Reviewing the Double Header Debate from Last Weekend

Around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.

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

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

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

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

James White. Well good morning. If you are still on the west coast and in Arizona, good afternoon for the rest of you.

And that of course indicates that the time has changed, not here but everywhere else, and anyone who has asked questions about that in the channel this morning has been kick -banned as a result of doing so and will be kick -banned in the future as well.

Anyways, it's good to be with you on the Dividing Line today. We are back from our rather busy weekend in Salt Lake City and things just continue to stay interesting.

As soon as we got back, I was sent a URL by a good friend of mine that helps sort of monitor things out there.

I appreciate when folks send me these URLs, especially when they don't send them with a request that I write some massive response to it.

That I don't find overly encouraging or useful. But there are some folks who just want to help me keep up with what is out there.

I do not have the time to be running around doing that kind of looking at things all the time.

I just couldn't keep up with things. But anyways, I sent a URL to an article on Robert St.

Genesis's website in regards to the main article on our website, which

I know, I know, needs to be changed. I'm working on something new. But anyways, that keeps things hopping and keeps things interesting.

Never a boring day around here anyways. There's always far more than we can get to in a day's time.

And that's, I suppose, a very good thing. But I wanted to report on the debates this weekend. If you were there and would like to give your thoughts, possibly, if you were at the debates in Salt Lake City this weekend, 877 -753 -3341.

I was actually reading some comments from some Mormons that were at the first debate and I was just blown away by what was said.

I was encouraged in one sense, some of the things that were said. But in the sense of what they were hearing,

I was amazed. But if you were there, feel free to give us a call and give your insights.

Obviously, it'd be real easy to do what most people do, at least what my opponents seem to like to do.

And just simply say, well, we won this debate, we won that debate, we did this, we did that, so on and so forth.

I like to allow other folks to sort of make up their minds on their own by just listening.

But I will give you my impressions anyways and try to do so in somewhat of a fair manner as to what took place over the course of the weekend.

And I think I have the sneaking hunch that Mr. Pierce was working on getting some of the audio ready.

The audio of those debates normally comes out first because that's the easiest to put together.

You can put it on the MP3 site and people can listen to it there. It's not there yet, but that's normally what comes first.

And then the video comes later because you have to take the video from two different cameras and put them together and so on and so forth.

And that way you can have a good -looking video.

From what Mr. Pierce tells me, they came out great. I was a little concerned about that. We were in Orson Spencer Hall, which was just one building, let's see, that would be south of the

Student Center where we were at before for the Martin Tanner debates six months ago. And we were in a, well, sort of a standard academic room where you'd have a very large class.

There's about 400 seats or so, I think, theater -style seating.

And the stage is down front and there's obviously an incline -type situation where the stage is down lower.

And so there's good visibility and a large chalkboard and a screen that came down from one of the two debates.

We had the screen down because my opponent was using an overhead, at least briefly anyways. I was a little concerned because it was so dark in there.

It was a little tough for me to see. We weren't able to get all the lights to function properly. It was an older place and it was a little tough for me to see my notes.

And so you'll see me using my little old grandfather reading glasses once in a while to see my notes because it wasn't very bright up on the podium.

But anyways, I think it was a nice venue. And as I said, Mr. Pierce says the cameras did a really good job and it ends up looking better on the video than it did in person.

I'm not sure how that's possible since I'm in the video. So that sort of causes difficulties.

But anyways, the videos are, from what we've been told, look really good and those should be available in the not -too -distant future.

I was just asking Channel how my Tungsten T performed. It performed wonderfully as always.

That's the Palm Tungsten T. Yes, it's a wonderful device. Anyways, the first night, and some people might say, well, aren't you going up there for conference?

And of course, for many, many, many years, that's exactly what we were doing. However, due to the presence of the

King James -only fundamentalist individuals who are beyond reason, who are intent upon slandering the gospel and doing everything in their power to keep people in darkness so that they can think that they're somehow special and are being persecuted for the name of Christ, we have determined that as long as they are around, that there is no reason to continue that ministry.

We have mentioned before that their behavior is so poisonous, so hateful, so egregious that there is no opportunity for engaging in any kind of meaningful conversation, distribution of literature.

They have been rebuked, but they do not care. They are loose cannons. I think they're described very well by Jude in their behaviors.

And so we didn't do that this year, this first time since 1984. But there has not been a contingent from Alpha and Omega Ministries standing outside the gates.

Actually, it's rather interesting. The weather was horrible, and so we weren't really missing it.

