God to speak in the way that God has deemed it proper and necessary to do so.

Well, we are listening to various and sundry assertions made by Dave Hunt.

On his Berean Call radio broadcast. And in fact

I imagine, I believe it is webcast as well. So it is similar to what we are doing. But before we continue on we are going to take our break.

And we will be right back after these few messages. Incorporating the most recent research in solid biblical truth.

Letters to a Mormon Elder by James White. Is a series of personal letters written to a fictional Mormon missionary.

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

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

With well defined arguments James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the Book of Mormon. The prophecies, visions and teachings of Joseph Smith.

The theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism. And other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the

LDS Church. This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons.

And is an ideal book to be read by Mormons. Letters to a Mormon Elder. Get your copy today in the

Mormonism section of our bookstore at AOMN .org. More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together.

They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements.

And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.

This new found rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age old disagreements that have divided

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

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

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

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

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen but Free? A new cult?

Secularism? False prophecy scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

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

In his book, The Pottish Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler. But The Pottish Freedom is much more than just a reply.

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

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

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

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture. The Pottish Freedom, a defense of the

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

How the Pilgrims Progress Responding to some of the eisegetical comments made by Dave Hunt.

We're not picking on poor Dave in the sense that we have done the same thing just recently in regards to Norman Geisler.

You may notice a tremendous amount of parallels between the two in regards to the traditional form of the argumentation that is being made against Reformed Theology.

I don't think that it is in any way, shape or form an improper observation to make that the high road of exegesis belongs to Reformed Theology.

That we can engage the text of scripture on a level that quite honestly I just do not believe our

Minions are capable of doing so. Not because they lack the ability but because their tradition precludes the acceptance of certain fundamental truths that are necessary for consistent reading of the word of God.

Let me mention, I only mentioned this briefly a couple of programs ago.

If you are looking for a way to fulfill what the

Calvary Chapel Magazine was talking about here. Let me read that again when the

Calvary Chapel Magazine makes reference to as Calvinism comes into Calvary Chapels worldwide.

Well if you would like to help that to happen to the benefit of all those individuals. We have a little book that was originally titled

God's Sovereign Grace. The title has been changed just a little bit in the current printing.

The Sovereign Grace of God it is my friendly introduction to Doctrines of Grace.

It is meant to communicate to your standard evangelical the biblical concepts that underlie the

Doctrines of Grace. In a friendly manner and to answer many of the common questions that are asked about that.

A new printing of that has been made and we have a special offer right now. That and my little book

Drawn by the Father on John 6, 35 -45. Those two books new printings are available.

Do we still have any left of the original? I think that is a yes.

We still have a few of the original printings left which we will include. In other words if you buy one of the new version of the

Sovereign Grace of God. You will get free along with that one of the original editions. They are older obviously.

That is why we are not selling them as new. They are about 13 years old. They are in a box.

They are in fine condition. You are getting two for the price of one. Both for Drawn by the Father and God's Sovereign Grace.

While supplies last. While supplies last. Thank you very much. That offer is on our website.

A number of you have taken advantage of that. We sold out of the shipment we had immediately. We have two more shipments on the way.

Please be patient as we attempt to fulfill these orders.

That is available on the website. If you order the Sovereign Grace of God. We will include one of those original editions along with it.

Or if you order Drawn by the Father. Another one with it. These are books that people give away.

It would be a good idea to pick up a couple of these. Make it something you carry along with you.

Things like that. That is available. If you would like to help fulfill the statement there.

Let's fulfill this statement folks. Let's make it come true. I know a lot of folks in Calvary Chapels that need to hear about these truths.

That is why I debated George Bryson. That is why that tape is available. Alpha and Omega is Drawn by the

Father Invasion. That is what we call it. As Calvinism comes into Calvary Chapels worldwide. Mr.

Hunt's demonstration of Calvinism's misrepresentation of God. Will keep many from falling for its siren call.

Well, that is true. It may. But for those who have ears to hear. It will only make it that much easier to demonstrate the inconsistency of the position.

Because Mr. Hunt goes around saying things like this. For example. We just went through John Chapter 6.

A few weeks ago. And Jesus says. Have not I chosen you twelve.

And one of you is a devil. Referring to Judas. Right. This is speaking of Judas.

So Judas had been chosen. Now when you hear this. Some of you are going to start beating on your keyboards.

Or throwing your headsets across the room or whatever. Because it is so obvious. That the term chosen.

Has to be read within a certain context. This is the same individual. Who tells us with great confidence.

Chosen is never used to salvation. Ignoring 2 Thessalonians 2 .13 And here.

