Radio Free Geneva (Part 2): Scriptural Considerations in Response to Justin Brierley

Our mighty fortresses are God and Mary 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. I'll never be a miserable toad in spring period

And I'm gonna be the one standing on top of my hands, 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 foes

Have seen to what God's will be made

And off with cruelty Well, first of all, James, I'm very ignorant of the

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

Calvinists. Of the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever

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

You are stupid, baby The other day in class

I said, 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.

Don't tell my home this day Read my book. From age to age

And now from our underground bunker, deep beneath Bruton Parker College, where no one would think to look, safe from all those moderate

Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re -read George Bryson's book, we are broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to save for his own eternal glory.

Greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. It's a little distracting to, right as the program starts,

I think my Apple account has been hacked. Yeah, I can't get back into it.

That's not a good thing. So, what's worse is some of the programs I'm using may, in fact, end up being impacted by that during the course of the program and stop working.

So, we will see. So that means I know what

I'm doing as soon as the program is over. Unfortunately, I hate stuff like that. Anyway, welcome to Radio Free Geneva.

We are continuing the response we began on the last program to Justin Brierley's article in Premier Christianity.

That actually gives a date of November 23rd, but it wasn't created November 10th, so it's been a little while back.

But why both atheists and Christians need to believe in free will, you can find that at premierchristianity .com.

We had gotten through a portion of the material, and we were getting down to the important stuff.

Important in the sense that, as I mentioned last time, the reason that I am reformed is not because it's cool to be reformed.

As far as the world's body of Christians, it's a small minority view.

So it's not quote -unquote cool in that sense. It might be in the United States and maybe some other places, but it's a minority view.

That's not why I'm reformed. I'm reformed because I am convinced that when you use the same hermeneutics that you use to defend the key elements of the faith, which would include the deity of Christ, the

Trinity, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the gospel as a whole, that when you consistently utilize the same hermeneutics, the same method of interpretation, and apply it to this subject, and it's a subject that I would suggest, there is a tremendous amount of tradition, and there's a tremendous amount of personal...

Well, it's personal tradition. Mankind wants to have control in the matter of salvation.

God is allowed to do everything else. God can cause the sun to rise and keep the moon in its orbit and guide the galaxies, and he can do all of that stuff.

But when it comes to me and my salvation, that has to be totally under my control.

There is a very strong personal element of bias and tradition and prejudice that I think has to be examined and recognized when it comes to this subject.

And the Reformed understanding is counterintuitive. It's natural for mankind to reason from himself upward toward God.

That's the nature of the religions of men. Reformed theology starts with God and comes downward, and it's destructive, deeply destructive, to man's ego and power and control and everything else.

And so as a result, why would you hold a view like this? Because when

I apply the rules of interpretation and exegesis to John 6 and John 10 and John 17 and Romans 8, 9, 10, and 11 and Ephesians chapter 1 and passages, the entire section we looked at last time in Isaiah, I come to the same conclusion.

God is absolutely sovereign. He accomplishes what he wills. We didn't read it last time, but someone at some point,

I forget when it was since the last time we talked together, but I almost tweeted to someone, you know, you really do need to read.

Actually, I did. I said to someone, may you obtain

Nebuchadnezzar's wisdom. That's what I said to somebody on Twitter. And what

I was referring to was in Deuteronomy chapter 4, when

Nebuchadnezzar was struck down for his arrogance, for his pride, just like, you know, the king of Assyria was just killed.

Nebuchadnezzar struck down for a period of seven years. And he was driven away from mankind, began eating grass like cattle.

His body was drenched due to heaven until his hair had grown like eagles' feathers and his nails like birds' claws.

And here you have, but at the end of that period I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me and I blessed the

Most High and praised and honored him who lives forever for his dominion is everlasting dominion and his kingdom endures from generation to generation.

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but he does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth and no one can ward off his hand or say to him, what have you done?

At that time my reason returned to me. So we are most reasonable when we recognize how small and brief and ignorant we are and how big and powerful and omnipotent and omniscient

God is. And so here you have a pagan and he recognizes all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing.

He does not have this idea of the powerful libertarian will of man.

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing. He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth.

It's not just out there. Even amongst the inhabitants of earth he accomplishes his will and if you don't like the fact that that is said by a pagan, how about we consider the 33rd

Psalm, which says let all the earth fear Yahweh, let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him, for he spoke and it was done, he commanded and it stood fast.

Yahweh nullifies the counsel of the nations, he frustrates the plans of the peoples.

The counsel of Yahweh stands forever, his plans, the plans of his heart from generation to generation.

So notice the parallel in verses 10 and 11. Counsel of the nations, Yahweh frustrates that, but the counsel of Yahweh stands forever.

Plans of the peoples, frustrates that, the plans of his heart from generation to generation.

The psalmist contrasts these things and yet very, very often I hear the quote -unquote free will theists, who interestingly enough are only concerned about the free will of the creature, not the free will of the creator.

The free will theists emphasizing very strongly that, well God wants to do this and he wants to do that, but you know, hey, he's given us all our free will and so he can only do what we allow him to do and I just go, yeah, you know,

I don't seem to, I don't seem to see that in the Psalter, I don't seem to see it, you know,

I did mention last time very briefly, Psalm 135, 6, it's one of those nice short ones, you can memorize it very easily.

Whatever Yahweh pleases, he does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.

Some might say, oh yeah, yeah, see? In the heavens, the earth, seas, all deeps, just all that impersonal stuff, it's just not when it comes to man, but that's not, that's what we saw in Psalm 33, that's

Daniel 4, that's not actually how that works at all.

And so we come to, you know, the discussion with certain biblical foundations and I recognize that those biblical foundations require a very high view of Scripture and I honestly believe that one of the reasons that Reformed theology is a minority report amongst many is that it does require an extremely high view of Scripture and there are many people who do not hold an extremely high view of Scripture today, there are many people who have bought into very modernistic, rationalistic, anti -supernatural criticisms and even amongst

Christian academics, there is, quite honestly, a desire to look good in the eyes of the world and therefore there are certain things you just really can't believe or even if you do believe, you can't say it out loud because that's going to end up causing you problems.