And we were told that there were those, there were a few folks that attended the debate that went ahead and went down there to see what was going on, and all the

King James -only street preachers were there getting snowed and rained upon, and they put the folks waiting to go into what we call the meganacle, the meeting house there, they put them in the tabernacle on Temple Square so they could stay out of the weather, and then they just had one line that would come out of the tabernacle straight into the quote -unquote meganacle.

And hence, the people that were walking by were only there for just a moment, and, you know, basically once that line was gone, there wasn't anybody else around.

So here all these guys are, freezing to death, getting snowed and rained upon, and there was absolutely positively no one to even, you know, talk to.

And they didn't look very happy.

And you know what? I don't care. I'm very glad that they were cold and that they had no one to offend.

So anyways, we weren't doing that, and instead we were focusing upon a double -headed debate, and double -headed debates are not easy.

Let me tell you something, if you really do work hard upon the subject of doing a debate, if you're, my friends will tell you that I have a certain mindset.

He's in the zone. And once I start into a debate, you know, the place could basically burn down around me, and I wouldn't even know it, as long as the other guy was still talking.

Once he stops talking, I might notice it. But I get very, very focused upon a particular subject, and I'm listening very carefully to what my opponent is saying, and I'm thinking, and so on and so forth, and that takes a lot of energy.

It's a very tiring thing. And so doing one, you know, two nights in a row is actually a very difficult thing to do on a mental level, at least if you're going to put 100 % into it.

You know, if you lay back and aren't really concerned about it, that would be a different thing. But two in a row is a little bit difficult, but at least they were on, well, they were on a similar subject, but obviously coming from very different perspectives.

The first night, Dr. R. Dennis Potter, we were sitting around at a restaurant after the debate, those of us who went up from the ministry, and all of a sudden

I said, you know what? I think this is the first time I've done a formal public debate against someone younger than I am.

And that was a sad realization on my part, actually. But everyone, it went through everybody else, and there was like one or two people that I debated.

I wasn't sure exactly how old they are, but they're certainly right around my age. But I wouldn't, I don't know how old

Dr. Potter is. I would put him in his late 20s, and I just turned 40.

So there was quite a difference in our age, in our looks.

I probably am not quite double the weight, maybe, of a doctor.

You know, you're right. Tim Staples is two years, I think he's 18 months younger than I am. You're right. We forgot about him.

He's 18 months, and we're talking maybe 12 years here. There's a little bit of a difference there.

But Tim Staples certainly thinks that he's much younger than I am.

I got an email from him once. Well, James, you know, you've had a lot longer to be doing this stuff, and you're going to, you know, you just wait till I get to, you know,

I catch up, you know. And I informed him, how old are you? What are you, 18 months younger than I am?

So what? What's that all about? But anyways, I didn't get much response to that anyways.

But anyways, he is not your standard Mormon, okay? And I knew that beforehand from visiting his website.

He's not your standard Mormon, and I was a little bit concerned that the Mormons in attendance would basically say, what are you people trying to pull here?

However, Dr. Potter is a member in good standing with the church. He teaches there in Utah.

He has written for FARMS, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. Now, what he was involved in writing in was a co -authored piece in response to Masser and Owen and their review of How Wide the

Divide. And that section, which was on the nature of God and salvation, I'll just be very, very honest.

I'm not being disrespectful, but on an exegetical level, it was laughable. There wasn't enough meaningful exegesis in that section that I read in the

FARMS review of books to fill a thimble. There were errors on the level of in discussing

Lydia and the Lord opening her heart. The actual text said something along the lines of, there was a woman of Lydia.

No, her name was Lydia. I mean, just no familiarity with the text.

The suggested interpretations had no connection exegetically with the text at all.

And it just was amazing. So, I was concerned that some of the

Mormons were going to go, we don't believe like this fellow. And it's true. He was very open about the fact that he is very liberal in his perspectives.

He suggested a number of times, maybe one of the responses to Professor White's position is that Paul was wrong.

Now, I know most Mormons wouldn't like that, but that is one perspective, is how he put it, which

I found most interesting. But anyway, the debate was very much,

I think, two ships passing in the night, which is what I was afraid it would be. And hence, I really tried to make sure that the gospel was presented with clarity and with consistency over the course of the two evenings.

Indeed, if a person attended both nights, hopefully one of the things they would hear is that what

I was saying does not change depending on who I'm talking to. That's not saying

I don't use language that a different group would understand better, but the message that was being proclaimed would be the same in both debates.

