Radio Free Geneva: Norman Geisler the First "Major" Scholar to Critique Calvinism!

But two things. Secondly, the second thing we'll get to is

I finished actually listening to, I recorded it and listened to it while writing, John Calvin Goes to Berkeley.

James McCarthy's presentation of his response to Calvinism, I've been told that Mr.

McCarthy is willing to do a debate. I'm hoping to see if he might be available the first weekend of December in St.

Louis. Maybe we can arrange something like that. I haven't had a chance to contact him yet, but I'm hoping we'll be able to do something like that.

So I want to provide some comments on the subject of the book,

John Calvin Goes to Berkeley, which I listened to. But first and foremost, while I was traveling to speak at Reformed Theological Seminary at the

Deep South Founders Conference this past week, we had a little bit of a travel oops, and I sort of flew to the wrong state.

So I had a long ways to drive to get there, and while we were in the car, I noticed on my wonderful Droid phone that I had an email from someone telling me about comments that had been made that preceding

Tuesday night on a radio program, and I looked at the stations. That looks like the station that Paul Edwards is on.

And lo and behold, it was on the program that follows Paul Edwards' program in Detroit.

And with a pastor that I had actually met and had a nice conversation with just back in June, as I recall.

Now, after I heard this, I looked around a little bit closer, and it seems to me this was pre -recorded.

It seems to me that this was a previous program that was being replayed. So I don't know that these comments were actually made originally on January 11th.

It may have been earlier than that. I'm just not sure. But this is

Bible Talk from WLQVAM. This edition that I have aired on January 11th of 2011, and there's just about a four -minute section we're going to play here.

I'm going to play you the whole thing, then we'll go back through it a little bit more slowly. This is Norman Geisler being interviewed, and the interviewer happens to like one of Dr.

Geisler's books called Chosen But Free. I watch you all the time.

Well, here's your book. Now, this is one of the greatest books I've ever read that you wrote, Chosen But Free.

I believe that it is the most balanced approach to divine election or Calvinism I've ever read.

A great book. Well, thank you very much. You know, it's what the Bible says. The Bible says

God is sovereign and man is free, and that's all we said. We're just trying to teach what the Bible teaches on the doctrines, not either one or the other.

But here's my question. Here's my question, Dr. Geisler. I agree with you.

I never saw a book that was as balanced as this. So why is it that there was so much hostility, especially

James White? These guys were attacking you like you were some kind of a heretic. It was unbelievable.

Because no major scholar had ever challenged them before and had written a book that attacked the very heart of their view.

That's why. So that's it in a nutshell, huh? That's it in a nutshell. They went berserk because before that, they didn't have any major challenge to it.

Now they have a major challenge to it. And so some of his followers went so far as to say

I couldn't possibly be a Christian because I believed in both sovereignty and free will. Well, I never knew that there would be so much controversy around the discussion of biblical predestination.

It was just unbelievable to me. In fact, one writer said, We've got to dethrone Dr. Geisler. I said,

Goodness gracious, I didn't know he was on the throne. That's the news to me, too.

Well, listen, I'm just teaching what I was taught at the William Tyndale College by Dr. Roy Aldridge and Dr.

Allen and the other great teachers that were there. They learned from their teachers at Dallas Seminary, Lewis Perry Chafer and Dr.

Walvert, who had a very balanced approach to the subject. The Bible teaches that God loves everybody and Christ died for everybody.

These people teach that Christ only loved the elect and only died for the elect.

Now, I think that's some kind of theological racism. Myself, I think that to say that God only loves some people is to make

God into an arbitrary, capricious Arabian sheikh, kind of like the

Muslims believe about Allah, rather than an all loving God. Well, I would agree with you. The thing is, it's interesting to me is your book was really, it was well written.

It wasn't really attacking anything but the position. It was doing it from a theological basis. Another book I read was one written by Dave White, and he was kind of on the attack.

But your book was mostly just exploring it. You were very fair, very balanced. And that is what really surprised me about the kind of animosity that was directed at you in the book.

Well, you know, that's unfortunate. I'm working on a book now. In fact, it's finished. Dr. Ron Rhodes and I wrote a book called

Conviction Without Compromise. And the three parts of the book are in essential unity, and there are 16 essential doctrines.

And we should take our stand there, rather be divided by truth and united by error.

Then the second part is a non -essential liberty. Now, this is not a fundamental doctrine.

It's not one of the 16 fundamentals that we all must believe that are articulated in the early creeds and taught in the

Bible. It's a non -essential doctrine over which Christians differ. And we should differ not only because it's a non -essential, but the third part of the statement is in all things charity, we should have charity toward one another when we differ.

If we disagree, we should agree to disagree agreeably. And these people were vicious in their attack, not on my view, but on me.

Yeah, I would have to agree. This was one case where it wasn't just the ideas that were attacked. It was like attacking you.

