December 30, 2003

Webcasting 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 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white. Good afternoon. Good evening.

Opening Remarks and Critique of the Coming Home Network

Welcome to the dividing line. My name is James white and we are live this evening. So you can participate eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one have a couple of Things on the proverbial stack here, I guess sometime in the past I know what it was when I ordered stuff from some of these like st. Joseph Catholic communications or whatever it is and Catholic answers and stuff like that.

I end up on these mailing lists and I get all sorts of really creepy stuff in the mail and Not necessarily this is creepy, but I mean I get some really creepy stuff in the mail, you know these Icons and and rosaries and stuff like that.

Well, anyway, I got a something from Marcus Grota at the coming home network this week and I Thought I'd mention it to let me introduce you to the coming home network. We're a lay Catholic Apostle that has helped hundreds of Protestant ministers convert the Catholic faith.

And right now we're helping 200 more who are on the journey to Rome. Each one of these pastors faces a severe personal crisis and I'm short of funds to help them all. Please read this important letter and consider helping us help more Protestant clergy convert to the Catholic faith and it's a big Fundraising thing.

I had seen a before right before we headed out to Florida. I had seen a Presbyterian fellows Conversion notification on his website so on so forth and I've seen some people who've written to him. It was it was interesting the responses.

You never do get much of an in-depth response because the reasons for conversion are rarely actually theological.

But.

It was talking about would you like to leave a loved one back to the sacraments and and please rush your money and we need X amount of bucks and all the rest of stuff and Basically saying please please pray that God will do this.

Well, you know, I'm gonna be quite up front and pray God doesn't. These folks are praying upon individuals and let's face it. There's a there's a there's a broad broad Audience that these folks play to.

There are a lot of folks that are involved in quote-unquote Christian ministry who were never called to be there in the first place. In the sense of being given gifts by God to do so and having a solid understanding of what in the world they're doing.

Anyone who watches much of quote-unquote Christian television already knew that but they they pray on these folks and they also pray on on innocent people. People who and not not in the sense of Forensically innocent, but what I mean by that is There are difficulties you face in the Christian ministry.

There are disappointments that you face and so if you don't have a solid background as to why you believe what you believe. You're going through disappointments in your ministry. They come along smack you at that particular point in time.

Give you their their false information and away you go. We've seen it happen many many times before and so I would simply pray that the Lord would not in fact allow them to continue to do that, but Whether he does or doesn't I leave obviously in his hands.

There is some interesting stuff out on the web. This afternoon or this morning this afternoon, I forget when it was. Oh if you haven't seen our blog you need to take time to see our blog because angels back at it those of you who saw.

The.

A caricature that he did of Me that we posted. It's a there's a little teeny tiny one up in the on the blog itself and That's you can click on it to the larger image. He does a wonderful job. Well last night late. He came into In the channel, and he had put together a a caricature of Jerry Matitix and the house who issue.

Those of you who listened to the November 18th program? know what happened and the the 80-minute program we did and the back-and-forth with Eric Svendsen and Jerry Matitix and all the responses that that's generated thereafter on Catholic websites and the like and That really wasn't all long ago.

It's only a month and a half ago now. I come to think of it and So angel had listened to that and so there's this great Caricature on our on our website right now the main page That angel put together.

I posted it last night and If you haven't listened to the November 18th program listen to that first and take a look at it is Very very well done especially for those of you who know what Jerry Matitix looks like.

It is based upon a little earlier photograph. We all have photographs out there that show us how we look you know 10 -15 years ago. But Jerry hasn't really changed all that much just just a little bit.

I've certainly changed a whole lot more than Jerry has in the past 10 years. But it's a it's a great little caricature take a look at it. And if you don't have a sense of humor then skip it. You know you know there are some folks that have no sense of humor at all.

I sort of figure if if major publications like envoy magazine can constantly be printing That kind of that exact kind of stuff. That hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and When we can demonstrate and document the foundation of that particular thing it certainly helps I think in making that that point, but anyway sometimes more this afternoon someone pointed me to a blog entry.

