Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
It seems to be one of his favorite illustrations. What do I refer to? I refer to an illustration that initially appeared in the 1985 book by Basinger and Basinger on views of foreknowledge and predestination and I refer to dr Norman Geisler the illustration as it's originally appeared and as it appears word-for-word in the new Bethany house publication Chosen but free with one exception and I'll let you know what that exception is goes as follows.
Suppose a farmer discovers three boys drowning in his pond where signs clearly forbid swimming. Further noting their clear disobedience. He says to himself They have violated the warning and have brought these deserved consequences on themselves.
Thus far we may be willing to agree but if the farmer proceeds to say therefore I will make no attempt to rescue them we would immediately think something is lacking in his love and Suppose by some inexplicable whim he should declare.
I have no obligation to save any of them. But out of the goodness of my heart, I will save one of them and let the other two drown. In such a case. We would surely consider his love partial. The only difference as this very same illustration appears in Chosen but free is at the very end.
It says instead of just impartial it says in such a case, we would surely consider his love to be partial and Imperfect. Here's one of the illustrations that dr. Norman Geisler gives to substantiate his assertion that Calvinism presents a God who is not all loving a God who is not omni benevolent.
He cites a number of reformed people he cites RC Sproul he cites others. We'll take a look at those in time but in essence the argument is if God could save everyone and doesn't. This means God is not omni benevolent.
God is not all Loving as we have noted over the past number of weeks. Dr. Geisler's position is that God will save the maximum number of people possible Without violating their quote-unquote free will.
That God wants to save everyone. But God cannot save everyone because the ultimate decision-maker in the matter of salvation is not God. It is man the creature. God's desire is to save all but he can only save as many as the creature man allows him to save and part of the objection that he raises is Personified in this little story of the farmer and the three boys drowning in a pond that he is marked.
No swimming now. Dr. C Samuel storms in a book by Baker public and publishers called chosen for life an introductory guide the doctrine of divine election. Responded to dr. Geisler's story. What's interesting is he responded to dr. Geisler story many years ago.
This is 1987. So this would have been within two years of the first publication of this story. But 12 years later in publishing chosen, but free Dr. Geisler not only does not change a single element of his story adds only one word imperfect.
But he doesn't provide any response to dr. Storms critique, which I found most interesting. I'm going to read you. Dr. Storms response because I don't believe that I could do any better job Than he did in pointing out these issues.
However, there will be a few points at which I will undoubtedly break in and add a few of my own thoughts in the process. Here's what? Dr. Storm says? No one expects an illustration to be perfect nor for all its points to.
Correspond in every respect with those truths of biblical reality is seeking to portray. But oftentimes so much is left unsaid that what is said is misleading. These kinds of illustrations can misrepresent a position and thus prejudice the reader against the view to which the author is objecting the illustration Cited is a case in point.
Clearly the farmer in the illustration is analogous to God. I have no objection to this as long as we understand something. The farmer is not to be thought of in terms of a man who himself has probably been shown mercy by others in Similar circumstances.
The temptation is to charge him with heartless cruelty and even ingratitude for being unwilling to do for all three boys What someone else once graciously did for him? But if the farmer is analogous to God, he must be conceived of as infinitely holy pure just and righteous as well as loving.
Our tendency is to think little of a man who declines to show mercy because we assume that all men are Obligated to do so. However, this farmer is not a man. But God and God to be quite blunt about it is obligated to no one or no thing other than himself.
He is sovereign and free to act in a way that a man is not. Let us be careful therefore not to pass judgment on what God does based on our expectations of what a man should do. And I interrupt to dr. Storm's presentation to say that if we really want an illustration that would work here.
We shouldn't use a farmer. We should use the most powerful king a king who has all righteousness and holiness who has a tremendous record of of Wisdom and and leadership and so on and so forth not a mere farmer on his property somewhere, but I continue with dr. Storm's.
Related to this is the tendency to think that if he really wanted to it would not affect the farmer in the least simply to Take down the sign suspend the punishment and turn his pond into a swimming hole for everyone to enjoy.
