Current Events and Controversies Followed by Radio Free Geneva!

And greetings welcome to the dividing line don't have a screen up today, but we'll get it eventually over there

What? No, it's a it's it's that plain old. Is that Windows 10?

I'm not sure something like that thing Anyways, welcome to the program.

We are just so professional and how we handle things like this around here, but anyway lots and lots to get to I Should let you know that dr.

Gagnon is back on Facebook for now I am absolutely convinced that there is a

I think this is very similar to what's going on in Colorado with The masterpiece bake shop situation there you have

An individual in fact, let me let me jump to that if you did not catch the briefing this morning

Dr. Moeller gave the background there is a Transgender Colorado attorney by name of autumn

Scardina Who is behind this setting up I mean this is this is just I would think that there would be rules about how you can do things like this and and the abuse of The reporting system.

It's gotta be something but obviously the Colorado Human Rights Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is just the

Colorado version of the abuse of human rights Groups that you have up in Canada That have been fining

Christians now for more than a decade for thinking wrongly That's what the

CCRC is up in Colorado thing all leftists

To the extreme. Can you I cannot imagine a single one of the founding fathers observing this and going

I Every single one of them would be going. No. No, no, no, that's not we intended.

No, no No, we are trying to protect you from this and you're you're you're giving away your birthright

And yeah, that's exactly what is taking place but anyway This Stuff that's going on up there is is is absolutely astonishing.

You've got this this Obviously zealot, I mean transgender zealot

Calling this business. These are not good faith requests. Okay The the fact that the

Colorado Civil Rights Commission would listen to any of this stuff Demonstrates that they should not even be in business there.

There should be an immediate grassroots movement in Colorado to Petition the legislature to get rid of these people.

They are obviously abusing their their office Obviously abusing their office just ridiculous anyway, so this person keeps calling the

Bakeshop asking for asking for a Satan cake with sex toys in it and Then finally the one they got to stick was a transitioning cake

And that's not what they're going after. But I mean, this is such an obvious Setup, it is such an obvious Abuse of the system that it should have been laughed out every single time and they should have slapped this person down Stop calling us stop doing this.

You're not serious, but they're going they're going ahead with it because they're allies. They're allies This is this is what's happening in Colorado.

Yes. This is the United States my friends It's it's all around us So you've got you've got that going on which is an astonishing

Astonishing thing when you consider that any one of us could have our lives utterly disrupted

And Remember the people on the other side they live for this. This is what defines them. This is this is their essence.

This is This is all I've got You know, they don't have family and children and grandchildren and looking toward eternity this life is it and Most of them don't have their own families

They don't have children. They don't have grandchildren. They're not continuing the race so it's all just about me me me me me me and That kind of person can become incredibly incredibly self -focused

And that's exactly we see going on here. It is Absolutely absurd and there there needs to be

Folks in Colorado. You need to do something. You need to you need to be calling your your representatives You need to get something going to where you reign these people in or it's it's gonna be

All of us every day Because because like I said, we we don't live thinking about this stuff and wanting to Chase people around and and hunt them down and and persecute them, but they do this is their life

Not much you can mention do about that unless you let's do some fighting back. So that's that's going on up in in Colorado but Then we have this morning

I Saw this tweet this morning aimed at Phil Johnson and I'll just this is from black conservative is the name and then the

Twitter ID is black Republican Here's what it says replying to Phil Johnson lily white

Christianity is heresy It hides behind a veil of theological altruism and colorblind egalitarianism

But do not mistake this ferocious monster. It is clever It masks its true intentions behind nice sounding biblical verbiage

But inside it is racist to the bone now

As most of you know Dr. MacArthur posted at the beginning of the week an introduction

That's all it is Introduction to a series of blog articles.

I don't know when the next one is is coming out But an introduction has been posted and it has resulted in Just some truly unhinged stuff and I wrote back this person

I'm like You want to you want to try to substantiate this kind of flamethrower?

Approach Heresy Ferocious monster racist to the bone

You you want to you want to try to actually defend this kind of animus and vitriol and so on and so forth and Though I tried no this person didn't want to What or didn't either did not want to or is not capable of it more than two?

I don't know which I couldn't tell because the responses were erratic and Strange and incoherent so I Can't I can't

I can't even you know, you go look for yourself. You can it's it was a public discussion. You can see it but so you've got that kind of stuff and Then we had dr.

Bradley and You know, dr. Bradley will say things just to get people going and Then he's too busy to actually follow up and respond in a

Responsible fashion Well here I addressed it in this this video

Silly me I go watch the video. It's 20 minutes long. It's 20 minutes my life. I've taken up doesn't answer the questions

Okay, I watched it now what? no follow -up and some of you saw when he

Tried to parallel Not engaging in or not holding to the particular views.

They have of social justice he tried to parallel that to What was it the hypocrisy

No, this is that was difficult. What was the parallel they made had something with homosexuality as I recall and Anyways, I tried to deal with the category errors are being made

And his final tweet to me was you 1689 errs And I'm like, well

I stand refuted You know, but but he's real big into the very very condescending

Well, I've written all these books. You need to go read this chapter over here and and a couple days ago So well,

I've I addressed that in this chapter right here in in this book. So, you know what

I did I don't know why I did it. But yeah, I I I went and I I got the book and I read the chapter and Then said okay.

So what in this chapter substantiated what you said here? Yeah, you 1689 errs you know, that's that's about all all you get and So, there you go

But anyway, Anthony Bradley was active this morning

The Fundamentalist churches Became a safe haven for racists and those who turned a blind eye to Jim Crow things that motivated the creation of black liberation theology

So he recognizes the black liberation theology such as cone, which we have read a great deal of on the program is bad stuff, but The amazing thing is he won't blame the people who originated it.

It's always somebody else's fault Well, if they hadn't been doing that then they wouldn't have done that, you know

It's sort of like well You know the Nazis wouldn't have done what the Nazis were doing if it hadn't been for what happened between the two wars.

Well Yeah, history is a complicated thing. But where does responsibility come in, you know?

Good good question. Anyways What will the 21st century

Calvinistic neo -fundamentalist gospel create the possibilities are quite scary

I guess the 21st century Calvinistic neo -fundamentalist gospel is John MacArthur and myself and Phil Johnson and people like us

In fairness Fundamentalists fought important battles against the modernists where MacArthur excels

But today's brand of Calvinistic neo -fundamentalism seeking to save the gospel from social justice warriors is

The same fundamentalism of a century ago in Calvinist form. Well, I'm not sure what he thinks, you know

How he would define fundamentalism But he goes on to say since they aren't actually fully reformed in their cosmology

Soteriology or their theology of culture We should not be surprised when they sound like Calvinistic original

Fundamentalists who responded the exact same way to the social gospel or calls to dismantle

Jim Crow So I mentioned this morning. Well, you know, we just got our little

Truly reformed pat on on the head there though I would certainly argue that I think

John Calvin would find The the current crop of Reformed folks pushing this to be just of a completely different spirit

Than than himself, especially when it comes to the focus upon the

Bible what the jm1689 tribe largely represents is a neo -fundamentalist

Calvinist version of the old fundamentalist movement between World War one and World War two They are not reformed in the

Bovinkian Kuyperian Edgar Ian Wcs three forms of unity sense, but they are

Calvinistic and soteriology. Well, there's partial truths there Obviously we can have a lengthy discussion as to how we should define

Reformed And what should be definitional of reform whether it should be primarily a historical definition or whether it should be a

Theological definition For example, I would say that you cannot even make heads or tails out of anything that Calvin or Bootser or Beza or Turretin wrote without the highest view of Scripture, which is no longer necessarily the view of Many people coming out of ostensibly reformed seminaries today and So how long can a truly reformed worldview last?