And so, as we had said last time, we have these foundational starting points and so we were moving toward, we were looking at the assertion losing love and justice and we had already pointed out that love is something that is commanded, it's the greatest commandment, you shall love the

Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, it is not a feeling, it is not an emotion, feelings and emotions may flow from it, especially in the changed heart, but it is not, thou shalt have a feeling.

There is so much more to that as I think most Christians do understand that.

The idea is that you have, the objection is you have two people on equal level and there has to be give and take in this type of relationship, but we're talking about the creator and the creature and that part is very often missed in an understanding of what it means to love

God. But we also mentioned likewise, any meaningful sense of justice is also lost under the deterministic view of God.

So if God has a sovereign decree, if God is accomplishing what he wills in the heaven and the earth, if God is the one who works all things after the counsel of his will,

Ephesians chapter 1, then there can be no justice because it's all just a play.

Again, it's the flattening out, it's the taking of the three -dimensional beauty of scriptural revelation and flattening it out to a two -dimensional puppet play.

Very common perspective that many people unfortunately have.

But we already looked at counter examples of this in scripture last time.

We looked at the fact that in Acts chapter 4, Herod and Pontius Pilate and the

Jews and the Romans are all held accountable by God on different levels because they have different motivations, they have different intentions in what it is that they and how they engaged in the actions relevant to the death of Christ, but it does not change the fact that what took place in the death of Christ, which is the most evil act ever because it was the one absolutely innocent victim, what took place is at the very predestining hand of God.

God predestined that it take place. You either have to say the early church was wrong, the early church was deluded, the early church was just simplistic.

That's how you do this. That's how, as people turn to the left and move farther and farther away from a commitment to Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura.

That's what you do. You say, well, yeah, I know it says that in Daniel, but we all know

Nebuchadnezzar never said that. This was just simply a Jewish writer many, many centuries later.

It wasn't Daniel. He just puts these things in Nebuchadnezzar's mouth and it's just poetry and all the stuff in Psalms and in Isaiah.

It's all just poetry. You can't really take it literally. And the early church, they were just interpreting their little bit of persecution at that time in an apocalyptic sense.

Look, I went to Fuller. I know. I know how it's done.

I know how you get away with this kind of stuff and how you explain stuff away while continuing your religiosity.

I know how it's done. But like I said, it requires a fundamental shift in your view of the authority of Scripture.

If you allow Scripture to be Scripture, then we've already provided counter examples where God holds men accountable justly for doing what he decreed they do.

That's where you have to understand certain things such as the difference between what's called the decretive will of God and the revealed will of God.

So God has a will that is expressed in his decrees. He does not tell us what that is.

We do not have access to that information. We only have access to that information as history plays out.

But he has a prescriptive will and that's found in his law. And if you don't see the distinction between those two, you'll never understand the biblical narrative.

God says, Thou shalt not kill. And then he has Israel act as his means of judgment upon deeply idolatrous nations, which included killing.

So you've got the prescriptive will and then you've got the the decretive will or sometimes called the secret will.

I prefer decretive will of God. And they are not in conflict. You just need to understand what each one is addressing.

And in the same way, you have men acting on the basis of their desires.

And yet God at times restrains men's sin, does not allow them to sin.

The brothers of Joseph wanted to kill him. God would not allow that to happen. There are a number of instances like this found in scripture.

And so God can justly use those who are guilty before him of sin in any way as to glorify himself.

I mean, I suppose there are some today, but for centuries, there wouldn't have been many Christians who would have been found to raise an objection to God using

Pharaoh to glorify himself. I mean, the plagues were clearly a destruction of the gods of Egypt.

And yet people died. And people today will say, that's not fair.

That's not right. That can't be. But God, you know, our natural response is if God wanted to bring his judgment to bear upon us for our sins at any point in time, he could do so.

We'll say that, but then when it really happens, we won't follow through with that. Can God do that?

It destroyed the firstborn of Egypt. How can he do that justly? Because they fell on Adam and they were guilty of sin.

And so we have become very accustomed to demanding grace and mercy because God is so gracious and merciful.

But sometimes God brings judgment and that's very important.

So we provided counter examples. The king of Assyria, the brothers of Joseph, et cetera, et cetera, to this idea that justice is destroyed in a deterministic view of God.

Because obviously the justice of which we speak has to be defined as to what category we're talking about.

We're not talking about justice between men. We're talking about cosmic justice. And in the end, everyone will either get justice or mercy.

One of the two. If a person is condemned, that's just simply the just condemnation of their sin.

If they receive mercy, that transcends categories of justice. And so one of the lines here, equally, how can those

God has predestined to hell? Now, of course, this engages in the error of equal ultimacy.

And there are people who teach equal ultimacy. But I think it's an error. Very plainly, there is a vast difference between the exercise of God's sovereign power in saving the elect, because that's an exercise of grace.

That's power expressed through grace, over against leaving someone in their sin, which is reprobation, which leaves them subject to the justice of God and the wrath of God.

There's no need for the extension of the power of grace outside of a common grace or a sustaining grace.

But there is no extension of the power of redeeming grace, which requires the entire redemptive act of the triune

God in Christ to be effective and just in bringing about the reprobation of any individual.

So, they're not the same thing. So, when you say predestined to heaven, predestined to hell, when you make it equal ultimacy, it's the same thing, either direction.

That's not accurate. That's not an accurate understanding. But equally, how can those

God has predestined to hell be considered guilty of rejecting him if they had no option to choose him?

Now, notice, I think, the fundamental misunderstanding of what is being said here.

When it says, they had no option to choose him, what is that a statement of?

That is a statement of saying that for fairness to exist, grace must be extended to the fallen sons and daughters of Adam equally.