But again, God's retributive justice is not like an old hat that he can discard if he so chooses. Retributive justice is as much a part of God's nature as love is. I am NOT suggesting that the author of this illustration denies that God is infinitely infinitely holy and righteous and that Retributive justice is essential to his character.
I am only arguing that the illustration leaves so much about the farmer that it inevitably Creates a prejudice against him. In the minds of most readers the farmer as he is portrayed is a straw God. Does it not also seem that this illustration? trivializes sin.
The analogy portrays human sin to be as petty and insignificant as disregarding and no swimming sign. Thus we are led to pass judgment on the loving character of the farmer. Based on the idea that he would let these poor boys die for no more than a childish prank.
I can only say as st Anselm once did that if you agree with the point of the illustration then quote you have not yet considered What a heavyweight sin is. And quote That sin on account of which we stand in peril of death is infinitely heinous grievous pervasive and altogether repellent.
Furthermore in the illustration it is not against the farmer himself that the boys have transgressed. But against an abstract and impersonal law one that prohibits swimming in the farmer's pond where in fact no swimming signs have been posted.
But in biblical reality we are bound to confess as David did against thee the only I have sinned and done What is evil in thy sight? Psalm 51. For and it is not merely one sin one unhappy violation But an entire life given over to wickedness and rebellion.
We are not talking about three good old boys who never before had a brush with the law it is not as if they are in peril of death because of a Momentary lapse from what has was otherwise and upright and upstanding life of morality and obedience.
These boys are by nature and choice the enemies of this farmer and of all that is good and proper. From the womb they have gone forth speaking lies and every intent of the thought of their hearts was only evil.
Continually their fling in the pond is but one of a multitude of willful morally despicable deeds for which they have become known. Precisely because it is a multitude of high-handed Transgressions against an infinitely holy and righteous God their sin is infinitely unholy and unrighteous.
He who in all respects is worthy of praise honor and obedience receives nothing but mockery hatred and rebellion. These boys indeed all of us have spit in his holy face have slandered his holy name and Have exposed to open shame all that is sacred and pure.
Indeed I would add to what dr. Storms is saying is that if we wanted to rehabilitate dr. Geisler's illustration We would not only speak of the farmer as the king the righteous and holy king. But we would have to say that the boys are not only swimming in a swimming hole.
They have come there from having burned down the king's palace with his family inside it having committed murders all the night before. To get a proper illustration. We would have to see these three young boys as guilty of Columbine and Jonesboro and the Jewish-community Shootings and every other heinous crime we can think of before they ever leapt into this pond of water.
You see illustrations such as that offered by dr. Geisler. Not only do not recognize the sovereign holiness of God. But they very much trivialize the level of man's sin and depravity in his sight. I Continue with dr. Storms, but how does the illustrator portray these boys?
Almost not at all. But by not portraying them as the Bible does one is left with a distorted impression. The illustration as it stands leaves one with the idea these poor helpless victims are crying out from the pond for deliverance.
Having realized the stupidity and immorality of their deed and now repenting they flail away helplessly in the water. Treading with all their strength to stay afloat hoping that God the farmer will save them.
On the contrary the biblical portrait would be of three boys who are thrilled to be where they are. They knowingly willingly and happily jumped in and would not have it any other way. They could not care less about God or his revealed moral will in fact.
They revel in their offense and the grief they bring to him by their transgression. Not only that but they seek to entice and lure other passers by to jump in with them. Romans chapter 1 verses 28 through 32.
Not content with their own sin They refuse to be satisfied until they have been joined by all in a united front against God and his law. And I interrupt dr. Storms yet once again to point out do we not see that every single day around us in our own society?
Are not the enemies of morality the enemies of God's law the enemies of righteous bold in. Their mockery of God's right to determine what is true and false right and wrong in this world. Most indeed is the case dr. Storms continues, and how do they respond when they see God's attempt to deliver them?
Do they reach out to grasp his hand? No, they splash water in his face mocking him and laughing at his compassion. They had rather drown in misery than so much as touch the hand that reaches to deliver them.
When the farmer is finally portrayed as seeking their deliverance He does so on and and this is using dr. Geisler's words inexplicable whim a whim. This sort of needless caricature portrays God's solemn most blessed and altogether Gracious determination to save as little more than a bothersome afterthought with no purpose or design.