How long can a commitment even to the Westminster Standards or something like last? Without the highest view of Scripture once that's abandoned

It's just a generation or two Until you have the mutated forms that we see, you know,

I I was at Fuller in the 80s well the Phoenix extension, but and I Heard a number of conversations from my professors who were

PC USA And they were right in the midst of that Massive leftward swing at that particular point in time and to hear them explaining their motivations for abandoning historical reformed statements in Light of biblical scholarship quote -unquote very

Very enlightening given where the PC USA is now and What you're starting to see is the same stuff in the

PCA is just on the PC USA and That just seems to be

You know historically that's the direction denominations go It's very rare to see them going the other direction at at all

And so it does raise the question Maybe that which actually causes you to remain

Firm in your reformed commitments from generation to generation generation might be more definitional of what it is to be reformed than anything else

But anyway Here's another tweet if you want to know why the religious fundamentalism of John MacArthur James White Phil Johnson Tom Askew 1689 errs reformed in quotes

Baptists and others sees social justice as a threat to the gospel read this book

Anthony Brantley is very very good at the read my book or read somebody else's book

Type thing not so good at explaining that in his own own words

But you saw everybody I was thrown thrown in there perhaps they can be also saved from their fundamentalism

I guess that's something you need to be safe from by reading this book immediately because they seem to be biblically and theologically clueless about what

Christians should be doing in society beyond converting people they desperately need this and it's

William Edgar's book created and creating a biblical theology of culture and so if we'll just to read that then we can

Or perhaps they can be saved from their neo fundamentalism by by learning for the first time

What the reformed faith actually is by reading this book also by William Edgar truth and all its glory because we're

It's it's hard to actually really believe that that dr. Bradley doesn't realize how incredibly condescending he is

And if you're really condescending toward people that are older than you are has written more books than you have been teaching reformed theology longer than you have

You know there there is that other term the more Descriptive term that has to do with a lack of humility that might enter into your your thinking but The fact that their brand of evangelical

Calvinism remains incapable of routing out cultural racism Within their own ranks points to a theological deficiency in their definition of redemption accomplished and applied we need to stop calling them reform they're fundamentalists, so this was

And one one more historically it's veiled behind a commitment to the gospel Conclusion the kind of Calvinism is so associated with JM and the rest of the gospel industrial complex 1689 errs etc

Shouldn't be a model for Christian because their version of the gospel has proven impotent on race.

So his view of racialism and that that perspective that that is

I guess definitional of what the gospel is itself supposed to be and That's Anthony Bradley from a

King's College for everybody everyone looking at colleges might want to keep that in mind That this gives you an idea of what you'll be getting

At at King's College is is this kind of stuff a couple other things here real quick Jason Wallace wrote to me

Just a little while ago Let me know that a playlist is up on YouTube now with the entire conference from last month including my discussion with Alma Allred and Then sermons and teachings

I did as a part of that that conference there in Salt Lake City, and I've linked to that on Twitter and Facebook and then

I I loved the The the link is to LDS living calm and basically

It is a statement from the LDS Church president Nelson Reminding Latter -day

Saints of what their real name is now. It's funny because This wasn't their real name their initial name given by God initially according to their own scriptures that was changed later, but What's interesting is

The full name of the church is preferred the Church Jesus Christ Latter -day Saints when a shortened reference is needed the terms the church

Church of Jesus Christ or The restored Church of Jesus Christ is also accurate encouraged.

I've almost never heard them using that While the term Mormon Church has long been publicly applied to the church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title and the church discourages its use

Thus please avoid using the abbreviation LDS. I remember this is on LDS living calm

LDS book in the supply. I mean they've used LDS forever But please avoid using the abbreviation

LDS So the nickname Mormon as substitutes the name of the church as in Mormon Church LDS Church or the

Church of Latter -day Saints When referring to church members the terms members of the Church Jesus Christ Latter -day

Saints or Latter -day Saints are preferred We ask the term Mormons not be used Mormon is correctly used in proper names such as the

Book of Mormon or when used as an adjective in such historical expressions as Mormon trail

The term Mormonism is inaccurate and should not be used when describing the combination of doctrine culture and lifestyle unique to the

Church Jesus Christ Latter -day Saints the term the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is accurate and preferred

Well, good luck with that I don't even think that's gonna work within the within the LDS Church I ain't

I certainly ain't making everything I write about Mormonism 47 times larger By not using the very acronyms that have been used for a very very long time

But it will be interesting to see how the Mormons handle that because that's just That's just odd.

I'm not sure what prompted all of that, but There you go The the

Mormons don't want to be called Mormons anymore. So the big question is Will the three

Mormons become the three Latter -day Saints? that's that's yet to be discovered and Some of you have been asking about The three

Mormons and whether they know that we've done these responses. Yes. Yes, they do know and I haven't been given to go ahead to talk about what's being planned right now, but something is being planned

So, I don't know if I can mention it or not But hopefully there will be something coming up so just just keep that in mind

We'll we'll be looking at that. There was something else and Let me look at Evernote real quick to see if I can

Can find out what it was? Well, obviously

It's hard not to Well, yeah, here we go, let's let's let's put two things together here

Let's do a brief little thing on Regarding to Rome and then we're gonna we're gonna transition into something else

Obviously the Explosion and information just from the

Pennsylvania report regarding pedophile priests And Just the massive prevalence of homosexuality within the

Roman Catholic priesthood and that's just one state Together with what's been going on down in Chile and South America as a whole and really just it's a

It really does make you wonder How much this had to do

With Benedict's resignation as Pope At the time,

I remember a story from one insider saying that basically Benedict Determined that because of his history

Once he realized what needed to be fixed He couldn't fix it and somebody an outsider needed to be brought in to do it.

And that's why he resigned. I don't know All I know is it is a massive mess

I haven't spoken much on it because others have done so and Have appropriately and properly

Because it's one thing to say well all religious groups have their sex scandals because every religious group does and The problem is that it is a

Specifically anti -biblical teaching in Roman Catholicism that leads to this it is the there is no basis for a priesthood in the

New Testament some sacerdotal and Unmarried celibate priesthood in the

New Testament there doesn't exist Not established by Apostles and And Once that was created and it it morphed into what it it is today

Well, we see what the results are and there is no question now that the

Vatican was fully aware of these things and Would have been fully aware, you know, it's really easy to go.

Oh, well, I'm sure John Paul the second didn't know Oh, yes, he did Yes, he did.

Yeah There there's no question that the Vatican has been fully aware of these things for a long long time and So obviously it is an developing and ongoing story but It's interesting that right along the same time period there is a

Conference coming up and it is This was posted on the on the 15th so Starting Friday, September 21st at Covenant Theological Seminary Covenant Theological Seminary we have apologetics and the

Christian imagination Apologetics and the

Christian Imagination Okay The main conference starts on Saturday.

I guess the pre -conference is on Friday and One of the

Plenary sessions will be delivered by Holly Ordway a former atheist now turned

Roman Catholic Openly Roman Catholic and so main conference 7 15 to 8 p .m.

Imaginative apologetics what it is and why we need it That's actually

Friday, I'm sorry Friday evening and then on Saturday 22nd a 9 15 to 10 a .m.