And as soon as you start saying that grace can be demanded, that grace has to be given in a particular fashion, now you're getting into some serious problems with the very nature of grace and the freedom of God in the extension of that grace.

And so, the idea is, well, people deserve a chance as if salvation is some kind of chance thing.

Again, very much focused upon man, not focused upon what God is accomplishing, the fact that God has a particular people, that he saves them in his mercy and grace, to the praise of his glorious grace, and so on and so forth.

No, it's just everybody has to have an equal chance. But that's an equal chance, that's basically like saying,

I've used this illustration for many years, hardly ever happens anymore, every once in a while I hear about it.

But, in the United States anyways, and I'm sure the royals could do this,

I'm sure there's somebody with the power to do this in the United Kingdom, but you can, the governor of a state, or obviously the

President of the United States, can pardon someone and can remove all legal ramifications of whatever acts they may or may not have committed.

And so, the governor of a state, for example, can pardon a man on death row, whatever few states are left that have the death penalty, can pardon someone on death row.

Now, does it follow that if that governor is going to be just, he has to pardon everybody on death row?

That's how man wants to think. That's not how we used to think. That's back when people thought rather than emoted.

People recognize this illustration a little bit better. But, no, there is no necessity for that governor to pardon everybody on death row when he pardons one particular person on death row.

And so, with that in mind, we see that the underlying presupposition in objections like this is an errant presupposition.

It's an assumption that for God to be quote -unquote fair, he has to treat everyone the same way.

And that makes grace something that can be demanded of God. And that is not what we see in Scripture.

I don't know how anybody looks at the history of Israel. And even looking at Jacob and Esau or anything like that, but then looking at Israel and Egypt, Israel and Babylon, Israel and Assyria, how can anyone look at any of that and come to the conclusion that in reality

God has to treat everybody equally? Who were all the prophets that were sent to the

Amorites before they were wiped out by the Israelites? Well, there weren't any. And yet there were prophets sent day and night to the people of Israel over centuries as God's long suffering stayed with them and his patience and his mercy and so on and so forth.

So, the idea that, well, you know, God has to treat everybody the same. You know, if you've come up with that conclusion, you didn't get it from reading

Scripture. You did not get it from making your parameters, scriptural parameters.

So, anyway, Meanwhile, Christian determinists are faced with the problem of how to rescue the concept of love and justice from being rendered meaningless by a

God who controls every thought and desire. Well, we've already addressed that. Calvinists may have a logically consistent view of God, but is he worthy of our worship?

Well, and what does worship even mean when it isn't freely given to begin with? Well, again, notice the flattening out.

You can't have a full orb. You can't have meaning in eternity and meaning in time.

One has to crush the other. We've pointed out that the Incarnation is a standing refutation of such a thought.

Jesus didn't become a puppet. He entered into time. His actions were meaningful.

That means our actions are meaningful. And yet, Jesus himself affirmed it is absolutely necessary that I go to Jerusalem, fulfill these prophecies.

These things were written beforehand of me. They're being fulfilled now, et cetera, et cetera.

And so we see that the Bible doesn't allow for this flattening out. If you accept this flattening out, you've pretty much hollowed out the entire story and really are on your road to either open theism or even worse, something like process theology down the road.

But Calvinists may have a logically consistent view of God, but is he worthy of our worship? Well, Romans 1 says that the very element of general revelation of the creation around us shows us that we should be thankful to God and to acknowledge him as God.

It's not up to us to determine that God is worthy of worship. That's a, again, starting down here setting up parameters to saying, well, do you fit what

I think should be worthy of worship? This is not biblical.

And of course, the child of God recognizes that I have been raised to spiritual life.

If I was spiritually dead, there was nothing in me that could attract the grace of God.

It was completely his work, completely his spirit, and therefore my heart has been changed.

When it's drawn out to him, that's the work of the spirit of God and it's the nature of the new creature in Christ Jesus, and that's all his work.

So, where do I get any boasting in any of this? I don't. And so, and what does worship even mean when it isn't freely given to begin with?

Well, it is freely given. I want to worship God. But when you say freely, you're saying as an autonomous creature outside of the resurrecting power of God and the role of the

Holy Spirit, and you're not even saying that it's freely given if you confess the necessity of the renewing work of the

Holy Spirit and convicting work of the Holy Spirit and enlightening the mind. You're not even saying freely. So, you know, there were a few lines in here.

It was just like, hmmm... Losing free will is too high a price to pay for the

God of determinism. Surely the Christian view of a God of love only makes sense if he has given us the ability to freely choose or reject him just as he freely chose to give himself for us.

That's interesting when Jesus specifically talks about the specific people for whom he gives himself and uses specificity in that language.

But what I wanted to really get to is sorting through scriptures. It's not a long section, unfortunately, and of course, we've spent over the years many, many hours working through key texts, and there is almost nothing here.

There's only one brief text or scripture to look at, but I do want to work through it.

Well, there's two. One's very, very clear that we'll see here in a moment, but there are, you know, it would be very, very worthwhile.

Justin, if you would take the time to look at the strong Reformed exegesis that has been presented from John 6 and John 10 and John 17 and Ephesians 1 and so on and so forth, there's no response to those things here.

It's just an article. I understand that, but that's where we're coming from.

That's our source, and when you don't take that apart, you're really not providing much for us in the way of reason to take seriously what you're saying because you're not interacting with the primary argumentation that we're putting forward.

It says, but what about those scriptures that seem to affirm that God controls everything and only chooses some for salvation?

The fact is, we all read scripture through an interpretive lens. Yes, Justin, but that's why we do exegesis, and that's why having the consistent rules of exegesis for everyone in every culture and language and everything else is meant to help filter those lenses out.

I hope you haven't bought into the idea that we are all hopelessly enslaved to our lenses and that there isn't any way of really knowing any kind of objective truth or if that objective truth is just a very, very basic outline and that the rest of it is all up for grabs.

The fact is, we all read scripture through an interpretive lens, guided by our intuitions and theology.