And it was really amazing to me. Well, you know, when people do that, they've always run out of good reason and scripture, because it's kind of like the preacher who hadn't studied too much, wrote in his

Bible, logic is weak here, shout. Don't name a denomination, now you're going to get in trouble.

You run out of good arguments, then you have to start attacking the person instead of the position.

Everyone, we're talking to Dr. Norman Guy. So there's the section. And I, it, what do you say?

It's very difficult for, you know, the first thing across my mind, and I want, I'm going to replay it point by point.

But the first thing across my mind is what book did the interviewer read? Has he read the appendix in the second edition of Chosen But Free, which was aimed at me?

Is he really going to try to make the argument that what I did in responding to Dr.

Geisler is even in the same realm as the responses that Dr. Geisler has produced in that appendix?

And the other things that I know of Dr. Geisler has said concerning me. I mean, look, the fact of the matter is that Potter's Freedom shows

Norman Geisler tremendous respect as an individual. There was no ad hominem. There was no attack upon him at all. I've written to this interviewer.

He has not responded to me because there's no way to defend this kind of statement. It's just utterly bogus.

It's untrue. Anybody who's actually read the books knows it's untrue. But this is the kind of thing that people hear.

You wouldn't believe how many times I will go and speak someplace, and after speaking and talking with folks, and maybe as I'm going to the airport or something, there'll be a comment made, you know, we're a little worried.

Well, we had heard. We had heard this, and we had heard that.

And it's amazing how much slander is on the Internet about yours truly. It does bother me at times.

I don't let it bother me much. But it is amazing how many people won't listen to a word

I have to say. And, you know, how many, what was that guy's name? Guardian? How long ago now was it that he was we gave him, you know, give me six weeks.

Give me six weeks. Yeah. And what was it? What was it? I think he went from six weeks, and then he needed six months because he just got a new job or something.

I don't remember what it was, but it was someone that was going to... It's actually like two years now. At least that long. Yeah. Yeah.

I think Algo probably knows the exact date. But, you know, people who will in writing or on web boards or on radio programs will accuse me of all sorts of stuff.

Then when they have to face me, they don't even know what to say. They can't defend themselves at all.

Why should Christians do that? I don't know. I haven't figured it out. But, you know, we're the ones who actually play the other side.

We play the folks who don't like me and respond to those things. But then did you catch something?

Two things. Yeah. The theological racism thing is just amazing. Isn't that an amazingly harsh thing to say?

I mean, especially given it's based upon, you know, the fact that Dr. Geisler's position has been refuted over and over again on that subject.

Isn't that incredibly harsh? Is that fair and balanced? It's almost sound like Fox News should be giving

Geisler a position given how many times it was such a balanced view of election. So the

Armenian perspective is a balanced view of election. Okay. All right. Well, there you go. But the thing, the most amazing thing other than the false accusations of the ad hominem and all the rest of that stuff, which should be easy to document given that, you know, the

Potter's Freedom has been out for like over a decade now. Um, but I just,

I listened to this initially on my droid. I actually downloaded an app while we were driving to Jackson to listen to a podcast, which

I had never gotten around to doing before, but I found a good one and I downloaded it and I was listening to this section. And I, if I could have fallen out of the vehicle as we were driving,

I would have, um, I really think that Norman Geisler, I've said many times,

I do not believe, I do not believe to this day that Norman Geisler has ever read the Potter's Freedom because that would be a fundamental denial of his primary belief.

And that is I'm too young to say anything worthwhile anyways. I was too young 10 years ago and I'm certainly still too young now.

And since I'll never catch up with him, I'll always be too young. No one younger than Norman Geisler can say anything worthwhile at all.

If they're in disagreement with Norman Geisler, if they're in agreement with Geisler, well, then that's a different thing. But not only do

I think he's never read the Potter's Freedom, but it seems clear to me that there are some real credibility issues cropping up in Geisler's work.

I mean, his defense of Eric and Cantor, his, his engineering of the great evangelical cover -up, um, the fact that he can actually defend somebody saying

Hadith 4157 as if that's somehow relevant, uh, has, has really caused me to go, you know, it does seem that the best books from him are those that are coauthored.

Norman Geisler and Nix. Geisler and Salib. There seems to have been coauthor involved.

And when he goes off on his own, like Chosen but Free, all of a sudden, wow, where'd that come from? Basic fundamental errors.

Greek words in verses that aren't even in, in verses. Uh, things we document in the

Potter's Freedom. Really bad stuff. Not when you have a Hmm. I wonder what that means.

And so you now hear a man actually, and I, again, this, this aired on January 11th when it was recorded, if it had been, if it had aired before,

I just don't know. But here you have a man who honestly just told the world that he thinks that his book is the first major attack on Calvinism.

Now that, that demonstrates a level of ignorance that is absolutely shocking.