Recovery Tolkien as imaginative apologist by Holly Ordway and so Then Also on Saturday 223 05 limitations and dangers of imaginative apologetics by Holly Ordway So seems like almost a majority of the plenary sessions are being led by a former atheist

Roman Catholic at Covenant Seminary one of the primary PCA seminaries

I Don't know what to say other than Saw this happen with PC USA now starting to watch it happen with the

PCA Why I just simply have to ask a question

I'm aside from The topic which I find

Questionable anyways, but aside from the topic We don't have enough people who know the gospel to talk about this

You have to bring in people who don't know the gospel what this Illustrates and what

I find so strange in a reformed context I Expect this from the

Andy Stanleys. I expect this from that realm of people who do not you know from the the

Mere Christianity folks who do not have the gospel as a definitional element of what the faith is.

I get it. I just figured Covenant knew better, but There you go the apologetics and Christian imagination conference next next month

Anyway, let's let's do something Exciting here. I'm not sure what you're gonna Put up I guess

I could just sit here and stare at the camera because I can't see

Evidently, it's not working. Well, I guess

I won't be able to see what I'm playing, but I can see it here So we'll just figure it's working Won't be for the whole hour because we've done a half hour

But the next two things I've got to do it's just necessary that we do it in this context

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 Standing on top of my feet standing on a stump and crying out he died for all those who

Elected were selected 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 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

Calvinist I've said the other day in class that I don't understand the difference between hyper

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

Calvinism Read my book And Now from our underground bunker deep beneath Bruton Parker College where no one would think to look

Safe from all those moderate Calvinist Dave Hunt fans and those who have read and reread

George Bryson's book We are radio -free Geneva Broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say for his own eternal glory

All right, yes, we have to do it this way it is radio -free

Geneva because well, I have two video clips that I I need to get to and they are just Well, they're perfect for radio -free

Geneva. I mean they are people demonstrating that they don't really understand

Calvinism or the only way that they can argue against it is by misrepresenting it and that is

The vast majority of the instances the first, you know, it took me a while while watching this

I I guess to be honest, I had never seen Greg Boyd before I had heard him Heard him on on radio and stuff and and over the years

You know his conflict with John Piper and his slide down You know into open theism and a denial of penal substitutionary atonement and If I recall correctly minimally inclusivism, maybe he's gone beyond that I I don't know and I don't know what the date of this was, but it was a little weird watching it at first Because Well, I could be wrong

Maybe you know, maybe I am looking at the still shot here, but it just looks like he's wearing

Socks, I mean it's okay to wear socks as long as they're in shoes But just watching and walking around I Think he's preaching in stocking feet and I'm you know, okay,

I I've done that But that's because I was in a mosque and you sort of have to so And it is different It feels different honestly to to try to preach in stocking feet

But I've pulled it off in a couple different mosques But yeah, this is weird.

This is this is strange. So anyway Well Have to move everything around we've got to find a better way of doing this sometime

But I guess All right.

So this this is a video from Greg Boyd And I I I'm sure he didn't name it this way and I find this modern tendency rather embarrassing

But this is called Calvinism destroyed in 10 minutes Now I've had a lot all sorts of folks

Post stuff James White destroyed in 30 seconds and all the rest of stuff and it normally didn't have anything

Whatsoever to do with being destroyed or anything else, but I think it is helpful to hear how

You know when we talk to our fellow Christians at times and they have such an amazingly

Biased and poisoned idea of what reformed theology is and and they automatically just you know, push us off it

It's helpful to understand why that might be and if this is what you were taught

This is all you knew then it would it would make it would make sense. So Let's uh, let's listen to Greg Boyd and I'm not gonna

I'm not gonna respond to everything because if I did it would take all day and I have a second video

I want to get to but Just give you a sense of What's out there what's being said

Here here we go. This is where George Woodfield and John Wesley split apart

See George George Woodfield Believed like many people of leapfrog history and many people today believe believe that everything is predestined by God before the world even is created

Everything's predestined predetermined. And so whether it's good or evil, it's predetermined whether it's a blessing or a curse.

It's predetermined Okay, I was just watching there. Those are definitely socks Yeah, those are socks because I saw a little the little you know

Sometimes it's that nice gold toe thing. Yeah when you know, you've got good socks But it's sort of a white or gray one.

He's he's definitely speaking in socks III To me that pretty much is the end of any relevance

You go to heaven or hell is predetermined if You're predestined to go to heaven. You're one of God's chosen the elect if you're predestined to go to hell well, then you're one of the reprobate and They believe that the majority of people are actually predestined to go to hell

And George Whitfield believed that for that reason that Jesus died just for the elect

His death was only for the elect. He wouldn't die for the people that now listen to us. He actually gets this, right?

This is this is this is important because even though he's not trying he's obviously You know not trying to give you an accurate accounting in the sense of presenting it as a reformed person would he's going to the end

As if we can know these things now as if we could know who the elect are who the reprobate are in this life

And and he's going only from God's perspective and and not talking about the relationship between You know

God's revealed will and his his decree and you know You don't expect anything like that from people who are really trying to convince it

Calvinism's a terrible horrible bad thing But it is interesting That at this point

He says something rather accurate in the sense of getting the

Relationship between the father and the son in redemption, right?

He recognizes it would be silly for Christ to try to save people.

The father hasn't chosen to save That there would be a disunity in the Godhead at this point.

He gets it. It's amazing How many other people do not get that the father predestined to go to hell? That would be weird for the son trying to save people that he knows the father's predestined not to be saved

That wouldn't make any sense at all. And so they believed in what's called limited atonement. Jesus died only for the elect

John Wesley was revolted repulsed by this picture of God to the point where as I said earlier

He said this picture of God is worse than the devil I for John Wesley He saw this as as introducing a duplicity in God that you don't find in the devil in the devil

You know what? You're getting with the devil. He's evil. Everyone knows that he's evil. You see it coming but John says in this picture of God God is controlling the devil and yet God is supposed to be all holy and all good as He's controlling the devil who is now supposed to be evil for doing what

God controls him to do and John said that makes God worse than the devil He thought there was a duplicity there

It's like God says he loves everybody but then he damns the majority of people to go to hell

What kind of love is that and God says he loves everybody But he isn't demonstrated and God tells us to love everybody

But then he doesn't and so that makes him hypocritical. So just just a reminder Obviously we have dealt with the love issues and things like this many times before Especially In response to who is that other real well -known

Armenian dude? we did a whole response on the nature of love and the different kinds of love and and and the

Irrationality of demanding that while we as human beings can have different kinds of love

We can have discernment and discrimination in love My love for my wife needs to be different than my love for anybody else's wife

My love for my children is different than love for somebody else's children My love for my this is sort of collapsing in our day

But my love for my pets needs to be different than my love for human beings that kind of thing even though we're supposed to have that capacity and that's what makes a human being a

Mature Reasonable creature that somehow we got that ability that God doesn't

We didn't get that from God because God doesn't have that ability. His love has to be identical so so the love that that God had for The nation of Israel was identical to love that he had for the

Assyrians Yeah now you sort of see why a lot of these guys end up with really weird views of the

Old Testament because They can't they can't they can't make this work across the canon of Scripture the

Freedom of God to elect an undeserving people The people of Israel despite their sins

Over against others and and not even send prophets to entire civilizations

Doesn't fit with this picture that they want to create Because the picture they want to create is coming from their how they want

God to be rather than how Scripture says God is and so Just as in the search for the historical

Jesus the historical Jesus ends up looking just like the the searcher himself in this same way the the

God of Of these folks ends up Looking a lot like them sort of a modern -day liberal in stocking feet

Is how that worked out anyway, so we've we've addressed that before the practice what he preaches and God then tells us to resist sin, but predestines the sinners to sin

What's up with that and God says he hates evil, but he predestines evil and God tells us to fight evil