Well, I would hope, Justin, as an apologist, that what you really wanted to say was guided by the sound consistent rules of hermeneutics that allow us to get to the original meaning of the author and his intended audience that then becomes the foundation for the development of our theology.

Because if you're using your theology to interpret scripture, then where'd you get your theology at?

You now have an external source that is determining what you're going to see in scripture. And while we see people doing that all the time,

I hope we recognize that that's backwards. And if we don't challenge that, it ends our ability to really communicate to anyone the truth of the gospel of Christ.

Where others see predestination, I tend to see God granting genuine freedom to his creation.

Well, okay, then how do you deal with Psalm 33?

Where do you see—because when you use the term genuine freedom, you're actually referring to some concept of autonomy, libertarian freedom.

So where do you find this? Did Cyrus have libertarian freedom?

Could all the prophecies in Isaiah, could they have all been invalidated?

I mean, I've said it before, I think the only consistent Arminian is an open theist.

And so I don't know if you—you did say that there were other views, and you included a concept of open theism, seemingly as part of the possible viewpoint, so maybe you have some predilection toward that.

I don't know. I don't see how anyone can hold to the inspiration of the

Old Testament text and actually believe in open theism, because certainly nobody who wrote the

Old Testament or New Testament had any concept even close to that as being their view of God by any stretch of the imagination.

But that doesn't change the direct statements of predestination and hardening of hearts and it's all there, and just simply saying, well,

I tend to see God granting genuine freedom to his creation. Okay, but that doesn't explain how you see it.

It doesn't explain how that text actually teaches that, and that's what we need in a meaningful dialogue and debate.

So, there were two references, two references in the four paragraphs under Sorting Through Scriptures.

In 1 Timothy 2 -4, Paul states that God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. God's heart is for all to know him, that's clear enough.

But it's less clear in Romans 8 that Paul is talking about individual salvation when he speaks of those whom

God has predestined. That's it. Now, on one level, it's a little bit unfair because you did not invest much there and some of us have invested a lot there and written entire chapters and books dedicated to those particular texts, so it's a little bit unfair.

But, you did put it out there. So, let's take a look at 1

Timothy once again. Now, Justin, I would assume you at least have access to The Potter's Freedom.

A lot of people over there do. It has made the trip across the pond. There is a chapter called

The Big Three and it deals with 1 Timothy 2 4, Matthew 23, 34 and following, and 2

Peter 3 9 because they are the most commonly cited texts.

And they are just thrown out there saying, hey, this is perfectly clear. But I'd really like to ask you,

Justin, do you really think it's that clear? Let's take a look at it in its context, starting in 1

Timothy 2 1. First of all, then, I urge that in treaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings be made on behalf cuper pantone anthropon, in behalf of all men.

Now, if we're going to take that literally and not contextually, then it sounds like Paul is saying that there needs to be prayer for every...

He's writing to Timothy. Let's say Timothy is in Ephesus right now. He's saying that we should be praying by name for every person in the city of Ephesus, which would mean very, very, very long prayer meetings.

But you'll notice that Paul defines his own language when he says, cuper pantone anthropon, he then says, cuper basileon, cui pantone, tun enhuparque, in other words, for kings and all who are in authority.

So what are kings and all who are in authority? They are kinds of men. They are types of men.

He's speaking in categories, categorically, that is, breaking people down into categories, and what he's doing specifically when he says all men is he's not speaking extensively.

He's speaking extensively of categories, the reason being that there would be a temptation, since Christians are under persecution, to not pray for those who are persecuting them, to not pray for those who are kings and all who are in authority.

That remains a temptation even to this day. But he says no, you are to have prayers and petitions and thanksgivings for all kinds of men, even those you might not want to pray for, such as kings and those who are in authority.

So the important thing to see is, in the immediate context, Paul uses categorical language.

His hearers would have had to have used categorical language. They would have understood him to be speaking of categories of peoples, kings, all those possessing authority.

That's not everybody, but it's talking about categories so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God, our Savior. And then we get to your text, but notice it's

God, our Savior, who Pontos Anthropos Thelisotheni.

Now, if we just stop right here, connect this with the preceding sentence, what's he saying?

That it's God's desire that all kinds of men be saved.

That is, Paul is affirming the reality that even rich people, powerful people, even kings are going to be the recipients of his grace.

God desires all men to be saved. Now, if you want to take the, as you did, and you said it's very clear, but you assumed it, you didn't prove it, you didn't drive it from the context.

If you want to assume that this is all men individually, then

A, you have to explain why he would use categorical thinking in one sentence and the next sentence switch to something else without even any indication whatsoever.

And then you need to be consistent in applying this in what comes afterwards. And that's something, to just be honest with you,

Justin, I've never seen anybody do. Potter's Freedom has been out for, coming up on, well, it's 18 years, coming up on two decades.

It's had a lot of impact on a lot of people. I know entire churches that exist because of the

Potter's Freedom, and you would think that if there was a problem with this argumentation, that it was somehow self -contradictory or that it was impossible or something.

Somebody, by now, would have demonstrated that, but I can be perfectly honest with you, I've never seen anything that even comes close to providing that kind of counter -exegesis.

So, let's follow along. Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth?

So, two possible ways of understanding this. Universally, God desires the salvation of every single individual, but he can't accomplish it without their assistance.

Or, God desires the salvation of every kind of men, and, of course, we can then go to John 11, we can go to Revelation 5, men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

It's asserted over and over again in Scripture that that is where you're going to get

God's elect people, or men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. That's why Paul endures all things for what?

For the sake of the elect. That, I think, is Paul's understanding. But let's press on.

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man

Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all the testimony given at the proper time.

Now, if you look at the Nessialan text, the editors have placed verses 5 and 6 in a poetic form, indicating this could be a fragment of a poem, early hymn, creedal form, something along those lines, an early confessional form.

But what's interesting is there is one

God, and having used hais with the as, you then have hais kai mesites theu, there is also one mediator between God and men, the man

Christ Jesus. So there's all sorts of stuff here that's really important in regards to incarnational theology and soteriology in regards to mediation and the work of Christ and the acceptance of his sacrifices, all sorts of stuff here.