What the author of this illustration calls a whim the Word of God calls quote the kind intention of his will. Ephesians 1 5 and quote in a subsequent paragraph the author of the illustration appears to suggest that the loving effort of the farmer to save these boys finds its Correspondence in biblical reality and God's sending Jesus Christ to die for the world dying on the cross for every single lost sinner.
But doing nothing whereby to secure and guarantee the salvation of any for whom he suffered is the illustrator's idea of divine love. In this view of the Atonement is theoretically possible that no one will believe and be saved.
Christ's death was designed neither to procure for them saving faith and Repentance nor to produce it within them through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. And I break from dr. Storms for just a moment to say that in chosen but free dr. Geisler makes it very plain that the Atonement of Christ makes men savable.
But it doesn't save anyone. I continue. I find this to be a curious sort of love. So does Gary D. Long and he quotes from Gary Long who says. What kind of God is it who delivers up his son to die for the redemption of each and every individual of mankind?
It does not send multitudes the gospel to acquaint them with the gift of salvation. Or send them his spirit to apply the benefit of redemption or give them saving faith to lay hold upon it. Such a love would be unworthy of God and a mockery to the very persons who according to the theory of universal redemption Were bought with Christ's blood.
In effect the universal redemptionist view reduces to this. God loved each and every one enough to have Christ die for them. But he did not love them enough to save them or for that matter enough to pray for them.
John 17 9. Dr. Storms continues. Now, let us look to the illustration for how this might be portrayed on the theory of universal atonement. What might the farmer be inclined to do? Does he actually jump in and carry each boy safe at his shore?
Or perhaps build a pier out to them and reach over the edge to pull all three out of the water. No, otherwise, we would conclude that everyone will be saved and universalism is not warranted by Holy Scripture.
Given the illustrators view of Christ's atoning work he might think of the farmer is throwing out a lifeline or some life jackets or perhaps some inner tubes and Then in treating the boys to reach out with their hands and avail themselves the opportunity to be saved.
But if our understanding of total depravity and the bondage of the will is correct. And obviously the illustrator does not believe that it is. They are neither able nor willing to grab hold of the lifeline and the farmer God knows this.
He is aware that their rebellious plunge in the pond resulted in the breaking of their arms and hands. But remember these boys could not care less even without hands or arms by which to grab the lifeline or put on the life jackets.
They rebuff God's efforts declaring their intent to stay right where they are. The illustrator would have us believe that it is a great and majestic love that tries to save these three boys, but Refuses to provide them with what he knows is absolutely essential to get them out of the water safely.
He knows they will otherwise drown, but his saving efforts deliberately fall short of guaranteeing that any of the three will survive. Divine Biblical love on the other hand entails that the farmer cast his own son in the pond knowing full well That if his son makes an effort to save the boys He will die.
The son swims to the three boy is not withstanding their vehement and hostile cries that he get out of the water and leave them Alone. As he reaches the three he extends his arms and love to but one of them.
Though that one boy is vile and reprehensible in every respect. The son of the farmer brings him back safely to shore and in doing so he himself drowns. The two remaining boys laugh and mock the that the farmer's son was has drowned their glee is beyond control.
The one boy for whom the son gave his life to save is suddenly brought to tears as he senses the magnitude of the love That has been shown him While he was yet hateful and full of blasphemy. The farmer lifts the boy up drives him off cleans the mud and filth from his body and clothes him in the garments of his own dear son.
They embrace an everlasting love. The young boy falls to his knees and gratitude. Tears flowing. The two who remain the water continue hurling their taunts at the farmer. Declaring that even if they could start anew they would dive defiantly into the middle of that pond without a moment's Hesitation.
I Will tell you what love is. Dr Storm says is not providing a lifeline to drowning men who have no arms or hands with which to grasp it. It is sacrificing your only son to jump in and rescue someone by wrapping that rope around his waist and drawing him Firmly, but surely to the safety of the shore.
And one of the two who remain and demand loudly that they be left to their chosen plight. So be it says the farmer you not only deserve to drown but take delight in it as well have it your way and they do an excellent response to an obviously tremendously flawed illustration.