Since the topic was meant to be related to one another, that would be the

Mass the second night as a perpetuary sacrifice with Robert and Janice, and the first night was supposed to be the

Atonement. Does the Atonement perfect anyone? It didn't end up really being focused on that.

In fact, I think it's very obvious to anyone who watches that debate, the entirety of my opening statement basically was never challenged, outside of saying, well,

I'm not a biblical scholar, so I really don't have any response to what has been said here.

However, there are other people who have responded to it, and therefore you need to go look at their interpretations as well.

I'm a philosopher, and therefore I'm going to stick to these philosophical issues. And even then, when responding to the philosophical issues that Dr.

Potter raised, since this was supposed to be on the Atonement of Christ, then you have to use biblical categories to discuss this.

And so it was a little bit difficult from that perspective to really be overly focused upon the subject at hand.

My presentation was, of course, based upon the idea of substitutionary atonement, because the fact that I had read in Dr.

Potter's materials a denial of the concept that Jesus paid for our sins, of substitutionary atonement, things like that.

So I gave, in my first 20 minutes, a simple, hopefully focused, biblical presentation of the biblical evidence for the relationship in the

Bible between the death of Christ, the people of God, their union with Christ, the meaning of huper, substitutionary atonement, all of that.

And then what I did was made a few comments on the supremacy of God's revelation over man's philosophical categories, and that if your philosophy isn't big enough to fit the biblical categories, you need to get new ones, and a few things like that.

And so that's what I did, is I made that presentation. And then he got up, and he had asked to use an overhead.

Now, overheads, you know, I'm sort of,

I don't know, a computer snob. I would have preferred the use of the digital projector, which was right there.

It would have been nice, actually, had I known it was there, to use it. Maybe if we're going to use that again in the future,

I'll do that. But there was a digital projector up on the roof, and it was ready to be used, and instead we used an overhead.

And overheads, let's face it, are not easy to shoot video of, and they don't,

I don't know, they just don't communicate real well. There's no color to them or anything like that. And so we had a lot of trouble putting, you know, getting the desk that is huge, massive.

What we needed were six -foot desks. We ended up with nine -foot desks, and they were massive, and they were, it was, and oh, the podium.

Man, I felt safe behind it. I think it could take small arms fire, and I think

I could have climbed inside of it. It was so huge, this big, massive podium. I even looked small behind it, and Dr.

Potter's considerably smaller than I am, so hopefully the camera angle was such that the camera's a little bit higher than we were, or at least even with us, because if they had been down on a floor, all you would have seen would have been the top of his head.

I mean, that's just the way it was, it was so huge. And anyways, we had a lot of trouble getting the tables situated in such a way, and somehow get this overhead onto the desk so he could use it.

And so he puts up these little things, and these overheads, and his entire thrust, his entire argument was basically to take some statements from the

Statement of Faith from the Alpha Omega Ministries website, and they had to do with two, and I guess he did not understand different issues, and that is the relationship of good works to faith and justification, and then good works in sanctification.

And, you know, Ephesians 2 .10, we are being created in Christ Jesus unto good works that God has foreordained that we should walk in them, so on and so forth, and so he took those, and on one slide, and this was one of the problems, and I don't know how he would have fixed this other than realizing, you know, this is not the kind of thing that works real well in a debate, he put the argument, the initial definition of the statements from our website on one thing, and then started doing, he is a logician, okay?

And if you have studied, I have taken symbolic logic in college and stuff like that, and if you have studied that stuff before, you know what a syllogism is, you know how to put together an argument, and so he is defining, you know, if this term is

S, and this statement is T, and this is J, then for every situation

J in which S is this, and so on and so forth, so he puts the definitions on one, then he takes that off and he puts the argument on.

Well, it is not like anyone in the room, including himself as far as I can tell, could remember what any of the letters represented, and so it was next to impossible, in fact,

I don't think if you had ever seen, if you had never seen his argument before, I don't think you could have possibly followed it.

Not only that, but it seemed to me, okay, you can watch the video for yourself, it seemed to me as if Dr.

Potter got lost presenting it. He started a little bit, and it was like, and then, well,

S, if S is therefore follows from J, and then there would be a pause, well, and then you see that, and you could look out at the audience, and they are completely lost.

And he could tell it as well, so when he gets done with his argument, and I think I figured out enough of it to respond to it properly, in fact,

I wrote to Dr. Potter this morning, asked him to send me the text, and I would demonstrate for him where the argument went wrong, and I did mention in the debate where it went wrong, and it engages in equivocation.