But here's the question that I will ask you to seriously consider,

Justin, because I think it's very fair that given, assuming, this doesn't determine the ex -Jesus one way or the other, but it is relevant.

Assuming that this is a fragment of an early confession or something along those lines, then

Paul is assuming that it's the common possession of both he and Timothy.

And so, that there's going to be an understanding between the two. And when it says there is one mediator between God and men, do you understand,

Justin, that Jesus intercedes before the Father in behalf of every human being who has ever lived or ever will live?

Now, I suppose you could raise questions about the nature of heavenly intercession, which is not just a

Pauline doctrine, but it's clearly seen in Hebrews as well. And I suppose you could raise questions about temporality in regards to the nature of that intercession,

Jesus is the God -man. I suppose you could raise some issues like that. But when we talk about intercession, does

Jesus intercede before the Father for every person who has already died in their sins?

And what would be the nature of this intercession? And what would be the effect of this intercession? If he's not, then is he only interceding for those who have not yet died?

And yet, God, the Father, and the Son know what each one of these is going to do, unless you're an open theist,

I suppose. I mean, open theism just ends all meaningful categories, especially satirologically speaking.

And, again, because none of the biblical writers had it as a category. Therefore, to insert it messes everything up.

But I believe, based especially upon Hebrews chapter 7, where we are told that Jesus is able to save completely those who draw nigh unto

God by him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them. So, Jesus possesses the capacity to save completely because of his intercessory standing.

There's something about his intercession that actually saves, which fits perfectly with John 6 .39.

All the Father gives me, have come to me. The one who comes to me, I know comes to me. This is the will of the Father. I lose nothing, raise it up on the last day.

Jesus has to have the capacity, power, and ability to fulfill the Father's will. Now, again, this is taking the biblical revelation as a whole, interpreting it consistently.

If a person does not have a view that scripture can be interpreted in that way, then

I guess he can't come to these conclusions. But then again, that means there's really no way of knowing the answers to any of these questions, anyhow.

So, when we look at 1 Timothy 2 in its context and follow the categorical thinking laid out right at the beginning of the chapter, which

I, again, I've read these objections for a long time, back into the late 1980s, and I don't see these objections being laid out following the context, following the argument of the author.

But Paul lays out categories and therefore he desires all kinds of men to be saved and there is one mediator also between God and men, which he's now defined as all these different kinds, whether it's kings or rulers or the lowest of the low.

There's one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. He partakes of us who gave himself as a ransom for whom?

Well, for all kinds, including kings and those in authority. That's why we can never withdraw the proclamation of the gospel from anyone because we are assured that God's going to draw his people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, including categories of leaders and kings and rulers and everything else.

We can never, ever make the assumption that that is a person beyond the saving power of Jesus Christ because of who they are or what their status is or what their people group is or anything else.

And so I have a consistent interpretation that then allows me to consistently read 1

Timothy 2, 4 through 6 in light of Hebrews 7, 24 and in light of Romans chapter 8, which we'll get to now.

And they'll all say the same thing. And yeah, consistency's a good thing. And I remember,

Justin, you may not know as much about Fuller Seminary, and certainly

Fuller wasn't nearly as liberal back when I was there, but it certainly was way to the left of me. But I had a friend at Fuller and I had become

Reformed while I was there. And we were having a conversation about these things once, and it really gave a real insight into the fundamental difference that one's view of Scripture makes.

And that is, he said to me, and this is what he hadn't gotten into Fuller believing this, but he had come out of Fuller believing this.

He said to me, the thing that bothers me, James, about what you're saying is that it's just too consistent.

And I just don't think God has communicated in that way. You need to have mystery.

You need to have inconsistency. The favorite phrase at Fuller was, well, there is tension in the text, which was their nice way of saying, it really doesn't make any sense, and we can't answer the questions.

The beauty I see is the beauty of Paul writing to Timothy, he says one thing when he writes the entire church at Rome, he says this.

When John writes, he says this, and it's the same thread of truth being expressed in different contexts and different ways.

That's where I see the beauty. I don't see some beauty in irrationality or contradiction or anything else.

And this isn't some simplistic, fundamentalistic easy way of trying to harmonize things.

It's seeing a consistent pattern that is expressed in many different places in the

Scriptures together. And so, I'd just be interested in how you would put that together in light of the categorical thinking and in light of the mediatorial work of Christ.

Is Christ interceding for those who will be lost? Is he pleading his perfect blood for people he knows is never going to be saved?

To what end? Is there a contradiction between the intentions of the Father, Son, and Spirit in regards to this subject?

Would the Son be interceding for a people the Father has not determined to save, or is it as in most people's understanding, the

Father, Son, and Spirit are just doing the best they can? But the intercession of the Son will never save anyone without their assistance.

Is that really what's being said? I cannot see that as a consistent interpretation of John 6 .39.

I can't see it as a consistent interpretation of Hebrews 7 .24 or then this passage either, because they're all connected together in what they're addressing.

So, I think that's an important thing to—and as I said, 2 Peter 3 .9,

Matthew 23, addressed in the chapter called the Big Three, and I would encourage you to take a look at it.

So, the other statement was in regards to Romans chapter 8.

Someone just put something up here. This is interesting.

Someone posted this on Twitter. A consistent believer in free will has to believe in open theism, because the omniscience or knowledge of God must perfectly correspond to the nature of reality.

And to say that we have a free will so that the future has alternative possibilities, and yet God foreknows all future events as certainties, is to say that the knowledge of God does not correspond to the nature of reality.

It means that God does not know the future as it really is. That's true. I've said it many times.

It's the only consistent direction to go. It's just, it's so grossly unbiblical, which means that's not a valid direction to be able to go, but there you go.