I mean, I mean, how can anyone make such a statement by, well, oh, he says by a major scholar, maybe he just decides that everybody else, but, but here's someone has no knowledge of church history whatsoever.

Are you really going to say that there were no major Roman Catholic scholars, that there have been no major Arminian scholars that have been engaging this subject over the past 400 years?

I mean, that was just amazing. I was just left. I, I, what do you say?

What do you say? So let's, let's listen to this again. Let's, uh, let's go through it point by point and, um, uh, see what, see what there is.

Well, here's your book. Now this is one of the greatest books

I've ever read that you wrote, uh, chosen, but free. I believe that it is the most balanced approach to divine election or Calvinism I've ever read a great book.

Very much. You know that it's what the Bible says. It's the Bible says God is sovereign and man is free.

And that's all we said. We just trying to teach what the Bible teaches on the doctrines, not either one or the other.

Here's my question. Here's my question, Dr. Geisler. I agree with you. I never saw a book that was as balanced as this.

So why is it now? Immediately? This is not a balanced book. This is a, this is a horrifically imbalanced book.

It's one of the main reasons had to be responded to the primary problem with chosen but free. When I first read it, aside from the gross,

I said, genital argumentation that engaged in and the errors that it had on that level is the fact that Dr.

Geisler seems to feel that he can redefine the terms of the debate that have been used for hundreds of years.

Now that all that does is create confusion. It doesn't create clarity. How is that balanced? How is it balanced to take this kind of perspective?

I, I don't understand, but, but that's what that's, what's being asserted by this is

Dr. This is pastor Emory Moss jr. By the way, is the interviewer who is listening is on live right now on a faith talk 1500

WLQV, at least according to their website. There was so much hostility, especially James white.

These guys were attacking you like a, you know, you were some kind of a heretic. Now I've asked pastor Moss. I typed these things out.

I sent him an email and said, could you please show me where in my book I ever said anything like this? Because everyone who's read the part of his freedom knows

I didn't, um, that there was no assertions of anything like that, uh, in the

Potter's freedom. As I have said many times, as I wrote the book, I contact when

I first heard driving in a van on the way to an airport after speaking in conference with dr

Geisler, when I first heard he was going to be publishing the book, I sent him my books that had already published on it because some of the comments he made in the van struck me as being imbalanced.

And so I sent him my books. Uh, not that that would be relevant because now I understand he wouldn't think that I would have anything relevant to say at all anyways.

But then I wrote to him and I asked him, uh, where, for example, is the exegesis of John chapter six in your book?

Well, you have, I exegeted it fully. I sent back everything from his book, from John chapter six, everything.

I took the time to remember that first edition of chosen to free had no meaningful, uh, scripture side scripture index to it at all.

It had this short little thing, but it was not in anywhere near, near exhaustive. And I would have to literally page through the entirety of that book scanning all the text over and over and over again to create a scripture index.

And I sent him every single thing he said in John chapter six and a return letter. And I have those letters.

They were not argumentative. I was, I was approaching him with respect. We had had dinner together a number of times.

He had even told me the day he told me that he was writing chosen before he'd even told me the only reason he had gone to that conference was because I was there.

He wasn't even going to go to it, but because I was there, he went to it. So, you know, for a while we were on the, on the same page until he wrote this book.

And when I responded to the book, I wrote to him and I asked him, where is the exegesis?

John chapter six. Don't don't you think this is centrally important? Well, I did exegete it. He wrote back. And so when

I sent a letter back with every single thing in chosen, but free on John chapter six, all I got back was a postcard that said, if you publish,

I will respond norm. That was it. I tried to have correspondence. I tried to have interaction.

He's not interested in it. This is the, this is, this is a hobby horse of his. And, and everyone that I've talked to who has tried to talk to Norman Geisler about this subject in years past has told me the exact same thing.

And that is, as soon as you get on this subject, the walls come up, the eyes glaze over, he goes back to his default position.

He doesn't listen to a word you're saying. And that's why the third edition of chosen, but free is just as bad as the first edition of chosen, but free, except for the glaring errors that I caught and reported to Bethany house publishers, which were then fixed.

Okay. Other than that, it's the same type of argumentation. It's the same material. And so I bent over backwards to re to make sure.

And that that's why the Potter's freedom has had the impact that it's had. I cannot tell you how many people are reformed because the format of that book was such that I kept the personal stuff out.

I did go after the issue and the issue alone. And it is simply a falsehood. It's just a falsehood to say anything of it.

It's just, it's just not true. And if there was, if there was some way of documenting that people would have done that long before now, they really would have, but was unbelievable because no major, uh, scholar had ever challenged them before and, uh, uh, had written a book, uh, that attacked the very heart of their view.

That's why, uh, I'm sorry. But again, if that's what Norman Geisler actually thinks, if Norman Geisler thinks that chosen, but free is the first major scholarly challenge to Calvinism.