It did not understand what our statement of faith means by good works, the relationship of regeneration to justification, sanctification, the nature of works, meritorious works, anything like that.

And I honestly do not believe that Dr. Potter knows Reformed theology well enough.

Remember, he went to Notre Dame. You're not exactly going to get a lot of insight into Reformed theology at Notre Dame. I just don't believe that he understands the terminology, and as I explained to him in my email today,

Mormonism uses words in very specific ways. And if I were to make an argument based upon the fact that in Mormonism, salvation is used in multiple ways.

That is, you have general or universal salvation, which is simply equal to resurrection.

Everyone will be saved that way, and a Mormon could say that we're saved by grace alone. What he means by that is we will be resurrected by grace alone.

But then there's another use of salvation that is more specific, that specifically refers to individual salvation, that is exaltation, and that is not by grace alone.

So it would be very easy to create a syllogism where you place those two statements, that salvation is by grace alone, salvation is not by grace alone, and say, see, it's incoherent, it doesn't work.

That would be very easy to do, but it involves a misuse of terms, therefore it is not a proper argument.

Well, neither was his. And I pointed that out, and we'll be glad to point that out again to him if he would like to do so, especially because he based his argument solely upon our statement of faith, and I wrote our statement of faith many years ago, and therefore

I can comment, I think with more expertise than most, upon the actual meaning of that particular statement of faith.

So I would be glad to do that. So after that presentation, there were then standard

Arminian and semi -Pelagian arguments, and those are the terms he would use.

Most of the Mormons were lost. In fact, I was reading, again, someone gave me a URL to some comments from folks at the

University of Utah who were there, some Mormon folks, and this isn't anything against them, they just don't understand these things.

Consistently, Calvinism was misspelled, it was Arminian, Pelagian was misspelled.

These folks have never heard of these terms before. They're wondering what this guy's talking about. But he at least knows what

Arminianism is, and what semi -Pelagianism is, and Dr. Potter has said that Pelagius is his favorite ancient heretic, and I think if you were really to push him on it would hold to a very thoroughly

Pelagian anthropology, and made comments relevant to that during the course of the debate.

But I think most folks were just completely lost as to what his arguments were until he got toward the end of his 20 minutes where he basically started making standard arguments about free will.

Stuff that is, we have dealt with everything that he said on the dividing line here.

And it's the standard stuff of calls we get all the time. And so the interaction period was, again,

I think demonstrated that Dr. Potter was very uncomfortable,

I think, with the, well, let me just sort of wrap it all up, we'll take our break and I'll tell you about the second debate.

He was uncomfortable with one aspect, and that is, when I speak about these things,

I do not speak without passion. We're talking about the atonement.

We're talking about life. That which gives life. And I'm sorry, but I never learned how to be dispassionate about things, and I guess that's why

I'll never be a quote -unquote real scholar. Because to be a real scholar, for many people, means that your passions have to be disengaged, and I cannot be dispassionate about the cross.

So therefore, I get up there and I gave my closing statement, and I presented the gospel.

Now, I didn't just get up there and ignore the subjects, I didn't just wander off and start preaching, but I obviously spoke with passion.

And when Dr. Potter got up to give his final statement, he basically started off by saying, you know, this is fun, this is different than what

I'm accustomed to, because what I'm accustomed to, you know, just dry scholasticism and discussions of things from a scholastic perspective, and boy,

Professor White is so passionate in what he's saying, I really can't be.

And that's what he said. I can't do that, he said. He couldn't give a passionate conclusion. And I think that came out in one of the audience questions that was asked was, if Saddam Hussein was earnestly seeking to know the

Christian message, or to know Christ, what would your advice be to him? Now, when that was first asked, my first response was, well,

I would say, whatever I would say would need to be said quickly, was the first thing I said. But then

I answered in the same way from Acts chapter 16, the Philippian jailer, what must I do to be saved?

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. I gave a very brief presentation of Christ's sufficiency and faith in him.

The same question was then asked of Dr. Potter, and his response basically was, well, I'd suggest you read the

Christian scriptures, the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain, that you try to live in such a way as to exemplify the characteristics of Christ.

I'm sitting here going, this guy doesn't have long. I mean, and in fact, maybe as of last night, that was it.

We don't know yet, but that may have been the end of that. And the contrast was so incredible.

And I guess that's one of the reasons, you know, sometimes that's why these debates are done, so that you can see the contrast in what is truly being said.