A Flawed illustration because it is not biblically correct. It does not recognize the vileness of man's sin the rebellion of man's heart. The perfection of God's grace the perfection of God's holy law and many other elements.
Sadly, however, many people don't think through illustrations like that far enough to recognize that the illustration does not communicate truth and the illustration prejudices us against the biblical position and Communicates to us something that is quite simply in error.
The question before us today is Is God omnibenevolent. Well, everyone believes that God is love. The scriptures teach that God is love, but what does that mean? Seemingly from the perspective of chosen but free.
In fact at one point. Dr. Geisler calls Dr. Sproul's comments on this shocking. Elsewhere morally reprehensible is used for the whole concept of God's sovereignty in this matter. Seemingly the position is that if God is to be all loving.
If God is to be omnibenevolent, that means he must love each and every individual with the exact same kind of love and. So if it is a matter of grace. Then he has to give each individual the exact same kind of grace.
And that means God's love. God's grace. God's mercy can be demanded by God, I'm sorry demanded by the creature. The creature has to receive. No one person can receive a different kind of grace than another.
So obviously from dr. Geisler's perspective If it is true that God extends saving grace to his elect people. But only common grace to all. Not grace that saves. Then that means that God is not all-loving.
If God does not treat every single individual identically the same then that means God is not omnibenevolent. My friends I don't see that in Scripture. In fact, I'd like to suggest to you that if you embrace that perspective you are in essence saying that on the level of freedom God is less than man.
What do I mean well The simple fact matter is we all love certain individuals with a special love. Husbands are to love their wives. With a very special love that they are not to give to anyone else. It is a discriminating love is a specific love.
Parents love their children. Now someone might say oh we're to love all children. Well, sure. Well, if you're in a in a church fellowship if you're within a fellowship of faith. Then you know the children of those people around you and you can say oh, I love these other children.
The simple fact matter remains those are the children did not come out from your body. They are not your children. You have a special and discriminating love for the children that you and your wife have produced and that is absolutely Natural and it's absolutely right.
When we come to the scriptures We see that the Lord Jesus Amongst the Apostles had a specific Apostle that is described as the one that Jesus loved. Now does that mean that he didn't love everybody else?
No. But there was a special relationship that existed we believe between the Lord Jesus and the Apostle John and Then there was even another group. The three Peter James and John that Jesus for example takes with him To the Mount of Transfiguration doesn't take the other nine.
He takes those three. There is a discrimination. There is a freedom in the love of God. Well When we come to looking at the Lord's Prayer, for example in John chapter 17. It is quite obvious the Lord Jesus says in John 17 9.
I do not pray for the world. I pray for those that you've given me out of the world and Dr. Geisler is a well of well aware of the problem that presents. That's why he tries to find a way around it. I think he failed to do so badly.
He wasn't able to in any way shape or form change the fact that the Lord Jesus in John chapter 17 in his high priestly prayer. Specifically says I in this high priestly prayer do not pray for the world.
I pray for the elect. The best dr. Geisler could do at that point was to say well Paul prayed for everyone. Yeah, but Paul's not our high priest is he so the simple fact the matter is the scriptures tell us that The Christians confession is that confession of the Apostle Paul?
In Galatians 2 20 I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live. But Christ lives in me in the life, which I now live in the flesh. I live by the faith the Son of God what? Who loved me and gave himself up for me?
Are we really to believe? That a person consumed in his hatred for God in eternity to come in hell itself. Could say the very same words that the believer says Speaking of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me.
Some people would say yes, I Submit to you. No in no way shape or form. There is a special love. Yes, there is a Universal love of God. Jesus speaks of the love of good that God shows and in having the rain to fall upon the just and the unjust.
The Sun shines upon the evil person and the child of God as well. There is a common grace a general love in that sense, but that love doesn't bring salvation. The love that does bring salvation is for God's people it is a specific love.
If we as mere creatures Are able to love others if we are able to love people in a special way. Well, then the simple fact the matter is God has to have that capacity as well. Our ability to love others our ability to enter into relationship with them as a part of the image of God.
And there is nothing in Scripture that tells us that for God to be all-loving that means That means that that love can no longer be free. Indeed there are many who would say that grace Has to be given to everyone the same level.