This is the same fellow. I had mentioned him briefly before a couple months ago who was panning jayleigh and Duncan's Response to new perspectivism, and I'm I'm discovering something about new perspectivists.

They are the only ones who understand new perspectivism, and if you criticize it. This is because you're stupid you can't possibly be as brilliant as N .T. Wright and Since N .T. Wright is the most brilliant man on the planet then everyone wants to be like N .T. Wright and if you dare disagree with N .T. Wright, then you're just simply a blithering moron and Therefore if you say you know I don't really see that this this is really being addressed here I always need to read something else.

What else do I need to read? Oh? Well? You just need to read more deeply. Well. What what what are you talking about you just never get much in the way of real specifics? But I had posted just a brief Article and not even an article.

It's a blog for crying out loud. It's something very short and I had read the article from Credenda Agenda the special edition of Credenda Agenda where Douglas Wilson addresses new perspectivism. And basically I was disappointed in the response it did not seem To address the central issues the real issues of the nature of justification.

And especially if he's so upset about the fact that There are people who are noticing this this Coalescence the fact that N .T. Wright is going to be speaking at the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church Conference a year from this coming January and the fact that Steve Schlissel has already right there from the pulpit at Auburn Avenue said the Justification is nothing more than Jews and Gentiles together in one covenant, and if you've read N .T. Wright That's you know you go hmm.

I see a connection here. I wonder if it's going to get closer. I wonder if there's gonna be further developments. Oh, how dare you do something like that. You're just so dumb, and you're a Baptist anyways, so anyway.

This fellow was was slamming on J. Ligon Duncan's article which we have posted from we have a link to it at the bottom of the blog archive thing on the website you can track that down and. So anyways he quotes just a brief section of this article that I posted is just basically my stating you know.

It seems like we missed the real issues here. We didn't really discuss justification. There's there's no interaction with the exegesis and N .T. Wright and then part of it might be because it's based upon a little pamphlet.

Published by John Armstrong's ministry. But why in the world you'd write an entire credendo agenda about a pamphlet without dealing with something like N .T. Wright which he does a few times just sort of branches out and goes and gets a quote.

But I would think it would be significantly more important to look at 2nd Corinthians 521 and and the unique Exegesis that's offered there in Philippians 3 9 and and do stuff like that that then again.

I know I know I know I'm just one of those strange. You know people that are into exegesis and there are people don't think you can do exegesis anyways at least outside of some sort of knowledge of Tradition or medievalism or whatever it might be but be that as it may.

I just posted this article. I basically said you know I don't think that he really addressed the issue. I mean, he said some nice things. He said some good things about Modern scholarship and stuff like that, but I just didn't feel like the response was overly overly useful, so anyhow.

Sunday December 28 2003 this this appears on one of the many blogs out there. Everybody has a blog almost anymore, and it one little quote. I said NP ism at its heart atomizes the text of Scripture begins the fundamental denial of relevance of the gospel accounts and especially the testimony in the second temple Judaism.

Anyone who would like to know no one bothered to write to me to ask you what I meant by that if it was unclear. Anything like that. You know we just we're just sort of pulling it out of the air here and evidently without any Understanding this fellows, but it goes by the name of Alistair by the way at least his on-screen name is anyhow.

And what I was talking about is the fact that if you go back to done. You go back to Sanders and NT right in his book and look if NT right is not representative of New perspectivism that I don't know who is.

And we're all talking past each other and nothing's ever getting accomplished if we continually move have a moving target. But NT right in his book basically says look I consider Sanders thesis to be established, okay?

Then he builds on that now does he believe everything. Sanders says no but the basic fundamental thesis concerning the nature of second temple Judaism and The things related there to he accepts as being a starting point as being something that's been established.

Well the problem is if you go back to Dunn and Sanders you discover these individuals are not doing theology based upon a belief that the scripture is a Inspired whole that it gives us a singular Revelation from God and in fact that we that we should be able to.

Compare scripture with scripture.