And I think that did come out. So that will be, I'm sure, before very long available on the website at MP3.

Be watching for the videos of it, because I personally think getting to watch some of these debates, if you have the time to do so,

I know a lot of you listen to them while driving to work and things like that. I understand that fully. But really getting to watch them, to see the interaction, can help out a lot.

So that will be up. And right after this break, we will tell you about the second debate between myself and Robert St.

Genes on the Mass. We'll be right back. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning

Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45. Evening services are at 6 .30

p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805

North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.

If you are unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org,

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils.

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements. And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the

Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture. The Potter's Freedom, a defense of the

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

The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us.

James White's book, The Forgotten Trinity, is a concise, understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.

It refutes cultic distortions of God, as well as showing how a grasp of this significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a

Christian. And amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the

Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur, Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church, says, James White's lucid presentation will help layperson and pastor alike.

Highly recommended. You can order The Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at aomin .org.

This past weekend's debates that took place on the campus of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

And after that first day, we had a really good crowd on the first night. It was cold and the weather was not nearly as good.

The second night as it was the first. It was colder, wetter, snowier, rainier, the whole nine yards.

That may have impacted things. We were pretty full up the first night. We had about 400 people there,

I'd say. And a large number of Mormons. Van Hale was there.

A number of individuals. I even saw Alma Allred for the first time in a long time. He was there. And so it was well attended.

The second night was not as well attended at all. And I think it was a combination of the fact that we didn't have most of the

Mormon friends there. That I think might have come out if it were not the night of the conference,

A. And B, if the weather had been better. And furthermore, something was happening at the

Student Union Center because it was very difficult to find parking. And so I think that combination caused a little bit of a problem.

I would say we may have had 200, 220, maybe 250 at the most. The second night,

I don't know. I didn't sit there and count them. I mean, I've certainly spoken to smaller audiences.

But it wasn't as well attended. And, of course, the subject itself wouldn't be as attractive in the context of Utah as it would elsewhere.

It's not like there's a huge Roman Catholic population. And, of course, there is the fact that Robert St.

Genes has become a traditionalist. And if you go to the Catholic Apologetics International website, you can now find about as many articles skewering other

Catholic apologists as myself. In fact, I will admit it is absolutely positively delicious to read

Robert St. Genes going after Art Sipo. Since I have been at times, especially in 1999, the object of their combined wrath and ridicule, it is just fascinating.

And I will admit very enjoyable to read Robert St. Genes saying about Art Sipo the very same things

I have said. And to see Art Sipo say the things about Robert St. Genes that I have said.

It's nothing more enjoyable than that. But I think that that needs to be taken into consideration as well in regards to why maybe there weren't more mainline

Roman Catholics there. Simply because St. Genes has separated himself from mainline

Roman Catholicism. You know, I saw that coming. I'm not surprised by it.

That's consistent with Robert's history. Bible Bob, as he called himself in his days before converting to Roman Catholicism, doesn't,

I think, want to stand in the shadow of anyone. I think it could be said that he is a magisterium of one in many ways.

And at the same time, I personally have more respect for a traditionalist than I do a modernist.

In the sense that they at least see and understand and live consistently with the ultimate authority claims of Rome.

The problem is they are a living refutation of Rome's authority claims. It's a wonderful thing.

I applaud the traditionalists for getting out there and doing their thing. Because, in essence, they are proving my point for me.

It's great. It's wonderful. And more power to them to do that. So it wasn't as well attended.

We both had little book tables set up. He had a whole lot more books there than we do. We're just not big on that stuff, folks.

That's just all there is to it. There's nothing wrong with it. We're just not that big on that kind of thing.

So anyways, this was supposed to be on the map of the Perpetuatory Sacrifice. And you might go, didn't you do that one once before?

Yeah, 1999, and it was by far the nastiest debate that Mistress and Janice and I have ever done.

The first debate wasn't overly friendly, but it was a tag team debate. And so he only had half the time of presentation.

And the person he was tag teamed with became so flustered by the end of the debate that he was sputtering and literally spitting and his face was red.

And showers of blessing as he turned to us and sort of spat all over us while he was yelling.

And that made Robert look quite calm, actually. So that one was sort of in a league unto itself.

Then the justification debate and the papal infallibility debates that we did were very calm and collected.

Had to be, especially in the papal infallibility debate because we had to self -moderate that one. But the mass debate in 1999 in Long Island was just nasty.