First of all, Dr. Geisler, the whole reason I wrote part of his freedom is because chosen, but free is so bad. It's just so bad.

I mean, it's argumentation is bad. The documentation was bad. When you're, when you're, when you're saying that certain

Greek words are in verses and the Greek word is nowhere in that verse. When you do not provide any meaningful exegesis of John six, when you cut your exegesis of Romans nine up into three different parts, because you can't consistently walk from the beginning to the end of the chapter and do so within any meaningful fashion, it's a bad book.

It's bad argumentation. And that's why there were so many endorsers on the Potter's freedom is because everybody else realized it was that is in no way, shape or form a major scholarly challenge to reform theology.

And it certainly is not in any way, shape or form the first, I mean, the only way

I could even begin to understand that statement to where, well, I can't understand any context where it makes any sense, but at least if what he was thinking when he said that was

I am the first modern scholar in the past 10 years, who's not a

Roman Catholic and who claims to be a moderate Calvinist who wrote a book against Calvinism, then

I can understand it. Then, then, okay. All right. Then we, but to make this kind of broad brush statement, this is the first major scholarly, you have to be self -deceived to make that kind of a state.

It's just, it's just unbelievable. How can you say something like that? I mean, I, that would be like my promoting the forgotten

Trinity and saying, this is the first scholarly defense ever written in the history of the church of the

Trinity. I mean, it's, it's absurd. You know, I mean, how can you read church history and not know of all of the, the, the debate that has taken place over this subject by major scholars from the

Roman Catholic perspective and the Eastern Orthodox perspective and the Wesleyan perspective and brethren writers and every kind of Arminian on the planet.

I mean, how can you make a statement like that? I just, I just don't know.

But having made that kind of a statement, he then says, so that's it in a nutshell, in a nutshell, they went berserk because before that they didn't have any major challenge to it.

Now they have a major challenge to it. And so some of his followers went so far as to say,

I couldn't possibly be a Christian because I believed in both sovereignty and free will. Now who, who

Dr. Geisler name names, please. We name names here. If I'm going to, if I'm going to talk about what somebody says,

I'm going to give names. I, what quote unquote, who do I, what followers do

I have? Uh, you're talking about somebody who sent you an email that I may not even know. Is it really fair to do this?

I mean, is it, is it fair? You know, should I, should I talk about all the, the, the ways I've been mistreated by Norman Geisler's followers?

I mean, I suppose I, I certainly can tell about, about how I've been mistreated by Ergon Kanner's followers, but we tend to name names about things like that when we do that anyways, and actually read their emails or play their stuff or things like that.

Um, but again, they went berserk. Really? If I went berserk, why has the

Potter's Freedom had such a long life and continues to have such a long life? Why are, why do I know of entire churches that exist today?

Because of the Potter's Freedom. The whole church began because someone read that book and they, they went, wow, this is what the

Bible teaches. And there are churches that exist today because of that. And that is fantastic.

I, I've been very thankful, uh, for Chosen But Free. When it first came out, I'm like, oh, the confusion this is going to cause.

And, oh, but you know what? In hindsight, uh, that book has produced more solid, reformed folks because you know what?

They became reformed because they, they saw a meaningful debate on the subject.

Now, it's not the Geist or whatever debate. He's been challenged to debate me a billion times and he won't do it. Uh, we've stood ready, but there, but most, most of the leading

Arminians won't actually do serious debates. They just, they, they want a monologue. They don't want a dialogue.

And he's, there've been churches, church after church after church has contacted him. I don't debate

Christians. Uh, but then he says, we, we, we went berserk. Really? Uh, you can honestly read the

Potter's Freedom and say, this is a berserk response. It is obviously very focused and in, to even begin to call it a berserk is, well, just dishonest.

I never knew that there would be so much controversy around the discussion of biblical predestination.

It was just unbelievable to me. In fact, one writer said, we've got to dethrone Dr. Geisler. I said, goodness gracious.

I didn't know he was on the throne. Again, nameless, faceless people, you know, being attributed to me.

Uh, I don't appreciate that. And I would want names, you know, uh, just document what you're saying. That's all.

I mean, if you're going to be in essence, casting aspersions upon my character, just have the integrity to back up your statements.

That's all. I just want to know why it is you think anyone that you're quoting actually represents me.

I mean, we've already had my book misrepresented. We've already had false attitudes attributed to me. Uh, and remember all this, the

Potter's Freedom was written a decade ago, over a decade ago now. I believe it was, uh,

CBD's number one theology book in December of 2000, if I recall. So we're, we're, we're over a year now and all the stuff that happened with the, uh,

Eric and Kanner scandal and the great evangelical cover -up engineered by Norman Geisler has happened since then, long, long after that.

Uh, I do, however, sadly believe that this does have a lot to do with the great evangelical cover -up.