In fact that's something that is not allowed and and anyone who's looked at the background issues knows That Matthew's testimony to the nature of Judaism even the even the passage that Wilson brings up That is the the Pharisee and the publican from Luke.

These passages are not allowed to inform The construction of second temple Judaism and even Paul I remembered these folks are even concerned about Doing all of Paul because they can dismiss elements of Paul As being non Pauline so you can have a restricted or a smaller Pauline corpus by saying well I don't think these things over here in second Timothy.

Second Timothy isn't isn't Pauline. It was written by somebody else etc. Etc. Etc. So in other words by denying the inerrancy of scripture and The the doctrine of Inspiration as it has been traditionally understood by Christians.

Then you can pick and choose your sources and as a result you atomize the text you break it up into The parts that you want to give the most emphasis to. Well, that's what I was talking about. That's what I meant when I said begins the fundamental denial the relevance of the gospel accounts and especially the testimony of second temple Judaism.

What Matthew says what Mark says. What Luke says about the Jews and about their religion? Is not allowed to have the same weight as other passages, that's what modern liberal theology does. Well, mr. Alistair comments the reformed faith really does not need defenders like this.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. It does not need to be commented on folks whenever you hear someone say it does not need to be commented on. They probably shouldn't have commented on.

That's my personal belief. Anyways, I continue reading anyone who has read a conservative proponent Of the new perspective will be well aware that precisely opposite is the case really? Nt. Wright's not one of the conservative.

This is his favorite person. Alistair's favorite person Nt, right? So I Got that from Nt, right? Maybe Alistair didn't understand what I was saying. Just like Alistair seemingly did not understand most of what J. Ligon Duncan was saying either.

Anyway, since when did Baptists become the arbiters of what counts as reformed? I? I love it. I just I just love the I Love this this you can always tell when someone's got that TR aspect going in their minds.

You know, I am truly reformed and you are a Baptist and you're a bad person because you are. What does that have to do with what I said about new perspectivism? Anyways, this is this is Tremendously irrelevant, but you know.

It gives you an idea where the person's coming from. Much as I respect and appreciate Baptist theologians their right to be on the good ship. Reformed is tenuous in a number of respects. If John Calvin would be uncomfortable then T, right?

He would be no less uncomfortable James White. Well, that's nice never said otherwise. If you want to make a Calvin and his entire ecclesiology the standard, okay. Hey, I never said any otherwise, of course.

I believe that thing called sola scriptura and you know Testing your traditions by scripture all that kind of stuff if white had done his homework. That is if he had agreed with me, we might have had a reasonable critique he hasn't it is high time the reformed camp started to clamp down on shoddy scholarship within his ranks and Publicly expose it for what it is.

There are too many clones of James White's and John Robbins around. Their fundamental conviction seems to be that when God created the narrow way, he didn't create it half narrow enough. Well, okay. There's there's a clear Demonstration of What what we were just talking about.

That is he has no idea he's going on second-hand information He's going on on what somebody else has told him I've never had to my knowledge never had any any dialogue with this person. Maybe I have and just don't recognize Alistair is a screen name.

John Robbins doesn't like me.

I.

Couple years ago. I got in his. Well. Everybody is on his wrong side, of course. But I got on his bad side because one of those.

You know.

Email list it just sort of pops up out of nowhere, you know that everybody creates a CC list and I think everybody be interested in this and they put your name on it and all sudden the Thing starts starts developing and it ends up filling your email box with stuff.

You didn't want to get along get, you know read anyways, then again all over email boxes are filled that kind of stuff today but anyway, the thing the thing happened and it was discussing Roberts and Janice and Basically, you know Robbins is just using all the buzzwords all the You know nasty terminology and and I just basically said, you know This topics interesting.

We might get somewhere if Someone wasn't constantly throwing acid into the into the conversation. By demanding that that we use this Highly charged emotional language since there's Catholics and non-catholics on this list.

How about you know, you just dump some of that terminology and and you know, you don't have to you know When arguing against this guy say your mother's ugly too or something like that just to sort of an added thing.