I mean, if you listen to it, I'm sure it's – I think it's in the MP3 listing. If you listen to it during the cross -examination period,

Mr. St. Genes wants to just make statements and he basically tells me to be quiet so he can make statements while he is supposed to be asking me questions.

And it was – what he did in essence was in his opening statement try to put me on the defensive, even though he's the one supposed to be defending his position, by saying that what

I wrote in a book that as of now is about 13 or 14 years old, it's been out of print for a minimum of 7 years, probably more like 8 or 9 years, and actually about 10 years now,

I think about it, called The Fatal Flaw, and basically tried to say that I was presenting a

Catholic position by, in essence, misrepresenting it or misunderstanding it.

I didn't expect that – this is 2003 – almost 4 years after that rather failed attempt that he'd do the same thing.

But he did! The opening statement was again mainly quotations from The Fatal Flaw saying, well this is the same thing that Rome is saying.

And so I only had 20 minutes and I refused to be drawn into this idea of defending myself.

I was there to address the issue of the sacrifice of Christ, the atoning work of Christ, and so I focused upon the main issue in the book of Hebrews, and a few things of Patristics came up.

Again, during the cross -examination, unfortunately, the vast majority of Mistress and Genesis questions had to do with the perseverance of the saints.

And this is something that I've seen over and over and over again. You start off on one subject, then you change to another subject that your opponent has not had an opportunity to even begin to address or to build a meaningful case on, especially when you know your opponent only wants to present meaningful arguments and not just make wild, unsubstantiated statements.

And then you can say, he hasn't responded to my arguments, because you're actually arguing against a different topic. Roman Catholics do this in solo scriptura by waiting until the cross -examination period when you only have a very limited amount of time, then they bring up the issue of the canon, knowing that neither side can make a meaningful presentation on the canon in a one -minute response, and therefore they think that that somehow accomplishes something.

And if your only purpose in debating is to keep your base happy, then it does.

That works perfectly. If truth and honoring the truth isn't all that important to you, then you can do whatever you want.

Well, here you change the subject to another issue, and you hammer away on that, and I don't believe he made any headway at all.

I think it only further illustrated the difference between an anthropocentric religion and a theocentric religion, a gospel that's based upon what man does, and a gospel that's based upon what

God does. But anyways, that's what took place. In my cross -examination period, if I would do anything,

I would probably change what I did in cross -examination. I ran out of time when it was just getting good.

And that is, we got into Hebrews chapter 10, and I now recognize that to this point,

Robert Syngenis has not realized the centrality of Hebrews chapter 10 to the arguments at least that I have presented against the

Mass, whether he just hasn't read my material very closely or what. His material in Not By Bread Alone is extremely surface level and flawed on the exegesis of Hebrews chapter 10, and I basically caught him, and he really struggled, and the people in the audience could see he was really struggling because he didn't seem to understand how the term to sanctify or to make holy was functioning in the book of Hebrews.

I have many times made the assertion that Mr. Syngenis' exegetical errors are primarily due to the fact that he looks at the text as a collection of words.

He does not see broader context. He does not see syntactical issues in the Greek language.

He focuses upon basic issues of grammar, not seeing that those basic issues of grammar then must be melded into an immediate context and a broader context, especially within the context of syntax, the relationship of words to one another, phrases, clauses, and sentences.

And so in Hebrews chapter 10, verses 10 through 14, verses 10 and 14 are one thought, verses 11, 12, and 13 are an excursus, and so you have to interpret the phrase, those who are sanctified, it's a present tense participle, those who are being sanctified, but it's a durative present, especially when you go back to verse 10, you have to see them together, and he doesn't see them together, and didn't even see how that term relates to the concept of the book of Hebrews.

And so we were really making some headway, at least from my perspective, but we only had 14 -minute cross -examination periods, and therefore

I really wasn't able to press that as long as I would like to because I sort of wasted the beginning of my time on some patristic stuff that in hindsight

I wish I hadn't done. But anyways, it did come out anyways, anyway, excuse me, those of you who don't like that, and it came out, hopefully people will look it up for themselves,

I had emphasized frequently in both debates that the individuals who are listening have a necessary duty to examine what is being said, and to really hold themselves accountable to going home, doing exegesis, doing the work of studying the word, listening carefully, reading things, etc.,

etc. These debates are shorter, this one was about, well they both got done in two hours and 30 minutes, and that included the audience questions.

Now the way they do things up in Salt Lake, some people might like it, some people might not, but you write your questions on cards, you give them to Jason Wallace, the pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church, he divides them into two groups, and I think, was it last time?