Does not differentiate between chosen to apostleship. And chosen to salvation. This again.

Is the kind of error. That hopefully. Doing consistent exegesis.

And being trained to do this work. Is supposed to help you to avoid. So you don't mislead people.

Who come to trust you. By Christ. To be a disciple. And to serve him and so forth.

And in fact. He did not live up to that. He did not fulfill it. In John 15. And certainly according to the scriptures.

He certainly did not have eternal life. No. He rejected it. Right. In John 15.

When we get to it. Jesus says. You have not chosen me. I have chosen you. Well again.

He does not say chosen to salvation. But he has chosen them. To be his disciples.

He has called them to follow him. He has empowered them. To preach the gospel.

And so forth. To minister healing. But you can't take that to mean.

Well then if Jesus said. You have not chosen me. I have chosen you. That means that we did not have to give our consent.

I can say that to any employee. An employer could say to the employee. You didn't choose me.

I chose you. That doesn't mean that the employee didn't have to agree to work. For the employer.

The employer is saying. Look. You couldn't force yourself on me. I'm the one that has the final say.

I initiated this. I'm the one that has the final say. Why? Because I initiated this.

Now immediately. This takes us back to what caused me. To contact

Dave Hunt. Back in July of 2000. Because of his May 2000 newsletter.

And that is. I remember very distinctly. Sitting in the office of a. Amateur Catholic.

Apologist in San Diego. And this was. The year 1990.

Maybe January of 91. And hearing that individual say. Well we believe in sola gratia.

We believe in salvation. By grace alone. Because it's God's grace that initiates everything.

And I said. That's not the point. The point has never been the necessity of grace. The point is the sufficiency of grace.

And here Dave Hunt says. The exact same thing. As Roman Catholics.

In regards to the nature of grace. And no matter how often you try. To explain this to him.

No matter how often you try. To help him to understand this. Behold the power of tradition.

He will not hear. Even when it is. Announced to him. By someone with my own credentials.

When I mean my credentials. No one can question. The fact that I have stood firmly.

Against Roman Catholicism. Who more than I. Have stood firmly against the

Roman Catholic faith. In the public forum. Over the past ten years. But he still won't listen.

I offered you the job. But you still had to accept it. And we can't force ourselves on God.

We can't make God save us. We can't make God bless us. This all comes from God's side.

But it doesn't mean. We don't have to receive him. As many. John 1 .12. As many as received him.

To them gave he the authority. To become the sons of God. Even to those who believed on his name.

Which were born out of the flesh. And the will of man. But of God. Now later on.

T .A. McMahon is going to make a comment. And by the way. I have written to T .A. McMahon.

To make sure he understands that my challenge. To the bringing call includes him. If he would like to debate this issue.

If Mr. Hunt will not. Be glad to debate Mr. McMahon. Both of them together. That would be fine.

If they would like to get together with Dave Hunt. Or with Norman Geisler. And George Bryson.

They can have a whole panel. That's okay with me. No problem. But he is going to make a comment.

About this very issue. Because obviously one of the things. That you emphasize.

In trying to talk about this. Look Dave. What you are saying is. God can initiate everything.

He can put the plan out there. But without your action. Without your free will action.

The entirety of that plan. Comes to failure. And their response. Will never be to deal with that.

I am not saying faith is a work. The Bible clearly says faith isn't a work. That's not the point.

The point is it is an action. That man must undertake. So as to be able.

To make this work of God. Come to fruition. That is the point.

Well. That doesn't mean we didn't receive him. We did.

Verse 12 says that. But verse 13 is saying. Man could not cause himself to be born again.

Man could not force himself upon God. In fact man can't be born again himself.

Give himself a new birth. Only God could do this. But there is still something. We have to accept it.

The gospel says eternal life is a gift. You know. This constant repetition of the phrase.

We have to accept it. We have to accept it. They always place it within the context. Of human gifts.

And miss the fact. That what we are talking about here is life. And that is why

I think they react so strongly. To the Lazarus illustration. Or to any illustration.

Where the issue is life. Resurrection. Those are the biblical terms that are used. Because if we recognize.

What the nature of the gift is. The idea of limiting it to. Well you know.

I gave someone a gift. I gave someone a gift of a pair of sunglasses. Or something like that. Everybody knows

I love Oakley sunglasses. And so if I say. I bought someone a gift.

I gave someone a gift. Okay. And once we lower it down to the level.

Of merely human activity. Along those lines. Then it is really easy to say.

Well you can buy it. And you can have those beautiful sunglasses. But until the gift is accepted.

Then there is no actually. Transfer of ownership. And the gift isn't accepted. The problem is we are not talking about sunglasses.