I don't believe that Norman Geisler would have been willing to take the entirety of his credibility and, and lighted a fire as he did, uh, with his defense of Eric and Kanner.

If I hadn't been the one that on the Christian side of things had said most,

I mean, other people, there were other people involved too, but I said a lot about it and, uh, presence of my videos on YouTube and, you know, examining his, his fake

Arabic and all the rest of that stuff. I think if I hadn't been involved, I don't know that he ever would have done that because I honestly think, uh, that he really, really, um, engaged this because he continues to be offended by the

Potter's Freedom, not by the writing of the book, because I don't believe he's ever read it. I do not believe he's ever read it.

He's never accurately represented in any of his comments. We've documented that over and over again. Um, but it was the endorsements on the

Potter's Freedom. It was the endorsements. The fact that we had 27 people who endorsed that book, including people he used to teach with, that's, that's, that's why, that's, that's the connection.

Uh, shouldn't have been a connection, but that's the connection. That's the news to me too. Well, listen,

I'm just teaching what I was taught at William Tyndale College by Dr. Roy Aldridge and Dr.

Allen and, uh, and the other great teachers that were there, uh, that they learned from their teachers at Dallas Seminary, Lewis Perry Chaffer and Dr.

Walvert, uh, who had a very balanced approach to the subject. The Bible teaches that God loves everybody and Christ died for everybody.

These people teach that Christ only loved the elect and only died for the elect.

And I think that's some kind of theological racism. These people, I don't know, that doesn't sound overly friendly.

It doesn't sound like he's referring to us as his brothers or anything like that. These people. And, uh, of course, they refuse as Dr.

Geisler consistently did to recognize the difference between God's providential love and common grace and, uh, uh, electing love, things all seen on the, on the very surface of scripture itself.

But there you have a theological racism that's offensive and it's absurd. Um, because racism, your race is something you're born into.

There's nothing you can do about that. It's a, it's a physical characteristic. It has to do with your ancestor and your parentage.

And the whole point of unconditional election is that there's nothing in the person that attracts the grace of God in the first place.

So the most absurd argument you could make is the one that was just made. But again,

Dr. Geisler doesn't care. He doesn't listen to what Reformed people say. He has no respect for Reformed people. That just came out right there.

Why didn't, I wonder why the, why Pastor Moss didn't catch that? Well, no, Dr. Geisler, that, that sounds, that sounds pretty, uh, pretty offensive there.

Uh, no. Uh, you, you've got one, you have one standard, uh, for the Calvinists and one standard for the

Arminians, I guess, uh, in this, uh, this type of situation. But to identify the electing grace of God and the particularly, the particular redeeming work of Christ as theological racism is unworthy rhetoric, uh, that, um, thankfully no one can lay that kind of accusation against the potter's freedom.

Uh, because in addressing those things, we, we did so in such a way that we, uh, again, you don't want to get that stuff in the way of, of allowing the

Bible to do what the Bible does. The word of God addresses these things. And that's, that's the important part.

Uh, so, uh, theological racism, the accusation made by Norman Geisler.

Myself, I think that, uh, to say that God only loves some people is to make God into an arbitrary, capricious, uh,

Arabian sheik, kind of like the Muslims believe about Allah. Yeah, I, I think he means, means a sheik there, but, uh, sheik is a razor, uh, but a sheik is, yeah, that's somebody else.

But, uh, there you have the, now that's nothing new. That even is in, uh,

Answering Islam by Geisler and Salib. Um, nothing new there.

It is a common misunderstanding of what we believe about God's freedom. But again, notice

Dr. Geisler thinks that we don't believe man has a will. Dr. Geisler will not allow us to define what we believe about God's love.

Evidently, God's love has to be electing love for every single person. Therefore, God has to have electing and eternally frustrated love for every person he doesn't actually choose to elect.

But, uh, there is no, uh, choosing not to elect in Dr. Geisler's system. Something that we went over, uh, rather thoroughly in The Potter's Freedom.

Rather than an all loving God. Well, I would agree with you. Uh, the thing is, that's interesting to me is your book was really, uh, it was well written.

It wasn't really attacking anything but the position. It was doing it from a theological basis. Another book

I read was one written by Dave White. I think that's supposed to be me. It was kind of on the attack.

But your book was mostly just exploring it. You were very fair, very balanced. And that, that is what really surprised me about the kind of animosity that, uh, was directed.

Now again, I guess if you actually answer someone's book directly and you quote them in context.

And Dr. Geisler failed miserably, miserably in the appendix, the second edition, to prove a single out of context citation.

Never. Couldn't do it. There isn't one. That's why the appendix has been removed in the third edition.

Uh, couldn't do it. You would think that if I, if, if there was some type of animosity, you'd have to take somebody out of context.

I didn't. Uh, and no one has ever been able to document, uh, that I did. It's just, just obvious.