Well, I become a compromiser and all the rest of stuff and and he jumps on me if Alastair can't tell the difference between myself and John Robbins and our approach and what we believe what we do then he's obviously clueless and Did not bother to take time to you know.

At least I've read NT Wright and Sanders and stuff like that. And and I think I understand where they're coming from. And in fact, I don't see anything in this in providing a reasonable critique besides I wasn't writing about who is and who isn't reformed in this.

So it's it's a pretty amazing thing to see that kind of stuff. It's it's sort of sad. But hey, it's a very very very common out there. I've got another thing here. I want to look at I Pulled out some of the Armenian big guns today.

One of them is truly a big gun. You could whack somebody pretty good with this good old Lawrence Vance is the other side of Calvinism. That seems to be a the the textbook of many folks these days. But then one of the older ones the ones you go back to all time when people say, oh That's just a very scholarly work elect in the Sun by Robert Shank.

I wanted to Demonstrate the reality is something that I said on BAM a couple weeks ago in regards to John 6 and I'll do that by looking At those when we get an opportunity to do so but first we already have Excuse me hit the cough button for the first one second one came back and I didn't even know it was gonna hit.

John 1:1, the Trinity, and the Meaning of the Greek Text

We already have someone who is burning up the the phone lines and called in early today. So let's go ahead and go back out to the the land the flat land from the Last time we talked with Howard, but he has different question this time.

So let's talk with Howard and his question about John one one. Hi Howard.

How you doing, I'm doing well and yes, Kansas is flat and I've discovered why it's flat. Why is that. If you Look out you'll find out that there's no trees and so it just appears to be flat.

Yeah, except there there are wheat fields and corn fields and things like that and they just go on for miles and miles.

They do it, but they do. There are hills believe it or not. Anyway, I Appreciated your debate. I listened to the debate with Greg Stafford today. Yes, sir, and It was a I thought it was an excellent debate.

He was a very good opponent. I thought and he spoke pretty well.

Yes, and.

He but he did bring up some things in his conclusion or isn't. And I wasn't you he kind of accused not siding with the I Guess with the definite rendition that scholars in the Since the 70s have realized.

I wasn't to be honest. I really didn't follow what he was talking about. Yeah.

Well, let's let's bring everybody up to speed. What what happened was? During the cross-examination period. And again part of this I will I will give mr. Stafford credit. I everyone will tell you that before this debate began I was telling folks I could say I I personally believed that it would be the most difficult debate that I had engaged in is my 49th debate and I was I Really prepared for it.

I knew it's going to be a very strong challenge and Mainly because my opponent I knew would would be very well spoken and very well prepared. But this is only his second debate. And so I had just a bit of an advantage that point and that came out in the cross-examination.

What I mean by that is Cross-examination is an art. It is something that that you have to learn over time. You are in essence making your argument through the asking of questions and the demonstration of inconsistencies.

And what the other person is saying. I asked many more questions of mr. Stafford than he asked of me. He really only asked about three questions of me two of them were on the same subject. He just kept hammering away on a as you saw a technical point in regards to John 1 1 C.

That is how do you translate an?

Anarthrus.

Pre-verbal predicate nominative. Okay, that's that's the word the OS in the third clause of John 1 1. Kaithias and halagas. How do you translate the word God there now? Then he stayed on John 17 3 forever and then had basically one of the line of questioning after that and and.

The reason I bring that up is it's very clear from what you just said and even from his comments thereafter. He completely lost the audience. The audience was was getting restless. They had they had heard what I had to say.

I had given my response. He didn't like my response. He wanted to bog the entire debate down in a discussion of mass and count nouns. For those who know mr. Stafford, they know that there are literally hundreds of pages Out there on the web That have been posted between for example Mr. Stafford and a dr. Hartley from Dallas Seminary on the subject of mass and count nouns With with Rob Bowman on the translation of John 1 1 C all sorts of discussions very in-depth discussions of the syntax of that last clause Etc. Etc.