The statement had been made, but it's after the clarity of 1 Timothy 2 .4, which I think that may be an assumption on your part, but I would like to see the counter -exegesis to what

I just gave you. But it's less clear in Romans 8 that Paul is talking about individual salvation when he speaks of those whom

God has predestined. Really? Well, let's wrap things up by looking at that and see if it is unclear as you indicate that it in fact is.

Romans chapter 8, obviously a great build -up to this particular point.

We don't have time to go through all of that. It's great stuff, but Romans 8 .28 and we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love

God, to those who tois kata prothesin kleitos usin, to those who are the called, kata, according to his purpose.

These are the called people, and their calling is according to the purpose of God.

Whom? Because those whom he pro -egno, whom he had foreknowledge of.

No, that's not what it says. To have foreknowledge, foreknowledge is a noun.

This is a verb. To foreknow is to do something, not have something. And every time in the

New Testament when God engages in this verb, in this verbal action, and this is an active verb, it's not a passive, it's not a middle, it's an active verb.

Whenever God acts in this fashion, the object of his foreknowledge is personal.

It's Jesus, the Son, Israel, and here the whoever the huss is, those who are called according to his foreknowledge.

So, whatever this means, the standard, well,

God looked down the quarters of time and saw what people are going to do explanation, simply doesn't work. Because that's taking in passive knowledge of future events which you haven't decreed.

And that's not what the act of foreknowing is. When God foreknew, well, when

Adam knew Eve, she bore a son, Yadah in the Old Testament very frequently refers to something much more than merely having intellectual knowledge of someone.

God says that Israel alone of all the nations has he known.

New American Standard translates that as chosen. But it has the same general category of meaning.

Those whom he foreknew, and that would be a gracious decision to enter into personal relationship with even before we exist.

And it's all based upon God. He also predestined, and you said, here it is again, it's less clear in Romans 8 that Paul is talking about individual salvation.

Well, answer me a question. Predestined to be conformed to the image of his son.

Who is conformed to the image of Christ? If it's not individuals. If it's not the elect.

If it's not regenerated people, saved people, people involved by the Holy Spirit of God. It certainly isn't talking about general people groups.

It's not talking about the general creation. I mean, just allowing the text to define its own terms rather than finding a way out of allowing it to define its own terms.

Um, everything in this text is all about salvation. Christ being the prototokos, the firstborn amongst many brethren, being conformed to the image of Christ, the image of the son.

I mean, this takes us back to Ephesians 1. This takes us back. This is language. This is soteriological language of what

God does in saving a particular people in Christ Jesus, isn't it? What rule of exegesis am

I violating here? Or what rule of exegesis gives you the right to say, well, it's really not certain if this is really about salvation.

I'd like to know what rule of exegesis I'm violating and saying, yes, it is.

Because the hus, so you notice it's hati hus pro egno, to begin in verse 29.

Verse 30 continues, hus de pro orison, so whom he predestined tutus cai ecolison, he also called.

And those whom he called, these he also justified. And those whom he justified, these he also glorified.

That's why it's called the golden chain of redemption. There's no way to break it. There's no way to break it.

And to my understanding, pretty much any non -reformed soteriology will break it.

And if you break the golden chain, I suggest the only reason you break it is because of your traditions.

So if pro egno means to, before time, choose to enter into a relationship with, then to predestine, the decree then of when you're going to live and how you're going to be saved and who you relate to and everything else, flows from that.

And those whom he predestined, these he also called. Now, the original reader of Romans 8 is going to look back at verse 28 and see

Kleitos called according to his purpose and see the connection between the two. But we recognize that kaleo is used in a number of different ways in the

New Testament. There is a general call, the gospel call that goes out, but then there is an effective call that results in salvation.

And in this case, whatever you do with kaleo,

Paul's assertion is those who are called are justified. Now, you might want to say, well, you know, he's just not being exhaustive.

There's other things here and it's many are called if you're chosen and so what really happens here is he's just summarizing stuff and so there's a call and those who respond are justified.

But that's not Paul's point. I mean, people can assume that if they want, but then just be honest,

I'm not really deriving this from scripture, this is just considerations that I would take alongside scripture.

Because the scriptural teaching is predestined, called, justified, glorified.

And these are all finite verbs, they're all accomplished by God himself.

There's no room in the golden chain for a cooperative, autonomous human will.

The only autonomous will in Romans 8 is God's, not man's.

That's why it goes on to say, what shall we say to these things?

If God is for us, who can be against us? Now, I would say, if you insist on inserting some kind of free will, autonomous concept into the golden chain so that it becomes something that may or may not happen,

Paul's words don't make any sense. What shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?

Well, anybody who chooses not to cooperate would be an easy rebuttal. But that's not what he's saying.

He, who did not hold back or spare his very own son, but in behalf of us all, who is this us all?

It's going to be defined. And it's not every human being. In behalf of us all delivered him over, paradidomi, how shall he not also together with him grace us with all things, freely give us all things, but it's that same term translated, grace to give freely.

Paradidomi. So, he does not hold back his son, and then he freely grants to us all things, and who is the us?

Who will bring a charge, cata eclecton, against the elect of God?

That's who's in view here. This takes you right back to 828. It's been consistent all the way through.

If you introduce anything else in here, you have to explain where it's coming from exegetically, and I don't think it can be done.

The language is just really clear. Who will bring a charge? Cata eclecton theu, the elect of God.

Theos ha decion, God is the one justifying. Same terminology used back in Romans 4 in justification, and he's just used justification just above this.

This is as soteriological as you can possibly get. Intercession, bringing of charges, adoption, forgiveness.

This is... If Romans 8 isn't soteriology, nothing in the Bible is soteriology.

That's what just amazed me when you say, but it's less clear in Romans 8 that Paul is talking about individual salvation when he speaks of those whom

God has predestined. There couldn't be anything clear in the Bible. I mean, you've got... Justin, you've got to have thick, thick lenses on to filter this out.