But then he predestines the evil that we're supposed to fight. So you'll notice all of this is based upon ignoring the biblically demanded distinction between God's decree to work all things out to the counsel of his will

Biblical phrase Psalm 135 6 biblical verse number of places. I say lots of Bible verses that say this and our

Not knowing the content of that decree, but only knowing the content of God's revealed will his law

Which is what he uses to conform us to his image and and so on and so forth for his own purposes

But God can't really have his own purposes along those ways Whether we fight it or not is something that's predestined John saw that as being duplicitous and therefore he said it is worse than a double and that's why the two had to split apart

John in contrast of that didn't believe that everything was predestined Some things are predestined but not not the choices that free agents make and we here within those church stand in that tradition

We believe that people and angels have free will we believe in free will for a number of reasons We see throughout the

Bible that God gives choices to people So in Deuteronomy 30, for example, the Lord says I set before you today

Blessings and curses life and death and then he says choose life choose life now

Boyd knows that reformed folks like John Piper have actually read

Deuteronomy chapter 30 and He probably knows that we believe

God ordains the ends and as well as the means The means to those ends include exhortations prophets

The the constant, you know choosing do these things None of that.

Remember he's also an open theist. I think I think I forgot to mention that so he doesn't believe

God has has exhaustive knowledge of Future events as long as that event is the result of the free choice of a quote -unquote free creature

So we're not even talking about someone who's who I could possibly consider as Orthodox theologically here in any by any stretch the imagination

So we're obviously I talk about someone who has a overly compelling concern about consistency of exegesis

Scriptural authority things like that once you can deny that God has exhaustive knowledge of future events

The rest, you know goes its own way That you and your children may live

God wants us to choose life, but he doesn't make us choose life We can't choose death that we want we see this just kind of woven throughout the whole

Bible We believe in free will because we see a places where we're people reason, you know

Even though there's no direct text, you know, Jesus says you're not able you don't belong to God John 8

You can't do these things Even though you have the direct didactic teaching of Romans chapter 8 to those who according to flesh

Cannot do what is pleasing to God you you have all those direct stuff that is directly contrary But hey, if you go over here and you put in a certain context, well that might imply something like this.

That's That's what you get here. And by the way, the fellows name that I forgot Jerry Walsh If you put

Jerry Walsh into the search engine, you'll see an entire at least hour hour and a half we did playing a

Similar saying I think it was radio. It was radio free Geneva where we did a couple weeks. I think

I respond to Jerry Walsh's Refutation of Calvinism and that was about what about three four years ago something along those lines

God's will even thwart God's will So for example in Luke 7 it says that the

Pharisees and other experts in the law They they they resisted God's purpose They rejected God's purpose for themselves got at a purpose for them

Because God is good and all those purposes are good but These folks and people in general have the ability to reject it to thwart it

C .s. Lewis thought that the greatest act of omnipotence was making creatures who could say no to him. I agree with that Folks have the ability to say no to God's will we believe in free will because we see that in the

Bible God wants everyone and now again see the incoherence if you will not recognize the biblically demanded

Categories of God's decree his secret will and his

Revealed will which is in Scripture you end up with these incoherent statements. So That's why you end up with with people saying answering questions like what could

Paul have said no On the road to Damascus and I go well, yeah, of course and so all the intentions that God had of You know, he gifted the

Apostle Paul He gave him that mind that ability to reason everything he wanted to do to even bring us

Almost half of the New Testament Not bulk wise but and a number of books wise all that could have been thwarted and Then God would have had to come up with plan

B. Then again, maybe Paul was plan B Maybe it would have been better with somebody else.

Who knows God's will can be thwarted what we could say is that God's revealed will is

Trampled underfoot by man every single day when man sins even we do it That's what sin is that does not mean that God's decree

God's secret will can be thwarted and So we can hold all the text of Scripture together.

I would submit that Dr. Boyd doesn't even try To do that.

He can't it's impossible. He saved God is patient Peter says God is patient not wanting anyone to perish but for everyone to come to repentance and turn and have a

Relationship with him. He wants everybody to be part of this That's some amens in the background there.

Of course, we've dealt with 2nd Peter 3 and I we actually go into the context and Explain what's being said there and deal with the reality of what is being said

That the you in this context is specifically contrasted with others in the immediate context but they don't normally do the context saying it's normally just let's just Throw it out there fill it with our own meaning and we won't worry about that exegesis thing

It takes too long believe in free will because we see throughout the Bible when God when God is rejected it grieves his heart

His heart breaks so in other words if God decrees to glorify himself in a particular way

That would be unlike us that would make him like eternal and different than us so we wanted to be it just like us and so he has to be like bummed out like we are bummed out because he's

Disappointed because he didn't see it coming. Remember we're talking about an open theist here And the sad thing is I think a lot of evangelicals if I wasn't mentioning that he was an open theist

You wouldn't catch it You wouldn't realize why I've said over and over and over again.

The only consistent Armenian is an open theist If you think God has perfect knowledge of future events, you've got no reason to be going these places, but you go there anyway

He doesn't always get his way. He loves people but people sometimes don't love him back And and so for example in Romans, it says he's quoting

Isaiah here. The Lord says all day long I've stretched out my hands to this obstinate and disobedient people all day long and you get a picture of God here stretching out his arms saying come to me

I want to give you life. I want to give you myself The bliss of my eternal love and if you don't then

I'm gonna be eternally bummed and I'm not gonna be perfect and I Created this world to to put myself in this bummed out situation and and and actually right now

I'm just doing a lousy job and the vast majority of mankind is just spitting in my face and and I'm just just Really bummed out about it.

And but I'm an open theist God. So it's it's you know, I didn't see it coming I had no idea when

I created that you people would be such stinkers. But yeah, yeah, that's the God of open theism

But we have the ability to be obstinate and disobedient and say no and it breaks his heart throughout the

Bible You see a God whose heart gets broken Not as our hearts get broken our hearts get broken

Because we're ignorant and because we're foolish and because we have expectations that are in error and all those other things and do not

Project those on to God Unless you want to create a God other than the God of the

Bible and then you find As we read the Bible we believe in free will because we see that Jesus died for everybody

John says he didn't die just for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world I don't know how much clearer you can get. You know, it's funny.

I have yet to hear Any of the

Well, I suppose it's because you know, this is Calvinism destroyed in ten minutes And so in ten minutes, just how deeply can you get so if it's going to be ten minutes, you're gonna have all this surface level no context no concern stuff, but even you know when

I'm for example speaking in a mosque and I go through some statements or quotes or something from the

Quran or from Muhammad or if I'm Debating a

Mormon or something like that and I'm quoting from the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith's like that. I will give the quotation in such a fashion as to communicate to the

Mormon or to the Muslim or Whatever the other group might be that I am aware of what the context is and that I'm handling the text

Properly in light of my knowledge of what their objections are You don't get that once people get on to this attacking of Calvinism thing so you look at something like this and We contextualize this historically that is there's still many more of the elect to be gathered and they are going to be from the entire world

You just have to put this together it's interesting he he understands the objection of The disunity of the

Father and the Son and why we therefore believe in Particular redemption. It doesn't really refute that other than to just simply say well there really isn't any election

Particularly, that's the other video. We're gonna be dealing with we talking about that subject but certainly never goes into what the

Result of the death of Christ is and again, my understanding is you know, I Don't think he any longer believes in penal substitutionary atonement, so Once you start going that far out then it's it's easy to see how you end up with these conclusions

And in these what he's getting at here is Really? He's confronting this don't ever think that you're some kind of special class, but Jesus only died for you, but not them

No, no, no, no. No, he died for you. That's wonderful. He died for everybody. He died for everybody

That's why we want to share this good news with everybody or he died for the elect of everybody That's the real application the gospel can go into all the world

Not just certain spectrums of the world God wants everybody to be saved and so we hear what those church are passionate about preaching that God loves

Everybody and Jesus died for everybody and God wants everybody to come in the kingdom It's free for all

It's free for all When the Sun says free is free indeed the Sun wants to set everybody free

Everybody and if you he really wants to he's just not doing a really great job of it, but it's just all our fault

It's not his fault. That's the open theist. God. He's he's doing his darndest He's just so just trying so hard and it sounds so good to people

Unless they read the Bible and that's not the God of the Bible. That's not what the God Bible says I'm trying my best and I'm just I'm so sad about all the

Egyptians and all the all the Assyrians and And I just wanted to save all those soldiers.