But that means grace is no longer free it is demanded. And that destroys the very nature of grace. Grace to be grace must be free. And grace to be grace must be given solely on the basis of the will of God and not on any other consideration.
That's why all the work salvation systems the world are wrong because they make grace something that can be earned. Purchased merited bought or in some other way obtained outside of the free will of God.
Grace can't be demanded. Love cannot be demanded mercy cannot be demanded and there is Simply no way to say. That to be truly loving means that God must love every single person in the exact same way the farmer or Who should I have who should we say that the king?
Who finds these rebels swimming in the pond after they've burned his home and killed his family raped and pillaged? Are we really to say that if that king is all-loving? That means he cannot be discriminating and showing mercy toward those that he finds in that pond.
Who are so deserving of punishment and death? Is that what we're saying? I? Don't believe that's what the New Testament teaches. I Don't believe that that is the presentation that anyone would really want to present in regards to the love of God.
God's love is in Jesus Christ. God's love brings about the redemption of his people and so I reject dr. Geisler's objection. I object To the concept that well, that means your God is not all-loving know what it means is that the love of the God of the Bible is a love that brings about The salvation of those upon whom it is set in a special way.
It doesn't just simply make them savable but not guarantee their salvation. It Actually saves and that is I think one of the major differences that exists between us. Well, we're gonna take a break and when we come back We've got one caller online you can get online to at five zero eight zero nine sixty in the second half hour.
We'll be looking at the subject of faith as a gift because that is very closely related this subject of God's omnibenevolence. Dr. Geisler says it can't be a gift. It is something everyone can do and the idea that faith is a gift is not biblical.
But we're gonna be taking a look at that right after this break here on the dividing line. I believe we're up to week eight. Eight weeks now we have been reviewing the book chosen but free probably just a couple weeks left before we Move on to other issues, but it is a vital issue and it brings out many of the most important elements of the gospel of Jesus Christ and one of the reasons that I believe that evangelicalism has lost its moorings lost its direction in regards to the Gospel in regards to the function of the church in regards to how we as Christians are to think of ourselves.
Think of God think of sin. All sorts of things like that. You know, there's a passage in Scripture that I have used to present the concept of faith as a gift from God. It's 2nd Peter 1 1 that says Simon Peter a bondservant an apostle of Jesus Christ.
To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ here in an opening statement concerning Peter's letter he describes the people to whom he is writing as Those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours and they've received this faith by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ and I have said you'll notice that so.
Constantly throughout the text of Scripture Faith is viewed as something that God gives the ability to believe. Faithfulness is seen as a the work of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the very concept of faithfulness is one of the one of the things listed under the fruit of the Spirit and here Christians are described as those who have received a Faith of the same kind as ours and someone might say well.
Could that faith there refer to the faith that is the content of the Christian faith? And I suppose that's a possibility. The problem is I don't think that fits the context. Because when it says those who have received a faith the same kind as ours that mean that there's other kinds of faith.
That's of a different kind than ours. I don't think that makes any sense and beyond that by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. Well. How how is it that? The reception of the Christian faith in general is by the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
I think we instead we have here a personal faith the faith that Embraces Jesus Christ. The faith that I think is born in the heart by the act of regeneration. Well, it's interesting. Dr. Geisler does respond to this.
He does cite 2nd Peter 1 1 and provides. Only this amount of commentary. I quote Peter claims only that they have received or obtained their faith. But does not inform us as to exactly how they got it.
Using such a vague Undefined statement as this to support their belief only demonstrates how desperate the extreme Calvinists are to find support of this unscriptural dogma end quote. That's the entirety of it.
That's called ad hominem. That's not a response. There's no exegesis there. There's no refutation of the fact that it speaks of faith as something received. Something coming from God by the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
That's pure ad hominem to simply call it a vague undefined statement would make no more sense than a Jehovah's Witness who looks at the second at the third phrase and says The righteous of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Well, that's a vague undefined statement. That's not relevant to the deity of Christ. And yet I can guarantee you that dr. Geiser cites 2nd Peter 1 1 is an evidence of the deity of Christ. Well, is he being consistent there?