So I guess if you respond to someone biblically and demonstrate their errors, that, uh, that's animosity.

And you in the book because. Well, you know, that's unfortunate. I'm working on a book now. In fact, it's finished. Dr. Ron Rhodes and I wrote a book called

Conviction Without Compromise. And the three parts of the book are, uh, in essentials unit.

And there's 16 essential doctrines. I'll stop it there because, um, forgive me, but, um, especially right now in light of the fact that, uh, for example,

I've had a video on YouTube since July, challenging Dr. Geisler to answer three basic questions, which he will never answer because he cannot, uh, because he has on his website, falsehoods, errors, um, just, just a scandalous coverup of a man who has been enabled to continue in his sin and to refuse to repent and seek restoration.

Um, it's just hard for me to listen to, um, to this type of thing. Uh, you know, in everything, you know, following the

Augustinian line about charity and so on. So I'm sorry. Are we having problems with our friend again today?

No. Okay. All right. Just, uh, just all that stuff going on there. Now, very briefly, because we do have a phone call, uh, at, uh, actually it's a,

I mean, it looks like a Skype call, but, um, 877 -753 -3341 and dividing that line, uh, at Skype.

Um, I received an email a couple weeks ago, uh, from someone who was raising the possibility of a debate with, uh,

James McCarthy, uh, the author of John Calvin Goes to, uh,

Berkeley. For some reason, I want to keep saying John Calvin Goes to Geneva because that's where he went. But anyways, um,

John Calvin Goes to, uh, to Berkeley. And I had heard of the book, uh,

I don't remember how I heard of the book, but I had heard of it. Someone had sent me an email about it or something.

I, I really don't recall now, but, um, uh, let me, uh,

Calvin goes, there it is, goes to Berkeley and books. And, uh, there it is.

Uh, November 23rd, 2009 is the date that Amazon has on it, uh, by James G McCarthy.

And I checked, uh, I asked the individual, is this the same James McCarthy that, uh, has written books on Roman Catholicism?

And, uh, and I was told that, uh, that it is. And the email basically was, you know, you all ought to debate this.

And in fact that he had indicated he would be willing to debate the subject. So I, I did what, uh, what generations of busy apologists have done.

I downloaded it to my Kindle, uh, and, uh, recorded it to, uh, to my iPod and listened to it on two, uh, over the course of, uh, well, one 80 mile ride and then one shorter ride.

And, uh, you know, it, it reminded me a lot as far as the format goes of, uh,

Richard Belcher's books, Journey in Grace and Journey in Purity and things like that. It's a novel form.

And that's when I mean novel, it's in a form of a novel. Uh, it's not overly novel as in new, uh, it's a problem with, uh, having the same word, having different meanings, but, uh, it's written in a novel form.

So you have a lot of dialogue, which is a little, sometimes a little bit hard to follow if you're listening rather than reading. Um, but, uh, all in all, it was certainly a cut above a

Dave Hunt attempt at something like this. Uh, at least he is aware of the fact that, that Paul said that we were elected unto salvation, um, and tries to deal with the text.

I, I didn't find the attempt at dealing with it to be anywhere near exegetically sound, but, uh, at least he, he tries to deal with that unlike Dave Hunt.

So it's, it's a little bit on a higher level than that. Um, but, uh, a lot of the conversations were, were pretty hokey.

Obviously there was a lot of straw manning of the reform position, not only in the arguments, uh, that were being presented, uh, but the, for a while, the pastor, the

Calvinistic pastor, uh, in his comments and his dealing with Rod, the young Calvinist who, you know, turns out to be quite a jerk.

Uh, but, um, the representation of the pastor was just nothing like anything

I've ever experienced in, in ministry amongst reformed churches anyways. So there was that kind of thing.

And then, like I said, Rod was pretty much a jerk and Rod's responses were, were never overly compelling. Um, the, the final conclusion that this group of students come to and how they solve the mystery of predestination, you know, the, the book had rather be labored going back and forth and back and forth and presenting both sides.

And, and, uh, then all of a sudden there's like a, I don't know, a nirvana experience.

And, uh, a couple of the students are sort of had this spiritual insight and all of a sudden they have answers to everything.

And there, the book really fell apart at that point, as far as the storyline went. I mean, there were some interesting stories interwoven into it a little bit.

And obviously, uh, uh, Jim McCarthy knows Berkeley fairly well, I guess, because he, he certainly knew his way around campus as far as the presentation went.

So that was interesting, but it was really unbelievable how the, the final conclusion, his, his argument is, um, that, uh, to anyone who will repent,

God grants the gift of faith, even though faith is also a gift, but evidently everybody has the ability to repent.