Now if if you want to do a debate like that, okay, that would be something that we could do. I think it'd be better if he debated dr Hartley or something like that on a subject like that who's published in the field specifically.

But I wouldn't have any problem doing that and could get into it if I wanted to completely lose the audience. But what I wanted to try to do was to demonstrate a Firm conviction I've had for a long long time and that is that mr. Stafford and the Jehovah's Witness apologists who populate the web.

I said many times that you can you can document this from the dividing line and from chats in the chat channel and from things that I've written. It is my belief that the majority of the Jehovah's Witness apologists who Who populate the internet their knowledge of the original languages is primarily limited to? controversial texts that is John 1 1 or Colossians 2 9 or other other places where a controversy exists with historic and biblical Christianity once you get them out of those particular passages they really Don't know how to use the text or to translate the text consistently.

And so as a result what I was trying to demonstrate is that mr. Stafford's I answer his question. I believe that what is being said in context. I believe you translate a language in Context. You do not translate a language outside of a context.

An author has an intention. John 1 1 through 18 is a singular whole and you do not translate any section of a Singular whole so as to make it self-contradictory you just that's not how you do exegesis and how you do translation that's not how you handle a text in a proper way and It almost seemed like he had never heard this before now I'm certain that he has but for to many in the audience anyways it seemed to be almost a new perspective.

To him and so what he was raising at the at the in the conclusion really required that you have familiarity with all of the articles that have been done and all the discussion that has taken place that I mentioned before on mass and count nouns and and The the validity or non validity of Caldwell's rule and and all the rest of this rather technical stuff.

That left you pretty pretty cold and would leave the vast majority of folks pretty cold simply because it gets extremely technical and I think personally trying to address that in even if we did the entire 20 minutes on it is absolutely ridiculous.

This is something that I've found and it bothers me. It's not just what mr. Stafford did. But this is something that for example Catholic answers does all the time. Cross-examination is supposed to only be on the issues that were raised in the presentations and the and the and in the rebuttals.

Bringing up entirely new issues and expecting a person to respond to those issues with a extremely minimal amount of time is is really where a lot of debates go awry, and that's why they're you know in a in a a Collegiate debate of debates being graded by judges things that you're not allowed to do that.

You you lose points or you even disqualified if you if you break the rules I can't the the rules are there to avoid that very type of thing. But in the type of debates we're doing there's there's really no rules outside of the audience listening and knowing the rules and knowing when a person's breaking them and so the questions that I asked I Asked based upon the presentation I had made in regards to monotheism in regards to the person of Christ so on and so forth.

Whereas he really wanted to focus upon stuff that would have. You know if we were to just debate that one thing and you had 25 minutes to lay out a case and then you did Rebuttals and then did cross-examination.

That's one thing but to do it in that way really I Really don't know that we would have even had a quarter of the audience there. That we had if we had limited the subject to such a such a narrow extent so that in essence is what what he was making reference to if you go to the various of the Apologetics websites that deal a lot with Jehovah's Witnesses.

You'll find links to the various lengthy lengthy exchanges on.

Maths and count nouns and things like that things like the he was saying since the 1970s. Trinitarians have changed their translation.

No, I think what he's what. Well that may be the assertion. He's making but that's that's not really the case. The issue is there has been significantly more dialogue and discussion concerning the nature of Preverbal anarthritis predicate nominatives.

And especially in regards to John one one, but in other places as well. And in essence he's I think maybe taking credit for some of that on his own in regards to the exchanges that he has had obviously not since 1970s because he was not not long at that point, but.

That that I think is what he was attempting to state and you'll see in the translations. That's not the case, but someone like Daniel Wallace will say look. What's what's being referred to here is that they us is telling us about the nature of the logos?

And so he even suggests the translation of the word is deity In in his footnotes, but he says you really can't do that as a formal translation and that gets us into the whole issue of translational theories.

Specifically. Where do you do?

Interpretation.