This is not how you would handle a discussion. If I was in studio with you, and we were talking to a

Muslim about the resurrection, and he's using this kind of argumentation on a passage this plain,

I'd give you that little glance at one point, and you'd give me that little glance back, because you and I would both see.

But now it's you with the lenses on, because this is as clear as it gets.

It really is. So, who will bring a charge against the elect of God?

God is the one who gives the statement of justification, not guilty.

Who is the one condemning that is coming to the negative judgment?

Christ Jesus, the one who died, rather who was raised, and then notice, who is also at the right hand of God, who is interceding in our behalf.

That intercessory work, this is, the power of Reformed theology,

Justin, is seen in the recognition that what it honors is the consistency of the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in bringing about their own glorification in the salvation of the people in Christ Jesus.

Those whom the Father has elected, the Son dies to redeem perfectly, and part of that work of the

High Priest is the presentation of that finished work in the Holy Place.

And so, when the Lamb stands in the presence of the Father as if slain, all those who are united to Him, who the

Father has given to the Son, all those who are united to Him are represented by Him.

He intercedes for them. That's what you have right here. He's at the right hand of God and also intercedes for them.

That answers the 1 Timothy 2, 5, 6 issue right there. Same author, same teaching, and if you allow

Paul to answer for Paul, Paul has now answered the question. If you allow both to speak.

And so, why is it that no one will separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus?

Because of what the Father and the Son have accomplished, and now the Spirit dwelling within us testifies to these things.

But the law court example that is given here is so clear and so compelling and so absolutely soteriological that there's no...

I don't think there's any way around it. I just don't see how there's any way around it.

I would... The only way around it, again, involves a fundamental redefinition of scriptural authority and what the entire purpose of scripture actually is.

Maybe what salvation is, or anything along those lines. But there you go.

And then, after that, separation from the love of Christ, what's the basis of all of that?

The basis of all of that is the finished work and the perfection of that work and the fact that the one who intercedes for us will accomplish his intention in intercession, and there is such a beautiful harmony between the

Father elects a people, he entrusts them to the Son who intercedes for them and brings about their perfect salvation.

Why would the Son be interceding for people the Father has not elected to save? And if this is just some...

Well, but he's interceding for everybody, and the Father is trying to save everybody, and the Spirit is trying to save everybody. But they just fail so often.

That's... Where is that in here? Where does that come from? And the interesting thing is, even when people try to say, yeah, that sounds real nice, but...

But... What about all those Jews that don't believe?

Isn't it interesting? What are the next chapters? 9, 10, 11. And I'm not going to go into Romans 9 right now, because I don't want to beat you over the head with a bat.

But that's what that's all about. Well, Paul, come on! If all you say here is true, that's a pretty nice speech you just gave about intercession and all the rest of that stuff and the love of God and nothing separate.

That's beautiful, but... Paul, what about those... What about all those

Jews who don't believe? And that's what Romans 9 is about. God has exercised

His sovereign choice throughout the history of Israel. And does it impact entire groups?

It does. But groups are made up of people. And it certainly impacted

Esau. It certainly impacted Pharaoh. And just because Pharaoh represents all of Pharaoh's people doesn't mean it didn't impact

Pharaoh. Because as he took his last breath going underwater, it impacted him, too. So...

There you go. These are not new arguments, to be honest with you.

But it is fascinating that especially on this subject,

I would invite you to reconsider Luther's bondage to the will and realize that on a fundamental, foundational level, synergists today amongst

Protestants are on Rome's side of that issue, not the Reformers'. It was not a synergistic gospel message that broke the power of the

Roman See over all of Europe at that time. It was the proclamation of the bondage of the will and the power of God's grace.

And Luther spoke much of predestination election. He just did not speak of it in the systematic and hence over -time compelling way that Calvin eventually would.

But he did speak often of it. And obviously, I think it is exceptionally important.

I think this is what lies behind the differences that we have in regards to apologetic methodology and how we approach the lost person, what their capacities are, all of that.

Romans 1, it's all impacted by this. Very, very much so. But hopefully, and you did indicate in your tweet,

I didn't bring it up before the program, I apologize, but that you appreciated the attitude with which we have approached this.

But like I said then, unfortunately, this is normally just a one side says, he says, he says.

And he says it with a British accent, therefore he's right type of a situation. And that's why

I immediately, because I think it is an appropriate, proper, respectful thing, suggested hey,

I know you've not watched every single debate I've done, but I've done a few. And I bet you the folks at Kensington Temple would probably go, you and Justin?

Cool! Yeah! Let's pack the place out!

It's a great venue, and they do a great job. I'm not speaking for them, I'm sorry guys at Kensington. I've just had such a positive experience in the debates that I've done there.

And of course, you know where it is, you probably have done stuff there too. I'm just saying, look,

I'm looking at my travel schedule, and I'm going to be coming through Heathrow a lot this coming year.

And hence, you know, we've just gotten good. I mean,

I know, not only do I know the tube routes from Heathrow into the city, and from terminal to terminal, but I can tell when they're going to be closed so I know where the taxi stands are to get me from one to the other, and everything else.

I mean, you know, have Oyster Card, we'll travel. So, you don't have to go anyplace, but we're planning on doing some debates over there with Muslims and things like that.

Maybe if you go, well, yeah, we could do a program or something like that.

But if you think that there might be some others over there, maybe people who've written recent books on the subject, that maybe you could utilize your considerable weight of connections to arrange a debate with them.

Or maybe a two -part debate, or something along those lines. Hey, I think this is important.

Hopefully, at the very least, what this has demonstrated is that there is room for meaningful, respectful, foundational, biblical discussion between Christians.

And I'll be honest with you, brother, I have always found

William Lane Craig's stance on this to be a cop -out, to be perfectly honest with you.

He did the discussion on your program, as I recall, so he has engaged this subject briefly.

But let's be honest, especially if the focus is solid, a two -and -a -half to three -hour meaningful debate with cross -examination, with Bibles open, your program's not designed to do that.