I think it was last time we started doing it this way. We simply, he asks a question of one person and the other person does not get to respond.

So you're asked to give a brief response, then he goes to the other person, back forth, back forth, and you can't comment upon what the other person has said.

Now that's not how it's done normally, but you get through a lot more questions that way, there's no two ways about it.

So that's how we did it, and sometimes he'll ask a question to both speakers, but anyways.

Someone just said actually just two hours, but we started about five minutes after, and with audience questions got done at 9 .30.

So that's a little bit more than two hours. Well, then there was a break in the middle though. Yeah, that's true.

Break in the middle, hadn't thought about that. Well, they're brief. They're much briefer than the ones on Long Island, which can sometimes go well past three hours in total.

And so you have to be succinct, and the advantage to that is there cannot be as much ad hominem argumentation.

And if you do utilize it, it sticks out more. Shall we say it's a little bit more obvious, because you can't cover it over with quite as much verbiage in other directions.

So I like both. There's a place for both uses.

For example, I don't think that the real brief type of debate format would work really well between myself and Mitch Pacwa, because we like to try to develop things a little bit fuller.

Mitch doesn't talk quite as fast, and since there isn't going to be an issue of cheap debating tricks in that situation, then the longer debate can allow you to develop things a little more fully, have more interaction.

So on May 29th on Long Island, when we debate the Roman Catholic priesthood, I'm going to be very happy that it's going to be a longer format so that we can develop things more.

It can be more interaction, bring things out a little bit better. So I think that'll be good. So I tried to stick to the subject.

I think we did a fairly good job in doing so. At least I did. I believe that Mistress and Janice's cross -examination was way off base, off onto other issues.

But he would say, well, you raised it, so therefore I can address it. Well, I don't think that's the case.

But anyways, I think, you know, I don't know that there is really much more in that than there was in the 1999 debate.

I don't know which. I suppose this one would be a little less nasty. So maybe if you wanted to listen to one without quite as much of the in -your -face kind of stuff, it might be a little bit better to listen to.

But unfortunately, a lot of the responses I got was, well, you know, I dealt with that in my book, and therefore if you'll see pages such and such and such and such, that's the answer.

And I don't know if that's really the best way to handle a large portion of the questions in the context of a debate.

So anyways, that's the report. I don't see that anyone has called 877 -753 -3341.

I know there were lots of folks there. In fact, some folks were there that didn't even come up and introduce themselves to me, some folks who had flown in from quite some distance away, in fact, to be there for the debate.

And I was glad that they were there. But seemingly no one who is listening this morning, anyhow, wants to join us at 877 -753 -3341.

And without Warren here to sing Elvis, there's not a whole lot I can do to attempt to cajole you into joining us on the program today.

But it was, you know, I always consider it a privilege to stand before any group of people, let alone a large mixed group of people, and to speak the truth.

I think that every time we do this up in Salt Lake, we are refuting with the best type of refutation, the assertions of both

LDS and Catholic apologists regarding how we engage in debates. It is amazing to hear people who have maybe listened to one or two debates, they certainly have not even begun to examine the full body of the literature, not literature, the debate, all the debates we've done over the past, going back to August 1990 now, 13 years, 46 moderated public debates since then.

And some of the things that will be said just absolutely positively amaze me, about how we allegedly behave during the course of a debate.

We had a guy in channel the night before last, I think, that was just functioning on rumors.

You know, I've heard that such and such, and I saw this in some of the articles that I read, the little emails that I read in the website that I went to from the

Mormons who attended the debate. Well, I heard such and such say this or that or the other thing.

And it was just amazing, and I don't really understand that kind of mindset at all that would allow you to basically function on rumor in determining how we do debates.

But every time we do this, I think those who have said, like Daniel C.

Peterson, I'll debate James White anytime, anyplace on that issue, and they won't do it. I think every time that we do these debates, we do them fairly, they are moderated, they're not a food fight, they're not a political debate, they're not a political debate, they're not a political debate, they're not a political debate, they're not a political debate, they're not a political debate,

The phone was ringing. What was going on? Oh, there you are. We were just waiting for you. Yes, well, the question

I had, the thing that kind of concerns me about Potter's presentation on Friday night,

I honestly wonder if that isn't where the LDS Church is headed. It strikes me that so much of their doctrines are becoming watered down and unknown to the mass of LDS people.

I'm really wondering if this isn't representative of where this is all headed. Good question.