Sunglasses don't help dead people. Dead people don't need to worry. About UV radiation.

Okay. That is irrelevant to them. We are talking about life. We are talking about resurrection. So let's put it in biblical terms.

And let's listen to what this constant argument. That is put forth by Chuck Smith. And Dave Hunt and Norm Geisler.

You have to accept resurrection. Or it is not a gift. Well what does it mean?

Accept resurrection. What? How do you even begin to make heads or tails out of that?

The ridiculous nature of it. Comes forth. Very very clearly. As soon as you even enunciate the words.

And why is that so important? Because. That goes back to the nature. Of what the gift is itself.

And once you allow that nature. To be understood. Then the whole issue of force.

And divine rape. And all the rest of that stuff evaporates. And that is why we don't have the dialogues.

The back and forth. Because once that challenge is made. Then every time they fall back. To these same old tired.

Refuted over and over again arguments. It is seen that they are really not honestly dealing with the text. Here is this week's question.

Dear Dave and Tom. I see from your newsletter. Which I like very much. That you are writing a book about Calvinism.

I have Calvinist friends. Who have tried to win me over to their camp. But many of their views.

Are difficult for me to reconcile. With scripture. Maybe I don't have enough of a theological mind.

To grasp what they are saying. On the other hand. Much of it simply doesn't add up.

What troubles me is. These are very bright people. And they quote some of the most respected evangelicals.

In America. I feel a bit intimidated here. So I would like to hear some of your thoughts.

Dave. We are getting lots of mail. And a lot of the mail isn't too kindly.

As it were. With regard to things that we are saying. About Calvinism. Or reform theology.

And our next newsletter coming out. I don't know when this program is going to air. But you have addressed it. But this is a concern to us.

Isn't it? Tom. It's a controversial subject. Why should it be controversial?

I don't know. The Calvinists are not restricted in what they say. What they write.

In promoting it. Now let me stop that just right there. Because for some reason. Dave Hunt feels that if we respond to him.

Like what I am doing right now. Since he won't debate. Then I have to take his comments. And I have to respond to him.

Now I would rather that he would have the opportunity. Of doing that live. In a debate format.

With equal amounts of time. But he won't do it. So since he wants to have monologues.

And not dialogues. Then this is what we are reduced to. This is what we need to do. If we are going to respond to these things.

Why even do that? Remember we have a similar audience. Many people who listen to Dave Hunt. Are people who are concerned about Roman Catholicism.

They are concerned about giving a testimony to their Catholic family. Well I want them to give a consistent testimony. To their

Catholic family. And so it is important. It is relevant to what we do. And so we offer a response. But for some reason

Mr. Hunt seems to believe. That to criticize him. To respond. To demonstrate that he is in error.

That his biblical facts are not true. That his arguments are inconsistent. And not based upon logic. And so on and so forth.

That somehow is we are saying. That we shouldn't discuss these things. What he also seems to understand.

Or at least the feeling that he has. Is since we contacted him. And because of his own.

Self -professed ignorance. He is the one who said on the radio program. I haven't read the Reformers.

I don't know these issues. I have not engaged these subjects. I can't handle the original text of scripture.

Because of his own. Self -professed limitations. We have said to him not. Hey this is the sacred cow.

You can't talk about it. What we have said is. You have not properly prepared yourself. To do so in such a way.

That shows respect for your audience. That is what we have been saying. And so he has completely misconstrued.

And simply will not accept correction. On the reason why people said. Dave you should not address this issue.

It is not because we somehow claim. Some special rights for ourselves. I mean to use the president's language.

Bring it on. That would be fine. That would be great. No problem whatsoever. Truth shines most clearly.

When it stands against the backdrop of error. Listen to the debates we have done on this subject.

They have really helped. And we would like to do more. That is not the issue. We never ever claim this is the taboo subject.

We would just ask that if you are going to address it. At least know what you are talking about. If we should question.

As the Bereans. This is Search the Scriptures Daily. If we should search the scriptures. To see whether what

John Calvin. Or his mentor. That he took most of his ideas from Augustine. If what they said was really biblical.

What could be wrong with that? That is one of the things that concerns me Tom. Because we have gotten some very angry letters.

Accusing me of not knowing anything about Calvinism. Well if they want to walk in my study. And see the many many books that I have read.

By leading Calvinists. Both past and present. Calvinist Institutes. That I have all highlighted.

And Augustine whom I have read. And Luther and so forth. I think I probably know more about Calvinism.

Than most of the people who call themselves Calvinists. But they have this attitude. That we should not dare touch this.