And so it's all dependent upon your repentance and evidently some type of a quasi -Molinistic foreknowledge type thing, where God knows who's going to do that and who's not,

I don't know, but, uh, the, the, the ending was not overly believable, uh, because it was just all of a sudden these students that had been not able to come to conclusions on almost anything, almost any text, um, and who had, you know, just thrown out weak responses to Romans 8 and 9 and, and stuff like that, uh, all of a sudden, wow, they just, they just got this flash of an insight that answers everything.

And no, no foundation for that was laid. It was just a sudden boom. And, uh, that, that sort of made it a little bit less useful to me, but anyway, uh, that kind of book, you know,

I've always thought the Richard Belcher books were really good, Journey in Grace, because by putting things in that context, you know, there, there are people that struggle with a boy

Potter's freedom type presentation because, you know, it's not written as a novel. You're reading theological discussion.

And, uh, so I think there is a good place for that kind of theological novel if it's solid and, and presents a solid exegesis.

It's just difficult to do it well. Uh, I wouldn't even attempt, uh, to be honest with you. Uh, but others might have the ability to, to do that kind of thing.

So it was, uh, it was interesting. Uh, and we'll see if, if we can arrange something, what I'd like to try to do is finally arrange having debate, uh,

Covenant of Grace Church in St. Louis. Uh, because we've always wanted to do a debate there. I've been there for 10 or 11 years now, the first weekend of December, all the time.

And we just, we've just tried and tried and tried, and we can't ever get a debate set up. And maybe this time we could actually get it set up.

We've got plenty of time to do it. Maybe we'll be able to do that. So I'll probably get ahold of, uh, the folks that emailed me and see if we can work that out.

But, uh, took the time to listen to that. And, uh, it was quite interesting. 877 -753 -3341 and dividing .line

via Skype. Uh, let's, uh, talk with, uh, Landon in Orlando, Florida.

Hi, Landon. Uh, hi, Dr. White. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, sir. Uh, thank you for taking my call.

I was hoping you could help me out with this. Um, I've got a couple of apologetic resources.

Um, I don't know if you're familiar with the, uh, Holman apologetics Bible. Um, but that's got several authors in it that contributed, you know, on various topics and now you'll notice

I wasn't invited to. Yeah. Um, and, uh, politically incorrect.

Yeah. Yeah. Um, and, uh, I got a book called philosophical foundations for a

Christian worldview. And, um, what's interesting in them to me is, well, uh, there's two articles on human freedom and divine sovereignty in the apologetics

Bible, one by Bruce Ware, um, a professor at Southern seminary, and then the other by William Lane Craig.

And then this book is written by William Lane Craig and JP Moreland. And William Lane Craig writes on page five 65 in his textbook, uh, none of Molinism's competitors seem equipped to offer so robust a doctrine of divine providence and human freedom as Molinism.

And then he says a little bit later, Molinism does seems to provide the most illuminating and biblical faithful account of divine providence available today.

Wow. Down here and given, given that in his own book, only wise God, he admits that there really isn't any, that there's slim biblical evidence of Molinism.

It's not derived from scripture and every verse that, that he cites for it, he admits could be interpreted appropriately in another way.

Uh, that's a huge leap. Uh, but he does feel that it is extremely useful theologically.

Yes. Yeah. And I guess my question is, um, down here in Florida, we have a university of central

Florida. They, they housed the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza. And, um, especially as it relates to the topic of theodicy, um,

Dinesh D'Souza gave a classic Molinist answer as far as God, not being involved in evil that happens.

And it's, you know, our freedom that caused all the problems and things like that. And, you know,

I noticed with a lot of academic apologetics, at least the guys that I read, this

Molinism seems to be, they may not call themselves Molinist Dr. White, but it seems like that's what I'm hearing. Uh, you know,

I got a buddy who's a big fan of Norman Geisler and, you know, I call him a limp -wristed Molinist really, because you know, a lot of what he says, it sounds

Molinistic. Am I, am I reading this wrong or is what? Well, I don't think a lot of folks even really fully understand

Molinism. Uh, therefore, you know, they, they, they glom onto anything.

They, they don't want, uh, the old historical Arminian perspective.

And they certainly don't want the Calvinistic perspective. They do not want a divine sovereignty view where God is truly sovereign over his creation.

They want to find a way, uh, out of all of that. And they hear people saying, oh, well,

God has this, this middle knowledge. They don't even, they don't, they don't even seem to ask the question, and exactly how does he have this middle knowledge?

I mean, the grounding question regards to Molinism. I'm sorry, William Lane Craig has not answered it. He is not an exegete.

He is not a theologian. He's a philosopher. And his philosophy determines his theology, not the other way around.

That's, that's just so painfully obvious, uh, that, that anyone who listens to him to any extent can see it.

That's the case. And so there are so many objections to Molinism, but, but they, they almost never present it with quite the clarity that, that Craig does himself in his book.

I mean, the fundamental presentation of the Molinistic God is of a God who cannot save everyone.