2nd Peter 1 1 is a very important passage of Scripture and it is just one of the many passages that if we get time today, we'll be taking a look at it and Seeing some of the other passages. John 3 3 Verses John chapter 3 verses 3 through 7.
We'll be looking at Romans 3 10 through 11 and some of the other passages. But we do have some phone calls that we need to get to here and let's start off with Kyle in Phoenix. Hello Kyle.
Hello, dr. White. How are you? I'm doing very well. Thank you. I appreciate your show very very much. Both you and dr. Geisler have both been on the Bible antimon program on of course various different.
And sundry times and in point of fact, I will be Hank's guests live in studio September 2nd and 3rd talking about my book the Forgotten Trinity. Oh sensational.
I know he appreciates your work that you've done on transitory doctrine specifically. Anyway, what I called us to ask you about is I've always also appreciate the Bible Antimon broadcast. Um, but I have difficulty whenever he gets a phone call that has to do with predestination.
Because his own take on it seems so bizarre to me. Bizarre, well, it seems to be, you know, kind of like a displaced Arminianism similar to Geisler's version now. They're not identical, but I just wanted to know since you happen to know Hank.
To my personal basis. Do you think that his viewpoint on predestination is terribly similar to Geisler's?
Well, that's that's difficult to say because I have spoken with Hank about this subject. I brought up the last time that I was there this get wherever I go since people know that I'm an elder and a reformed Baptist Church and I traveled to Long Island or Wherever I go in and people know the context of my theology.
They'll always say well, what about Hank? And Hank will tell you and I'm sure he would tell you very openly that the last time I was there I gave him both of my books and that we spent about an hour Speaking about the doctrines of grace and I explained to him why I believe what I believe and why I feel it's important to apologetics.
And do issues along those lines and as to exactly where Hank comes down. I'm not totally certain. He obviously Takes dr. Geisler's perspective into consideration rather fully. I also think that he is takes very much to consideration the viewpoint of Bob and Gretchen Passantino.
I think those are the two major influences upon his particular position and I don't know honestly However that those dr. Geisler's position in the Passantino's position and by the way, they are mentioned in the front of chosen but free.
So they they had some Editorial input somewhere along the line. I don't know that they are Exactly on the same page Outside of what seems to me to be a united front against the distinctives of the reformed faith so I've heard I've heard Hank give very reformed answers and I've heard Hank give very non reformed answers depending upon the situation so I don't want to speculate beyond that other than to simply say what I'm sure Hank would say and that is that I Have been very open in my comments to him on this subject.
I've given him my books. I've got nothing to hide on that level anybody who reads for example letters to a Mormon elder Cannot help but notice an entire section on limited atonement and so on so forth.
So, you know when you're that open about it, you can just simply say hey, you know. What you what you see is what you get with this this crazy guy. You gotta love clarity. Well, I it does does help you on the level of honesty to be nice and clear.
So so I don't know and and I Every time I hear someone call in. You know, I I've I've actually suggested that it would be it would be wonderful to for example have dr. Geisler and I on together or something like that.
To address these types of issues and and and I hope something like that someday happens. Maybe if not in that venue in some other venue where where these things can be brought out and and you don't just hear one side responding to the other side that type of a situation, but we'll see what the Lord has in store there and.
And move on from that point. But in the to put in the two arguments side by side if the two of you ever happen to meet or even in other contexts of other broadcasts. Whenever they put side by side I think although the natural man wants to believe in my opinion Arminian as a Murray at the worst Pelagianism.
When you put them side by side, it's very hard to. I think if you're looking at it from with an open mind or at least from with it for the a Clear desire to understand the the context of all the texts that you're addressing and so on it becomes pretty clear.
It does it does to the regenerate person? I mean the unregenerate mind will has come up with a myriad of ways around God's sovereignty and around God's truth. But the one thing I've always said to folks is if if I had my druthers.
What I'd like to do is sit down with almost anyone who says I just don't. Understand why you think this is so important why you believe this and started John 6 35 and walk word by word phrase by phrase.
For ten verses. And I have said many times. I do not believe that. Any non reformed person can walk through the sixth chapter of John word by word phrase by phrase without at some point either repenting.