Do you do interpretation in the translation itself or do you do? Interpretation from the pulpit and I've been thinking about that some myself it. I think it's an important issue and maybe addressing a little bit more of that in the future in regards to the function of the church and the preaching of the word and translation of the word and things like that, so.

Like Kenneth Weiss who says that the word God and that one one. C. Means that in the reading of saying is that whatever the stuff that makes God to be God? That is what the word is.

Right and.

He's trying to say that.

Well, what he's trying to say is that since it's a noun it cannot be functioning to describe the nature of the logos. And and that's where I think he misunderstands the the categories of substantives adjectives and nouns.

As many people know in the Greek language Adjectives very frequently cross that line and and nouns can as well depending upon the syntax and the usage and what he was saying. Is look it has to be either God or a God it can't be anything else.

And that that's what happens when you focus solely upon grammar, and you do not deal with syntax and context. Because context. That's why I kept pointing him to John 118. Here is here's the bookends here is the further Explanation of this and when we see all of it together.

We know what John is attempting to say. You don't do exegesis the way you're doing exegesis. And he just kept giving me opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to make that point. Because he didn't want to get.

He didn't want to move on to other issues and and and wanted just focus upon that one thing which really wasn't a Wasn't a wise direction to go so anyway. We got a bunch of other folks on the line. I appreciate your call today Howard.

Thank you for calling 877 -753 -3341. I think we have one line open if you'd like to get involved today. We're going to take our at the half-hour break take your phone calls on. The other side here on the dividing line eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

Today many stop strong and true quickly fall away.

Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book the same-sex Controversy James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including Genesis Leviticus and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner. They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.

The same-sex controversy defending and clarifying the Bible's message about Homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at a omen or.

Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul the second to recognize the Virgin Mary as co-redeemer with Christ Elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

In his book Mary another Redeemer James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic. He traces how Mary of the Bible esteemed mother of the Lord obedient servant and chosen vessel of God has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed Queen of Heaven.

Viewed as co-mediator with Christ and now recognized as co-redeemer by many in the Roman Catholic Church Mary another Redeemer is fresh insight into the woman The Bible calls a blessed among women and an invitation to single-minded devotion to God's truth.

You can order your copy of James White's book. Mary another Redeemer at a omen org.

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. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 to 6 grace. If you're 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.

The Pilgrims progress. It's not an easy way. It's a journey to.

Seventh-day Adventism, the Sabbath, and the Lord's Day

And welcome back to the dividing line we are taking your phone calls today live at eight seven seven seven five three. Thirty-three forty one. Let's head off. Oh, I haven't had a chance to do this in a long time.

Let's head off to United Kingdom indeed and talk with Jason. Hello, Jason. Yes, I know you're on the phone we can hear you. Hello Jason, I don't think Jason can hear me. How you can hear me now? Well, we could hear you even before you could hear me.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's great to be able to talk to you again. I'm sorry, but I haven't been able to do this in a long time and it just has to come out once in a while I'm just waiting for the people in the channel to start complaining.

But anyways, you want to talk about Seventh-day Adventist? Very interesting. Well a couple things. So first of all as far as Seventh-day Adventism goes that is one of the issue of Sabbaths and keeping of Sabbaths reminds me of something in Colossians chapter 2, but That's one of they use that sort of like the Jehovah's Witnesses use Christmas and birthdays and the shape of the cross.

It's a door opener Through which they then want to bring all of their other stuff that is that is extremely bad and when you deal with Seventh-day Adventism the real issue there is the issue of what's called the investigative judgment and You're going to find considerably more benefit I think in the long run talking to this individual concerning the subject of the atonement and and the like than you are debating this issue because in my experience this is for those who leave the SDA movement.

This is not the issue that makes them to leave in other words an encounter with God's grace a recognition of the the true nature of the atonement grace and freedom and things like that that eventually leads to a recognition of not only the falseness of Ellen G White and and her writings, but and once that person has embraced the gospel, then they begin to see the abuse that that has been Promulgated in regards this particular issue of the time of the Sabbath and so on and so forth.