Like it is a sacred cow. See there. There is the best expression

I know of. That is a clip of course. That we have played a number of times. We have been able to contrast.

Dave's statement to me. I have never read the reformers. With this statement. Which came only a number of months later.

In regards to I know more about Calvinism. Than most Calvinists do. And that is an amazing statement.

I am sorry. Given the consistent.

Lack of a substantive response. It amazes me. That someone would make that kind of statement.

That is irresponsible. That would be like. If I over the next three months.

Started reading a bunch of books. And then got in the air and claimed to be an expert. In all things eschatological. Everybody who knows me knows that is not my area.

Now certainly I have at least done the background study. To know the original languages. And be able to dive into that.

If that is what I want to do. Don't worry I don't have that desire. But still that would be ridiculous.

To make that kind of a claim. I mean the only term I can use. That is arrogance. That there is a level of arrogance there.

That comes from traditionalism. And I see this in many different groups. That is absolutely amazing.

And they get very angry. And we get pastors you know. Who have written in and say. Take my name off your mailing list.

And I have told all my congregation. Not to get your newsletter. Couldn't we not have an open discussion about this.

Without disfellowshipping one another. I don't understand that part of it

Tom. Well you know I like that last section here. I really like that last section. An open discussion about this.

Without disfellowshipping. Couldn't we have an open discussion about this. Couldn't we not have an open discussion about this.

Well that is what I want. There you go. Let's do it. You know it sounds to me.

There seems to be an inconsistency. On Mr. Hunt's part. At this point.

To say can't we have an open discussion. Let's give ear. To all sides here.

Well the best way to do that Dave. Is you and I. You and I are experienced debaters. You have debated

Roman Catholics. You know how the format is supposed to go. You debated one individual on this subject.

As soon as the book came out. You've said that you would debate me. And now all of a sudden.

No I won't do that. Because we've written this book. I still believe. That the most useful thing.

Yes it was Dr. Joseph Pfeiffer. The most useful thing. That could be produced. To go along with the debate book.

Can you imagine this set. If you really wanted to. To delve into these things.

What if you could get. Dave Hunt's book. What Love Is This. The Potter's Freedom.

Debating Calvinism. And a three tape. Video series of the debate.

Between myself and Dave Hunt. And T .A. McMahon. Put them all in there doesn't matter. Don't you think.

Both sides would be able to say. You know what. That kind of a person.

That kind of a person. Has all the information. Available to them. To make an informed decision.

Concerning this subject. Don't you think. That would be a great way to do it. You know we could add in some others.

We could go ahead and add in chosen but free. And we could add in. The doctrines of grace by Boyce.

We could add in. Chosen by God by R .C. Sproul. We could throw some of these things in there.

You could obviously expand the number of books. Almost interminably. At that particular point in time.

But having a three tape. Debate set. That would go along with the book.

Debating Calvinism. The Multnomah publication. With me and Dave Hunt. The debating that is due out.

At least no later than February. Let's put it that way. What a tremendous resource that would be.

But instead. Even with that book. You have to go to the Dave Hunt website.

And download his stuff. And you hear his side. You go over to AOMN .org and you download our stuff. And you hear our side.

At least on our side I'm playing his stuff. And then responding to it. You don't get to hear the two sides.

Cross examining one another. Because there's going to be a lot of people. And I've told Dave Hunt this. There's going to be a lot of people.

Contacting Dave Hunt. And saying look. In the book. James White demonstrated that you misparaphrased.

First John 5 .1. And he pointed it out grammatically. And why it is. And I've looked at the text. He's right.

But you didn't respond to it. You simply said we don't need this verse. There's hundreds of other verses that say the same thing.

And he demonstrated that you actually promoted. Seemingly in ignorance.

The New World Translation of Acts 13 .48. Again in an attempt to get around.

The testimony that as many as were ordained to eternal life. Believed. And he pointed out that you said the Liddell and Scott Greek lexicon.

Didn't give this meaning. And yet he quotes it. And it does. And it's not even a lexicon of Koine Greek. And you didn't respond to these things.

And then you messed up the subjunctive. In John 3 .17. And you used it as a club to beat

Calvinists over the head. But you didn't respond to these things. How do you respond to these things? And you see if we had a debate.

Then that would all be done at one time. And you see I think if people have a full measure of information.

They can make decisions for themselves. We can trust God to lead his people. Isn't that a wonderful thing?

Well I think it is. Well Mr. Hunt. Mr. McMahon. The challenge is there.

Do what the Berean call is supposed to be all about. Let's go to the scriptures. Let's do it publicly.

So that we can benefit the most people. I'm waiting to hear from you. We'll be talking more about it on the next