Or immediately abandoning the conversation saying well, it can't mean that because I believe this. That has been my experience universally and I have discussed this with many a person in many a forum and I have never found a person that could present to me a consistent Interpretation that passage did that did not do violence to the text.
I just couldn't haven't found anybody myself being brought up in Armenian Baptist churches. The thing that finally hit me when I was so to speak converted to the reformed faith a couple years ago Was when I finally understood the depth of sin.
Mm-hmm. Everything else was fell into place.
Yeah, they see that even wrecking to see the problem with that. Is that to recognize the depth of sin requires an act of grace in our hearts? I mean we if if we really start seriously dealing with the the Violation that we have committed upon the person of a holy and just God who who holds us in his hands who?
Every breath we take and every heartbeat that ours comes from him. That is that is something does a self Shattering thing and it can only come by grace. And so you really can't shove this down somebody's throat.
You just simply that the wonderful thing is you can just simply present these things and trust that Christ's sheep Will hear his word and in their time, you know with that there I Wanted warn anybody against looking down their noses at someone who continues to struggle with these things because We that that actually is an implicit denial of what we are saying we believe.
I Really believe that it takes an act of God's grace to bring us to obedience to these things and he does it in his time. I had someone say and people get really mad when I repeat this. But I think there is an element of truth here and in the context I'm presenting it I hopefully everyone will understand it.
But generally we tend to be our minion who were converted and as we grow and mature we come to recognize That it wasn't us who were seeking out God. It was God who sought us out and changed us. But that takes time and you can't you can't shove it down somebody's throat.
You simply continue to proclaim his truth and let the word do that. Let the word do the rest.
All righty, Kyle. Well, hey, I have one thing I want to say personally to you if I heard you a couple weeks ago on straight talk and I just want to know I Know it's difficult to get listeners in Saturday afternoon radio.
I just want to say if they ever have a vacancy there in that spot you have my vote.
Well, you know they want to have me back with mr. Kinney and and I want to do it because I. Circular reasoning and double standards driving absolutely insane. They are planning on doing that again probably I'd imagine sometime in September so keep a kid now.
I'm not sure if you heard when I was on mr. Kinney or when I did it myself. Oh, yeah, absolutely one. You about yourself. Okay. All right. That was a Monday night when I did the Mary thing I was on. I was on with Marty with a King James only fellow.
The not a week not the next Friday, but the Friday after that. So we'll probably be doing it again sometime in the future. Well, great. I hope I hope you. I hope Marty appreciated your tenure there. Well, I said he said he did when I talked to him later on.
Oh, that's good. All righty. Thanks for calling. Come on. Thank you. God bless. Bye. Bye. Five zero eight zero nine. Sixty. We need to take a break. We'll be back with our other callers right after this and welcome back to the dividing line.
We've got about 15 minutes left. Three callers online. Three of our regulars including I just need to ask you a question Martin. Did you like buy a super cheap? Transatlantic phone card or something like that.
Is that what's going on? Similar. Yeah.
Atlantic with about the same sort of price as a national call in England. Oh, well, that's that's great.
I didn't know if you had won the lottery or just. Not quite. Well, we're talking a little bit about the love of God and I don't think I'm gonna get to gift as a.
Faith as a gift today, but what are your comments today? Well, it's kind of linking into faith being a gift. And what you said about Christ's sheep hearing his voice. You I've spoken to and you've bound to have spoken to.
People where you just present the gospel to them and you or you present passages scripture to them. And they look blankly back at you as if to say well, you know, so what I mean, I mean I'm not thinking in one example in a member of my family and I've been talking to her for absolutely years.
She's a Roman Catholic and you know, I can send passages on on this and sent passages on that and. So the end of it, you know, she'll occasionally she'll argue with you and occasionally sit and nod. You think I'm getting somewhere and you know, she'll could revert back to exactly the same position.
The very beginning you think I just spent the last an hour saying nothing to you, you know, what do you what do you mean? What do you say in those little circumstances? Do you how long should you persevere with somebody that you think they're not hearing a single what you know?
What am I doing here?
Well, that's a very difficult question to answer because and and I think it differs from person to person. I think it differs on how much grace God gives you and patience God gives you to to continue on.