He does not have the capacity. You need to understand something. The, the only people who never, you know, join the Molinists in the final analysis are the

Universalists because the Molinists say God cannot save everyone. There is no possible universe based upon God's middle knowledge in which everyone is saved.

And basically the only reason that the Molinist has to praise God is because he is a supercomputer.

He ran all the numbers. He ran all the possible universes and he managed to find the one where the most people would get saved and therefore chose to initiate that one universe.

Well, I'm sorry, but I don't worship my Kindle or my Droid, but they do some amazing mathematical feats.

I don't see any reason to worship a God who is, who has no freedom in and of himself, who has no coercive power of his own creation, uh, and who has, is, is dependent for his actions upon some kind of unbiblical, ungrounded middle knowledge, uh, that does not flow from his own free knowledge of himself or the knowledge of his, what's going to result from his decree of salvation, of, of creation.

I see no reason to even think that such a God would be attractive, but what is attractive about it is a means of getting around the self -shattering realization that God is actually sovereign in his universe and he's accomplishing exactly what he wants to accomplish in the way he chooses to accomplish it.

Well, I mean, is it from your personal opinion, somebody who, you know, deals with academics a lot, is this a growing view?

Like I said, especially in terms of the theodicy question, because every, every debate that I see and most of the people that I listen to, and like I said, that was very poignant for Dinesh D'Souza to give that response.

I mean, he was uneducated. Yeah, but, but Dinesh D'Souza is not a theologian and he's not, he's a Catholic. Uh, I mean, uh, he doesn't even know the

Jesuits have abandoned that. And so he's much more influenced by, um, you know, squishy evangelicals, but yeah,

Craig has a, Craig has a huge, uh, influence upon folks. And, uh, for a lot of folks, uh, they look around and they look at who's doing apologetics and they have a stark, a stark contrast between the two directions.

And most of them are in churches that would never accept a meaningful reformed, uh, perspective and, and, uh, grounding.

And so, uh, yeah, I would say that it's not because of the force of its argument at all and not because of the, the fundamental, uh, uh, end result of a

Molinistic system. It's, you know what it honestly is? It's taken the easy way out. It's taken the easy way out.

It's, it's, it's using an extra biblical system that's clearly not derived from scripture. It is, is derived from philosophical considerations and not from scripture.

It's forced upon scripture and that way it allows you to just skip the tough questions and it's, it's the easy way out.

Uh, it's, it's, look, you know, I'm sure it's still on my blog, but I asked Turgeon Fan a number of, uh,

I don't know, sometime last year, early last year, maybe even before that, um, to explain on, in layman's terms on some, uh, in some blog articles, actually they were on YouTube, in, in vocal form and spoken form, uh, what

Francis Turgeon said in response to Molinism long, long ago. And the reason

I did that is because the vast majority of people can't understand what Turgeon said. And I don't mean

Turgeon Fan, I mean Turgeon, the real guy. Um, it, it, it's, it's too, it's too difficult for most modern folks to follow.

It's, it's a whole lot easier to go the easy route. And I, it's almost like the, the, this is the

CNN version of theology and apologetics rather than, uh, the, the much tougher kind that we used to have.

And look, for a lot of folks, they say, look, the people I'm talking to, I can't keep their attention long enough to deal with those things.

So I've got to go with something more simple. Well, if you want something more simple, I guess that's, that's one way around it, but it doesn't mean that it's biblical or that's, it has any

God glorifying element to it at all. Is there a possibility of you dating or debating

William Lane Craig? Yeah, I'm not, he's not my type, but, um, believe me that, that issue has been raised many, many times.

And, uh, once again, just as with Dr. Geisler, the answer is I don't debate Christians according to, uh, to Dr.

Craig. So, uh, I, I think it would be fascinating, uh, to debate, uh, the theology of William Lane Craig.

That's, that's what I would be interested in debating. I, I have, I'm not going to even pretend to, to want to go toe to toe with him on philosophy, but, uh, the fact is

Molinism isn't philosophy, Molinism is philosophy. But what I would want to debate is why do you call it theology?

Because it isn't. And William Lane Craig knows better than to go into scriptures and try to defend Molinism. He can't do it.

It's not possible. Not against anybody who actually knows the system. It's not, it's not going to happen. Yeah.

Yeah. And, and like you said, it definitely comes out. Well, um, thank, thank you again. And I, I appreciate you mentioning, um,

I had called a few weeks ago and you had mentioned Dr. Greg Bonson and I just picked up his book,

Pushing the Antithesis and I'm working through that and it's a, it's a blessing. I'm definitely, you know, becoming more and more convinced of presuppositional and, um,

I'm growing in that. Just, just thank you for that reference. Oh, good. And then there's, there's also the book, Always Ready that, uh, that we have as well.

So you'd, you'd find them to, uh, uh, uh, help each other. They would support each other. Okay. All right. All right.