I drowned in the sea in the Red Sea. I It's just it's just tough every day

Yeah, well, sorry, that's not what you get in the Bible set everybody free It means he wants to set you free if God loves everybody.

It means he loves you you you It doesn't matter what you've done doesn't matter what sin you've committed however gross ever heinous

However, ugly however mean -spirited our debaucherous however diabolical whatever murder you've done.

You can be the worst sinner on the planet I'm here to tell you that God loves you Jesus died for you and God wants a relationship with you

No, if ands buts or qualifications, that's it set simple straightforward. He loves you

See if some are in and some are out then some of us are sure that we're out it's the way our brain works the only way that I can be confident that I can be in is if that if everyone is invited to be in and Yeah, yeah think about that one for just a second and and you'll see the the reasoning is going the wrong direction

If that somehow just makes you feel better That what's what source you're actually deriving that from?

And again, you try to apply this in the texture You try to apply it to John 6 try to apply it to John 10

You try to apply it throughout the rest of the Old or New Testaments. It just falls apart. It's incoherent, but it sounds real good

It's getting a nice applause line. So, you know, as long as you get applause, that's all you all you really need So God wants to have a relationship with you.

Whoever you are now. He won't force you. He won't force you He doesn't want a relationship with a puppet. That's not a relationship

He wants a relationship with you the person and therefore it's a relationship that you have to choose So he won't force you as much as he wants you

Won't force you the relationship has got to be real and you could only choose him Because his grace is already operating in your life.

You couldn't choose them on your own if his grace wasn't already there But so there's there's the the always present cellophane tape of Arminian theology

Prevenient grace his grace is already operating. That's not enough to save you and it's he's not forcing you and So it's equal with all people which means it saves nobody

But it makes it possible for you to save yourself So that that's how you get away with well, yeah, it's all of grace you have to have grace and again

This is right back to he's on the far side of the Tiber River on this matter. He's in league with Rome He believes what

Rome believes on this subject And that is this concept of prevenient grace the the incapacity of grace to save it of itself

The issue of the Reformation can't remember how many times I've said it now Was never the necessity of grace because Rome said grace was absolutely necessary it was always the sufficiency of grace is grace powerful enough to actually save and I've told the story about how

I was so in impatient as a young person that I would build models and I Couldn't wait for the glue to dry and So I would use cellophane tape

To hold stuff together until the glue dried and That always made a royal mess.

Well prevenient grace as the cellophane tape of Romanian theology likewise makes a real mess and the the first pressure of Examination that's put upon the resultant construction

Won't hold together will not hold together. It's it's it's not even gorilla tape. It's just cellophane tape

It's it's that bad grace won't force you To choose him and so if you're here listening to this and there's a pull on your heart any kind of pull that is

God's Grace, that's the Holy Spirit working right or it could be the pizza you ate last night because That's exactly what the

Mormons say Your job is to yield to yield to just say okay

And now surrender the Holy Spirit inside of you surrender your life to Christ and start living for him

Because we believe in free will we are able to say God wants everybody in ollie ollie and free it's free for all

Come on in come on in whoever whoever Will say yes is on the end.

I didn't hear anything about repentance there But I may have missed it and because we believe in free will we don't have to say that whenever a tragedy happens

It was God's will yeah, you know when the tsunami kills thousands and the famine kills millions

We don't think that was God's perfect plan for their life now this is interesting because most open theists

I know will affirm that natural events are a part of God's knowledge that that he knows

What he is decreed to do in the natural realm So I don't really get this unless You know maybe he's gone beyond Standard open theism or something

I I Don't know. I mean that's glorifying God With field would say oh, it's all predestined for his glory

But we don't see anything God glorifying about starving children and and when the endless mindless

Wars go on throughout history and and the atrocities caused by Hitler There is really something about not having your shoes on here.

It's almost looks like he's dancing at times. You know There's just something I'm gonna keep this in mind

That that it does. I think it impacts your balance. Maybe your theological balance. We've determined that This is the chat room that this is the the new modern continuationism

The new modern preaching in socks preaching in socks as opposed to tongues. Oh Yeah, preaching in socks.

Yeah, I'm so glad I haven't been reading the channel people died under Hitler and Stalin the rest We don't think that was planned by God or predestined by God or enjoyed by God No, it's he hate and what you need to know is

God didn't even know what's gonna happen When God created he had no idea he got now he created the possibility of all that happening.

And so he's responsible out of negligence Would you rather have a God who's responsible out of negligence or responsible because there's a purpose?

That we may not know in this life, but we will in the next Hmm, that's stuff. He hates he's against that.

He doesn't predestine that he fights that All evil all evil as a result of wills other than God That's our conviction whether it's human wills or angelic rules or a combination of the two

God is good all the time all the time. God is good His will is always good in his plans are as good as purpose is always good

It's people fallen people and fallen angels of screw things up. This world is Oh crappy because of other wills than God God is always good and so when when you have kidnapped children and and people sold into sexual slavery and Unthinkable things done these little kids and and and we need the terrorist goes into a market and blows himself up and kills

Dozens of innocent people with them. We don't think that was God's plan for their life That wasn't predestined by God or willed by God.

That was the terrorist who thought that maybe there's influence of demonic spirits on top of it But it wasn't God. So it has no meaning.

It's absolutely purposeless evil and God created it nothing to do about it honor him as God.

That's what you're saying Rick Realize what the price is realize what the price of your man -centeredness is you're not protecting

God God's big enough Theodicy is his business. He can handle it but the price is

To render every single one of those lives utterly meaningless meaning nothing nothing there

Nothing there and clearly the glory of God doesn't rate very high in your priority list either

When you think about it, you know who cares about that? Hmm God God is involved in all the evil but not to cause it he's involved to minimize it

He's involved to bring good out of it. Wait a minute. How do you how do you minimize evil without restricting the will of man?

I mean You're not talking like Genesis chapter 20 where God actually keeps somebody from sinning against him

Because that's not that's not an autonomous. Will if God can stop you from sinning

What are you talking about? The promise that he gives to all who will follow him is that it will it will surrender all

The stuff in our life to him then everything we've suffered or everything We've made someone else suffer every evil that's been done to us or every evil that we've done to others

It all can be used to his advantage and the advantage of the kingdom It says in Romans 8 28 that God is involved in all things working that together for the better for those who love the

Lord and Are called according to his purpose and he's now does that make any sense what he just said? Of course not it's it's it's a it's an either -or dichotomy and What he's trying to do is saying well, you know

God's in there and and God's gonna you know he's gonna you know wipe your tears and and You know, but that's not what that's

It's how Romans 8 says you look at the golden chain of redemption you look at the sovereignty of God there you God is powerful in Romans 8.