I think there there does have to be some point in time where. You see you you do move on depending upon the response of the person and other opportunities that are given to you. I think we should always err on the side of patience and long-suffering because we require so much patience on the part of God daily ourselves that we should reflect that in our dealings with others and.
And I've just basically discovered over life over the course of my life that I tend to Go the extra mile a little bit more than some and not quite as far as others. So I fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum but we do have to recognize and it depends on the issue that you're talking about that.
The natural man does not receive the things the Spirit of God. They are foolishness to him. They are spiritually discerned so he doesn't understand them. And so we are truly dependent Upon the Holy Spirit of God to make these things come alive in someone's heart and we cannot command the Spirit to do something he is sovereign and he works in a sovereign fashion and in his sovereign time and we need to recognize that we glorify God when we proclaim his truth not in arrogance or anger, but with a eye to glorifying him and honoring him and because we love his truth and if.
Sometimes it'll be a situation where I'll continue to talk with someone for a long long period of time. Especially if I know that I may be benefiting others in the process. But if it's but if it's a situation where I am being drawn away from other important opportunities of ministry eventually, you have to pray for wisdom to know when you've done what you can do and and pray that God will bring somebody else in their life to to work his will there, but you you move on and The only absolute hard and fast rule I have on that situation.
Is that if I'm out on the street corner witnessing to someone or something like that? The sure way. To make me turn around and walk off and not say another word to you is to use foul language.
Yeah, as soon as someone does that I'm out of there. Yeah, but you think that some people can be so hard-hearted. I mean the first I'm speaking to. Yeah, but remember my family and you know, you'll say something and then you know, my mom will go around.
Mom's a Christian is on she'll go around and talk to her and all she'll do is start an argument. My mom or she'll say oh you believe in the Bible and you don't do this and you don't do that. And she says see, you know, etc, etc, etc.
The point where mom's will came back. She's totally stressed out saying I refuse to talk this person anymore right about the gospel. I mean, you know, obviously family matters, but you know, well eventually, you know if a person.
Demonstrates themselves to be unwilling to listen to to the gospel at all. The only other way to speak to them is is by your constant behavior and and Hope and pray that God will bring conviction by the Spirit upon that person's life in regards to the way that you live yours.
But we all we all know those situations where eventually You don't try to get into a theological discussion every time you meet this person. You just simply live as a testament to to God's grace and I'm assuming you were referring to your mother there.
That's what a mom is. Need a little translation there. We don't have mums over here. That's what those are flowers here. That's right, well, hey we got it we got to keep making some mention that it is Birmingham, right?
Okay, it's actually the name of the road. I live on Street. Yes. Okay.
Rich cleared that up for me last week. All right. That's too much of a memory. Hey, thanks for it. Thanks for calling Martin. We appreciate it. Alrighty we continue on and try to get everybody in this afternoon.
So believe or not. Amazingly enough as it is. We have someone here named Dennis from Phoenix. Dennis how you doing, man? Or something. Do you like my a fake accent Dennis. Say yes, or there's a little button here.
Okay. Thank you again very much Dennis. So anyways any comments on our time.
Illustration reminded me of the. It'd be better to use the illustration or the truth is better conveyed by the illustration you use of Prisoners on death row right and none of them being repentant, you know, right being nice people.
Oh, you know, I turned over a new leaf and the governor for you know, pardoning right?
I mean Jesus, he's not obliged to pardon them all right? Yeah, I hate to press analogies too far. But I'll have to admit that dr. Geisler is a story Bothers me on a second level and not only because of the fact that it is it is simply Misrepresentational in not only what it does say but what it doesn't say but what what concerns me and I sort of mentioned this and You probably caught it.
But what concerns me is he put it in a book in 1985? Dr. Storms wrote this response in 1987 and Chosen but free was written in 1998. So 11 years have passed and I would be a little bit surprised if dr. Geisler was not aware of Samuel Storms book and of what I think is a rather devastating critique of the illustration.
So for it to reappear word for word with only one change in a book in 1998 that concerns me I I think if I used an illustration in a book and In another nationally published book. I mean Baker book house is not exactly, you know, self-published book.
In another book a book had come out and an author had.