I can do that here, like I've done with Michael Brown, because we can go for as long as we want, and we don't have to take any of those wonderful, disgusting breaks, which

I'm sure drive you crazy as well. But there's certain ... I'm of the old school.

There are certain subjects that are important enough to actually take time. Time out from the schedule, time out to really engage.

And I'm just simply saying, if you really are passionate about what you wrote, then let's do it.

Or find someone who is fully capable of engaging the biblical languages, church history, the relevant issues regarding compatibilism and determinism and stuff like that.

Look, when it comes to compatibilism and determinism stuff, there are other folks that I know would be my superior in certain aspects of that stuff, because they've written specifically in that area, and I don't claim to be the be -all and end -all of all things.

But when it comes ... and this is what's important for you and me ... I'm an apologist.

You already know that, which is why you've had me on your program so many times. I'm an apologist. So are you. So do you see the extra benefit that would accrue from you and I discussing it?

It's because people who have benefited from both of us in the apologetic realm are often really confused.

If you guys are able to do this over here, what's with this over here?

How is this so different? And so that's some of the thinking that I have along those lines.

So let's think about it. It doesn't have to be the next trip, but like I said, me and London are getting to know each other really well.

Rich knows how to make the reservations at whatever ... which one at Heathrow do you want to stay at this time?

Just sort of how things work now. And when

I stayed at that one hotel down near the Thames, I honestly right now don't think any longer

I would actually need to look at my phone to make the walk to the studio. That's how close it is and how many times

I've done it now. I probably still would, so I wouldn't end up in a bad area, I guess. But the point is we can do it.

So let's do it. I think it would be good for everybody and be beneficial for all sorts of folks. Not in a

I'm going to take you down, Justin. But I do apologetics because I want to benefit the church and I want to benefit the church around the world.

And I think you do what you do for the similar motivations as me. So if we have this fundamental difference and if you've taken the time to see what

Michael Brown and I have done, who have the same difference, we've engaged each other in a very, very respectful fashion.

It can be done and it does not require compromise because love of the truth doesn't require compromise.

You know that. I'm preaching to the choir here. I'm showing you the respect that I have for you.

You've always been extremely fair with me. Even when I sensed you weren't necessarily on my side, you were still.

You always strive for fairness. You have really created a tremendous platform for yourself.

You know that I disagree with a lot of your guests, even when it's obvious that you're on their side, and yet you still have me on.

I've appreciated all of those things over the years. And because of that, I think we could do a pretty good job in putting together a meaningful debate on this.

So let's keep that in mind and let's hope we can put something like that together.

So, thank you for watching Radio Free Geneva. What we're going to do tomorrow, we're going to be back tomorrow, and there's a ton of stuff.

Jory Micah has decided that I am a big bad meanie head.

Isn't it amazing? You didn't start the music, did you? Oh, good.

Come on. You can't be quick on this stuff. Got to talk about some of this

Jory Micah stuff in regards to transgenderism. And let me just say something real quickly.

I tweeted something out today. Even when you see something as wildly heretical as Jory Micah's stuff about transgenderism, don't distract from the refutation of the issue by focusing upon the person.

I've been disappointed in a lot of the tweets that I've seen. People who are quote -unquote on my side but detract from the real issue by focusing upon her and attacking her as an individual rather than remaining focused upon the real issue and expanding upon that.

But it is important to look at not only what she said, but of course, she doesn't follow my advice there and goes after me personally.

And that's just, you know, that's how people in the progressive, which I would call regressive left, that's how they do things.

They don't live by the standards they set for other people by any sense of the term. But then there's also some stuff from LiveOut that I want to look at.

LivingOut is putting stuff out that just is extremely concerning to me because it's being presented in very conservative, especially

Southern Baptist churches. And some of the things being said, look, if anybody had said these things only five years ago, people would have been going, whoa!

But we have become so desensitized so quickly that we need to take a look at some of the stuff that's being said there and who's promoting it as well.

You wouldn't be overly surprised at who is. And then of course we'll have a brief discussion about Apologia Church and the critics out there.

I don't want to deal with them so much as I just want to narrate, for example, what happened

Sunday evening at Apologia. And I'm hoping to maybe have a few clips from the sermon at Apologia on Sunday evening to play for you, to give you an idea, but give you some of the background and things like that.

We will talk about that tomorrow on the program, probably same time,

I assume. Afternoon time period. And then I head for St.

Charles on Thursday. The seminar starts on Friday. And Rich is all excited that he's got it on the calendar a few days before it starts.

It's there. At least it's there. Yes. And so this is year 17 in St.

Charles, which is stunning. I truly... We need to pray for that church. That's just all there is to it.

And then I'm going to be down in prior Oklahoma the next weekend with Derek Melton and all the good folks down there.

That's on the calendar too. And at some point I may get a chance to...

Well, it's Oklahoma. So you know what you do in Oklahoma when you're not busy is you go shoot stuff.

So we might actually get to go hunting a little bit, weather permitting.

You never know this far out. That would be enjoyable. Yeah, well, you probably could see them from a good distance.

So yeah, there you go. So we've got that coming up. And so December's going to be coming at us full steam as we pass this so quick we won't even know what happened.

And given being gone for 10 days, I'm not going to be able to... I mean, how many of my coogies can

I get into the dividing line before it starts getting too warm again here in Phoenix to actually wear them?

I'm actually warm in here right now because it's like 74 today outside, like 74 degrees.

But it's going to cool down. In fact, there are a couple days next week I'll be gone when the high is 59.

But it'll be colder where I am. St. Charles is going to be like upper 40s or something like that.

So yeah, it's going to be nippy. Anyways, so if you're in the

Oklahoma area near St. Charles next weekend or Oklahoma next weekend after that, the information is on the calendar at aomin .org.

Were you able to get to it again? Or did you do that before? You did that before, okay.

Yeah, who knows what's going on there. Anyways, so check that out. We'll hopefully see you then. Looking forward to seeing you then.

See you tomorrow. Same time, same channel. Whatever in the world that means anymore. We'll see you later.