I mentioned a couple times that we don't know what the future holds for the

Mormon Church, but here you have an individual who, while calling himself a

Mormon, is embracing more and more very liberal concepts.

Look at what has happened to the RLDS Church. The RLDS Church has really gone way off into liberalism and really that has split them off and you now have your conservative group, but the main group is still very, very on the left.

And yes, that ends up diluting the whole movement and I think there's going to be a continued slide in membership there.

I don't know what's going to happen to Mormonism, but here you've got a situation where this person is representing a growing number of Mormons and the leadership of the church has to deal with their presence.

I'm beginning to wonder what is it here in the next few years that is going to differentiate the

LDS Church as any kind of faith system.

It just seems to be boiling down to, well, you know, we have families and families are cool.

Well, we also have these other neat books you can read, but we don't necessarily take everything in the

Mowgli seriously. Yeah, that's a possibility. I think you'd see a split, however.

You can see this in central Utah right now around Manti, these groups that don't like what's happening in Salt Lake City.

Those conservatives are still going to be around there and you're going to have the folks who kidnap 14 -year -old girls and try to reestablish polygamy too.

That's a whole other issue. Why don't you bring Mike into the conversation here and we can have three folks that were at the debate online all at once.

Mike, up in Utah. Are you there, Mike? Yes, I'm right here. Yes, sir. You had a comment too. Yeah, well, first off,

I wanted to thank you for doing the debates even though, you know, conference obviously fell apart with the

KJV -only -ists out there. But we really appreciate it. Well, of course, we couldn't do it without you folks up there in Utah that do all the legwork.

So our thanks to you as well. Yeah, but I have to say,

I think the Sungenis debate was a much better debate as far as they go. But I think the first debate was also telling, especially in the question and answer section in which you get to see a lot of the misrepresentations of Calvinism and Arminianism dealt with and some of the common objections that we hear raised as we minister here in the

Valley, even to things like predestination or just the general sovereignty of God. And it was nice to have that dealt with and then, of course, to have it recorded and then on hand to distribute to these people.

So I think there could be some definite value in that. And it'll be interesting to see what kind of fruit comes of it.

Well, I certainly wouldn't engage in it if I didn't feel that both the opportunity of proclaiming the gospel would be made available to me and secondly, that the church there in Salt Lake, if the church there in Salt Lake wasn't going to be edified by what we were doing, then

I wouldn't want to engage in that type of activity. And I know that there have been folks who have attended past debates who are now attending the church that you're a part of.

And I think that's a very positive thing and I'm very thankful to the Lord for that.

And I just think it's wonderful that Jason Wallace has this desire to not just sit there and be quiet, to not just sit there and let

Mormonism continue on with the status quo, but to be out there speaking the truth.

That is a tremendous thing. That's just a wonderful encouragement to me to see that kind of thing and to be then privileged to be involved in helping that kind of thing take place.

And so it's certainly unusual. I think the Mormons find it unusual. I think a lot of the

Mormons out there just don't know what to think about the whole thing. It's so outside of what they are accustomed to.

And at the very least, and I'll mention, you're the one who sent me the URL that I talked about earlier, the people discussing these things.

At the very least, even amongst the people who thought that Potter did a wonderful job on this side or the other thing, every single one of them said the same thing.

In the sense that they go, yeah, that white guy does seem to know what he's talking about, and he knew what we believed.

And the very fact that there's someone out there who's passionate about what they believe, can give a biblical presentation, and knows what they believe, and doesn't have to sit there and constantly misrepresent them.

The very fact that they're hearing that and they're finding that out really sets us apart from a lot of the bad stuff that's out there.

It certainly sets us apart from the King James Only guys who stand down there with their wacky signs, and things like that.

And hence, if something happens in their life to where they're looking, and they want to find someone, they're going to know their people.

For example, you head up the campus group there on the University of Utah. They're going to know there's someone they can go and talk to that is different in the way that they're approaching things.

That's a great thing, and I encourage you to keep on keeping on up there. Just don't slip in the ice.

All right, thank you. Thanks, Mike, for calling. Well, thanks for listening today to Dividing Line, folks.

Those debates will be available, I think, first in MP3, then in tape form, in audio form.

Then the videos will be out there. Keep watching that right -hand side. The ad column there on the website will let you know when those things are available, and hopefully you can get ahold of them.

Show them to your church group. Show them on a Wednesday night, something like that. Help prepare folks. We'll be back again

Thursday evening, 5 o 'clock Mountain Standard time, here on The Dividing Line. God bless.

That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.