He's not just sitting there going hide it. Oh, man. I made all this. What a mess I'm gonna try to clean it up as best

I can, you know, I'll be with you But we know we just need to see how this whole thing's gonna gonna shake out in the end

Because God doesn't know how it's gonna shake out in the end in open theism. That's why it's such a mess

Doing that he'll bring good out of it nothing needs to be Regretted but but he doesn't cause it.

He does not cause it. Nothing needs to be regretted except for all that absolutely Positively meaningless evil that God had no purpose of whatsoever, right?

I'm sorry. This is absolutely incoherent. I Mean, you can yell it and scream it in your stocking feet, but that's that's not

That doesn't mean anything There's a lot of passages in the Bible that folks can use interpret in ways

To support this idea that God controls all evil. Yeah, they're they're really really are

Asked Nebuchadnezzar about it. He's pretty straightforward on it that George Whitfield and all

Calvinists are very sincere people and they sincerely want to just believe what the Bible teaches and that's how they interpret the

Bible, but I just have to say that that I sincerely disagree with them and I As sisters and brothers in Christ, but I just disagree with that There's other ways of interpreting those verses and that's something that you're interested in or wrestle with I've written a lot of stuff on this

Probably the most readable book is is God to blame you can get out in the gathering area This is the topic that that you're

Russell with so we believe in free. Yeah, so like I said if you

Go that direction I I'll just be perfectly honest with you. It's it's not a biblical direction open theism is is not a a biblical perspective and not just in the sense of I Believe that such such position is unbiblical.

It is a serious fundamental Departure from Christian theism as a whole

Open open theism is is bad news bad bad bad stuff So there was the first one we have a second one

And I blame a brother from on Twitter for this morning saying that he very much wants to see a

Debate between me and this fellow and I was like, I thought you liked me Because this fellow

Is a King James only Anti -calvinist and so when you when you put

King James only ism together with with anti -calvinism. The the result is

Pretty ugly and We have gone through at least one video

With this gentleman before if I recall it was on John 6 and Did a pretty thorough job refuting his many errors and A couple months later.

Somebody sent me a link that he had he had responded why I didn't it was like an hour and 45

Minutes long. Sorry not interested He's very good at missing the point which most

King James only us are But like I said you combine that Mindset With a rabid anti -calvinism and There's not a whole lot of reasoning going on excellent example though here of the straw man tactic in anti -reform material on the web and One of the reasons

I decided to do this was because a week ago last night I I I've done last three

Wednesday nights. It's that time of year when pastor fries away and so I've had the last two

Sundays the past three Wednesday nights and I just decided to Start walking through Ephesians 1 a week ago on Wednesday night

And as I have done I've done this in the program Probably over the years what six seven times easily?

I Wrote a book called the Potter's freedom has a whole section on Ephesians chapter 1 have exegete the text in debates and many places like that and anyone who has listened carefully to what

I have said about Ephesians chapter 1 knows that one of the primary

Emphases that I always include and I I have the recording of last

Wednesday night We normally don't record those things But I hit the little memo thing on my iPad and I haven't posted it, but I've got it there so I can prove it

And it's in the book One of the things that is always a part of my discussion

Ephesians chapter 1 is the phrase an auto in him or in Christo Or in the beloved singular

Which occurs in this? 10 times in 13 verses the fact that the blessings of God the actions of God choosing predestining adopting

All these actions of the Father are done in and only in Jesus Christ there is an absolute exclusivity

To the Christian message The blessings of grace

Are found only by the Father's choice in and through the

Son this is the end of any form of serious accusation of pluralism as Tempting as that might be

The reality is that the self -giving of the Son is such a radical act of grace that to try to extend that outside of Christ is to show a fundamental misunderstanding of Not only who

Christ is but who the Father is and what union with Christ is So I have consistently emphasized in him

Throughout Well, I've been teaching on this as long as this gentleman's been alive so his entire life

And I then point out that Some people abuse and misuse this text

Because it says Kathos exelexata hey moss and alto

Just as he chose us in him pra cata ballets Cosmo.

I know who moss huggies Kai momus And then

Yeah Catenope on how to I'd stop there because I think I Argued it and a gaba in love is to be construed with prior recess and the next verse in love

He protested us but the point is just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we might be so that I and I that we might be holy and blameless before him and the we

Hey moss is the same It is in the accusative and it is the direct object of the verb exelexata

Which is to choose? Now I Realize that the gentleman we're gonna be reviewing here is

King James only and so the original languages may be or may not I don't know be of any importance to him, but He says that an alto is a conditional modifier.

No, it's not the direct object of the choice in the original language without question and without dispute is

Us he chose us in him The direct object is us

The realm of that choice is in Christ, but we are the direct object

Christ is not the direct object He can't an alto cannot be the direct object to grammatically speaking.

It can't not be the direct object That choice is only in Christ our union with Christ is central to our understanding of who we are and how we are saved

But we are chosen Just as we are

Predestined and we are adopted Those are all personal actions

They function corporately in the sense that we are not saved in isolation from everyone else but forgiveness of sins can be seen both corporately, but it has to be seen individually and The forgiveness of our trespasses is included in the text as well so I've often emphasized the fact that there are some who try to create a

Class election here where what the text is actually saying is just as he chose a

Nameless faceless group in Christ or chose

Christ so that anyone who is in him Can then receive these benefits? That's normally how it's handled.

I said no, that's not what it says and it doesn't make any sense Because when you go back to verse 3 blessed be the

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Ha Yule ha you like a sauce. Hey moss who blessed us

With every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, so we're the ones

Blessing God the Father for the blessings. He has given to us so the us in the next verse

The elect just as as to the whole thing Just as he chose us

That we might be holy and blameless before in love predestined us verse 5 same

Hamas unto adoptions through Jesus Christ unto himself according the kind intention of his will

You can try to break this up all you want. You can try to import other theological concepts into it all you want

The text says what the text says So let's listen to this amazing

Well You'll see there's some incredible attitudes expressed here too, but let's let's listen in I was chosen before the foundation of the world

We were chosen before the foundation of the world That's what

I hear from Calvinist all the time And if you've done any personal work or listen to any mainstream Calvinist speakers

You've heard it too like this YouTube commenter said in the comments under one of my videos Cornelius was able to receive the saving knowledge of God in Christ We know that through Ephesians chapter 1 verse 4 that he had been chosen before the foundation of the world to be saved and to Be holy and blameless before God.

Did you catch the glaring misquote of Ephesians 1 for there? Well, first of all, it wasn't a quotation.

It was a paraphrase So and and Cornelius isn't in this particular context so it's paraphrase and Quoting it exactly as it would be would not change anything of the point that is being made

You always have to keep an eye out people people on on the YouTube on the tubes Will prove points that make it sound like they're whoo

That's good observation when there's actually nothing relevant to that particular point at all

They all do it. Once you know what to look for. It sticks out like a sore thumb What these self -boasting giants of the faith are missing is the first step in hermeneutics

Which is something we teach 12 year olds here at New Orleans Bible Church that Just let that sink in there's a tad bit of arrogance.

Just a little bit throughout this gentleman's presentation

Observation, what does the text actually say and what does it not say? There's a little phrase tucked away in Ephesians 1 for that I might hear

Calvinist say one time out of a hundred make one time out of a hundred Catch that one time out of a hundred.

You cannot find a single commentary in my library

From a reformed writer on Ephesians 1 for that does not spend paragraphs on Union with Christ in him in the beloved it is a constant

Regular aspect. This is just dishonest on this man's part. His name's Kevin Thompson and He just mentioned this church, this is just simply untrue

Now if he wants to try to make YouTube comments Definitive of Calvinists in General good luck with that one

It happens to be the most important two words in the verse and in all of chapter 1 that is the phrase in him

In him is the qualifying phrase It is the condition that must be met in order for one to be chosen, especially that you catch that Now here is where you know, he's gonna he's gonna go off into a rant a little bit.

It's it's an irrational rant I'll point out why it's irrational in just a moment. The man's not a rational thinker, but What he doesn't realize is he has his traditions and His traditions are determining not only how he reads the text but are allowing him to insert into the text material that simply is

Not there if he's doing serious exegesis if he's trying to derive the meaning from the text.

It's not there So he just said it is a condition which must be fulfilled n alto is

In well, it depends on whether you were taught a five case or an eight case system in Greek.

It's in the dative You can tell by that little Yoda subscript there And use of n obviously.

I was taught the 8k system. I now teach 5k. So, you know, but in in my mind I Would see this in the locative case or if you learned the five case

It's the subcategory of the dative and syntax And that is in the in the realm of union with Christ.

It is in him. He defines the category in which this divine election takes place

In other words God the triune God in eternity past chose to save a particular people

Titus chapter 2 Only in Christ Jesus and not in any other way so the benefits of his sacrificial death

Only are given to those who are in Christ in him Okay, so Nobody nobody dodges it, but what he's doing is he's trying to turn the realm of that choice the particularity of that choice being in Christ alone into A basis for inserting something that we must do that will then control

God's choice, which turns Ephesians 1 upside down It turns it upside down That's what's amazing, that's what's amazing

Before the foundation of the world I need to clarify before I go any further that the passage we're dealing with will venture into the concept of what people call

Election. However, we are not dealing with election as a topic We are dealing with Ephesians 1 for as a passage of scripture

Remember Bible believers those of you looking to be equipped to successfully fight the onslaught of Gnosticism Gnosticism.

Okay, that's that's the term to use it. By the way, historically As one who's taught church history for years. That is a grossly

Absurd use of the term Gnosticism. It is it's not only insulting It's just anybody for anybody who knows anything about Gnosticism historically is just chuckling going

This guy is either massively ignorant of history or just being dishonest rudely so in Identifying somebody in this way not to deal with topics but rather deal with passages dealing with topics is a quick path to start taking things out of context and incorporate philosophy instead of scripture a

Topical approach to the content of scripture or subjects of theology can be a quick path to starting a cult

Which is why Calvinists are in so much trouble Their doctrines are built on topics and philosophical concepts many of which are not even hinted at in scripture

Now, of course, that's absurd on its face. That's absurd And some of us have published entire books that demonstrate that why do

I have Why did I grab the oh? There's the other edition.

Well, anyways, that's the first edition. I've written entire books filled with exegesis on this particular subject that just demonstrates that this is

Whistling as you're walking by the graveyard. I mean, it's just it's just absurd the terms and concepts like that.

Now listen this now listen What you have here is this anti intellectualism

Parading itself as biblicism, which just becomes ignorance Look at these terms monergism synergism outward call inward call it effectual call ineffectual call irresistible limited unconditional

Election precedes calling regeneration precedes faith efficacious general particular libertarian compatibilism.

What are these things? These are words that we use to differentiate between Understandings that different groups have as to what the

Bible is teaching and his position is Defined by these words just as mine is

Now He's a synergist. He can claim that he's not just the same way that the three

Mormons say we're not polytheist Yes, you are Yes, you are words have meanings and If you

Know ineffectual call Well from from his perspective. There's a lot of people who receive an ineffectual call

There's all sorts of terms that we can use to describe his synergistic Armenian Perspective and he could say well,

I don't need to do. I'm just I'm just a Bible man. No, you're not Your Theological system has to be able to express itself and you will not be able to do so solely with biblical

Language you can't do it. You cannot answer the questions So it's silly to attack someone else who has taken the time over the years to Develop a significant vocabulary that allows the differing positions to be very clearly differentiated from one another this kind of Fundamentalistic Anti -intellectualism

That cuts itself off from history and says we're just the Bible. No, you're not You are you have just in fact, you have deeper traditions that are probably less examined on your part because you don't recognize them

Then other people do you've got your traditions You're just not honest about them.

That's all that's that's that's just simple Monergism and synergism outward and inward call effectual and ineffectual call

Irresistible limited unconditional election proceeds calling regeneration proceeds faith efficacious general particular libertarian

Compatibilism, etc And on the list goes it's no wonder that they couldn't care less about phrases that actually do appear in Scripture.

So Again it's just dishonesty We we care deeply have produced

Significantly more scholarly literature on these issues than then his ilk could ever produce

So to say that we don't have concern about these things is just it's just dishonest as in him

Meanwhile, they try to make the argument that the Bible believer is somehow unorthodox for merely insisting that the words of Scripture are actually true

And authoritative the authority for the Calvinist is philosophy and the biggest enemy of their philosophy is scriptural authority

Well, and again, that's just Absurdly ridiculous could never stand up in meaningful debate

It's just kind of thing you can you can put out when you're only having a monologue, but not when you have a dialogue They like to say that people reject

Calvinism because their flesh can't stand the idea of a sovereign God and when in actuality

They reject Scripture because they have an issue and a problem with an authoritative

God if God is sovereign and he is His sovereignty is first and foremost represented in the fact that Scripture is true

And God is not some illiterate bumbling imbecile who cannot bring himself to inspire the words which actually convey his intended truth

Now I think what's behind this I would assume because right if it isn't behind this there's nothing rational behind this at all

I think this is this King James only ism but that would mean the King James is inspired and none of the

King James translators believe that and and Nobody believed that until recent years far removed from any of those individuals so that's the only thing could be behind this because No serious person.

No, no serious person who actually reads history or is attempting to be logical or rational or truthful or anything like that can say

Can come to any other conclusion than the people that have the highest view of Scripture. I Mean look at the people behind the the

Chicago Statement on biblical inerrancy RC Sproul a lot of really

High Calvinists there. So this whole thing about yeah, you know, do you reject biblical authority?

It's just it's again Works fine on YouTube videos in a debate

Collapses into the the pile of quivering foolishness that it actually is Has to be your position if you're a

Calvinist if you're a Calvinist your problem is rejection of scriptural authority in exchange for philosophical

Terminology to which you believe the scripture must be held subject if you don't believe that Then you need to think long and hard about where you learn to talk like you do because you didn't learn that from Scripture You got that from a man who duped your unintelligent weak mind into believing the idea that you'd be a man exalting

Semipalatian if you didn't buy his snake oil as a result You are now a slave to the most man exalting theology in Christendom next to papistry.

That is Calvinism Again Total disconnection from reality just just like It's hard to even describe the foolishness the silliness the the disconnection from history and anything logical or rational or anything it's just You know, it's sad to see someone wasting

You know the production time and everything else putting this kind of stuff out, but man It's all over as I'm in its essence is basically the philosophy that God needs the help of Bible rejecting human

Theologians to straighten him out where he fell short and was incompetent to communicate clearly and accurately

That is just a bald -faced lie, and it would never stand up in debate.

He knows it The matter of Ephesians 1 4 note that I already have a separate video that covers

Predestination and Ephesians 1 5 see that video for a treatment of that verse I handle election and predestination separately

The reason that I do that is based on the simple hermeneutical principle that things different are not the same

Yeah, that's a that's a hermeneutical principle What I know he a simple hermeneutical principle

That wasn't on the list. So I guess it's okay. Yeah. No, we all realize he can't he can't discuss these things

Without violating what he just accused us of doing I Mean and he just did it within one screen simple hermeneutical principle

Where'd you get that from the Bible? That's not in the Bible. See how silly this is

So he's like objecting because you know, we do sometimes topics and what is this video on?

Yeah. Oh a topic Yes, the ink the term terms incoherent.

Yeah Election and predestination are different words. They sound different They're spelled differently and they have different definitions if you've been doing like many

Calvinists and using those terms interchangeably then stop Open a dictionary and start using words for what they actually mean

Ephesians 1 4 says according as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world

That we should be holy and without blame before him in love There is not a single passage that says you or anyone in 2017 was chosen before the foundation of the world

The only thing close to that concept is this passage and this passage has the conditional qualifier in him

Conditional qualifier didn't get that from the Bible either did you know that's part of your tradition I didn't get that from the

Greek either digit because it doesn't seem like you can read it So, where are you getting it from it's coming from your tradition from your theology

Which you're now importing into the Bible and we're all watching you do it that being the case

It is prudent to warn the student of Scripture against something called single -verse theology which is employed by any group that has an authority other than Scripture single -verse theology that sounds like an

External concept it's not found in the Bible. Is it? No because the word verse isn't found the

Bible either Their single pet verse along with the private interpretation that Peter warned against is a sure recipe for failure to by the way

That's not what Peter warned against. That's not what Peter warned against What Peter was talking about when it says is of no private interpretation in the

King James. That's a horrible rendering It means it does not come about by the prophets own will that's a beautiful text about the divine origin of Scripture Which you don't have because you're a

King James only us and won't actually read what Peter originally wrote Or even recognize the truth when you see it

The problem is when certain groups and denominations take a verse that is of controversial interpretation and with no supporting passages

Insist that their interpretation is the only possible correct one and then proceed to justify or build an entire

Denomination on that concept the Catholics use Matthew 16 18 the Church of Christ also known as the

Lord's Navy uses acts 238 Do you get that one? I don't the

Lord's Navy No, no, I I'm sure he see he's he's all like the

Church of Christ groups So I imagine that they cross swords all the time. I would imagine

I don't know when's use 1st Corinthians 1529 The Mormons use 1st Corinthians 1529, but they did not build their church on 1st

Corinthians 1529 that came about much later ignorant of Mormonism to the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own

Bible which makes Jesus a second and lesser God in John 1 18 And before you point the finger at them

You should know that the NASB and the ESV are happy to follow suit on that passage Also making

Jesus a second and lesser God in John 1 18. That is untrue as well. I don't know how in the world you

Don't get this But yes, I do. Yes, I do. It's called prejudice. You've already demonstrated to prejudice very very deeply

I don't know of our good friend adamantius origin who has managed to keep every generation of Christians supplied with solid reasons to apostatize ever since 8254 and in this case

Ephesians 1 4 is a verse that Calvinists ripped from the context and hurl at Bible believers Sometimes with a slew of other passages as if the verse itself with no explanation is supposed to say what they are thinking

Yeah, you know, there's no explanation here in the Potter's freedom beginning in the discussion of Ephesians 1

Let's see here, where did I where did I start this a page? 173 and Really I quoted at first 175 and the discussion goes on Let me see here

How okay to 181 so there's six pages.

I mean that's not super in -depth, but I Cite the text and then notice what

I say Paul begins the benediction of God the Father He pronounced it a blessing upon him Why the rest of the passage explains why

God is so worthy of our blessing. He is worthy of blessing because he has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies from the very beginning the emphasis is upon God and God's actions he acts blessing and Believers are the recipient of the action all spiritual blessings flow from God and they do so only in Christ Throughout this passage.

We will see the phrase in Christ or in him repeated over and over again All to emphasize the uniqueness of the

Christian gospel where God saves men in Christ and in no other way

I guess that was just the 100 out of the hundred times, right? Thus just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world verse 4

God here acts his act is that of election The Greek term X Alexa taught means to choose or select

God is the subject of the verb This is God's choice The rest of the phrase gives us three vital pieces of information the object of the choice the sphere of the choice and the time

Frame of the choice the direct object the verb choose is us the first person plural pronoun if certain theories were correct

We might expect something like so designed to save so that the passage would simply be God chose to save or make salvation

Possible for the foundation of the world But instead Paul provides a personal direct object making the choice personal and distinct

He chose us not a nameless faceless class or group But us this truth be repeated later in the text this choice by necessity must take place in Christ Christ is not the one here chosen, but those who are chosen are chosen in Christ There is no election outside of union with Christ God saves no one impersonally all who are elected will know

Christ for they will of necessity be in him All who are elected are chosen in him

Christianity is not pluralistic nor syncretistic It says salvation comes in only one way in the

Son of God incarnate in Christ But this choice is timeless It is made before the foundation of the world before creation itself

The choice is wholly divine and wholly based upon the will of God for the time of the election of us in Christ Nothing else but God existed election is holy of him hmm

That was I was around 2000 2001 wasn't it somewhere around in there was a date on that.

So It's been around a while. This is the problem with presuppositions Presuppositions are ideas in our mind that we think when we see the text

But we do not realize that the text does not actually say these ideas that we think So that's why exegesis is so important is to identify your presuppositions

But those who call themselves only Bible believers and think that they are free of traditions and free therefore of presuppositions

Cannot examine their presuppositions by engaging in rigorous exegesis

Especially those who are of the King James only mindset show someone else a passage and we think they see what we see

But that other person has an entirely different set of ideas that they are bringing to the text

So two people talking about the same passage can be talking about apples and oranges without even realizing it

The goal of hermeneutics is to identify and eliminate presuppositions so that we can see the text more clearly

So when a Calvinist throws Ephesians 1 4 in your face They don't realize that the Bible believer has already considered the issue that in him creates by time chapter 2 verse 12 comes around We don't see the verse irrespective of the phrase in him like they do

We of course and it is simply untrue He has not noticed. He has not cited a a single person to substantiate his his assertions

So I assume that what he's Thinking because he goes to Ephesians 2 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ excluded from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise having

No hope without God in the world. So I think what he's gonna try to do is read

Paul backwards, which is what our minions have to do Same thing in John 6 Ephesians 1 they none of them can walk through the text just start at the beginning and walk through the text

He's got to go down here. He's got to grab this talking about a different time period We're not talking about back in eternity past We're talking about the working out of salvation time and he's got to try to read that back in so that he can make in him something that we accomplish and That way get rid of the plain testimony of Scripture to election and predestination all in one sentence

That that would be my gut feeling. Unfortunately, we've gone way past the time frame that was going to be going on I think we've we've made our point.

I Will make I will make this offer. However, I really don't have time for this, but I will make this offer

I'll make the offer to pastor Thompson We will Make it available for you to connect up with us and what we'll do is

What would be a long enough period of time 15 to 20 minutes Exegesis Ephesians 1

I Will base my exegesis solely on the original language text if you want to use

King James do whatever you want I don't think there's a I Can't think of a a major Textual variant that would overly impact any discussion would be going on here

But we each offer in the same time period Exegesis of the text and Then have period of questioning based upon That text and we'll see who gives consistent full

Exegetical Understanding of the text. How's that? I think a lot of people would find that to be quite interesting and So we'll we'll see if we get taken up on that that particular offer.

So there's radio free Geneva There's an hour and 40 minutes worth of the program today.

We've covered a bunch of stuff and I hope it has been useful to you

I can't imagine how much water that will have passed under the bridge, especially in social media by next

Tuesday But we'll see We will see what we have to cover by by then

Lord grant grant mercy Thanks for watching the program today. We will see you next week