May 4, 2006

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. It's 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White.

Preparing for the Biola Debate and the Need for Careful Notes

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon. The last dividing line before the debate the big debate at Biola University this coming Sunday evening. I Larger than the Fullerton debates.

I don't know that we're gonna have anyone all of a sudden in the middle of the debate yelling out the Eucharist. And then everybody You know, I actually got a call today from a reporter up in over in Pennsylvania who had just seen a just attended and watched a Tim Staples presentation for Catholic answers and Called us for our viewpoint on Tim Staples, which I found quite interesting.

But it was it was interesting because the reporters you see OC same denomination is Barry Lynn and so, yeah, he Definitely hadn't run into too many any folks from from a former AG youth minister Doing his best AG Catholic impersonation.

Pretty interesting, but anyhow, we will be Over there at this weekend. And of course I would covet your prayers for the debate for the recording of the debate as well because we want everyone to get a chance to listen in and later on I'm gonna be playing some sections from It should barely Presentation and going over some of the things that I honestly expect will probably Show up on Sunday evening as well.

We have over the course of the past six months or so maybe a little longer than that Listened to a tremendous amount of Shabir Ali's presentations evidently, there are some folks who aren't aware of how much work we've done on Shabir Ali and in responding to him and So there for a number of folks.

I am going into this as the underdog and That's that's okay with me. I Remember when we first announced I was going to be debating John Dominic Crossan and we got all these oh he's a world-class scholar and whites could get himself killed and and he's just gonna make a fool of himself and blah blah blah and you know I heard I get that every once in a while and then you just you just keep on doing what you need to do and Leave the reason leave the results to the Lord and he takes care of things.

So anyway, I know one thing I'm going to go into the debate quite well prepared if anything the only thing I'm concerned about is I've got too much information and I may I Might the thing I'm gonna have to resist is getting too fancy I've got all these things run through my mind all these little factoids all these little References to the Hadith or to the Quran.

I said I got it got to be careful not to Try to throw something in there that's gonna take too much time to explain in a short debate just gotta Got to be careful about things like that. So it Looking forward to it.

It'll be a very enjoyable time getting to meet some of the folks over there. I've never been to Biola that may be one of the problems that no one almost any over there has any idea who in the world I am and So it'll be it'll be an enjoyable time.

It's going to be difficult To Really think about anything else during the course this hour than the The upcoming debate because that's what my mind is on. I will frequently stop I'll be stopping and and scribbling a note to myself or I I know when was it Sunday?

Was it Sunday night? I think yes Sunday night. I Grabbed one of the offering envelopes the pew and grabbed a little pencil I'm scribbling away at something because I was I'd read I'd thought of something earlier in the day and then forgot to write it down.

And now I remembered half of it. So I need to write that down and something else I just thought of and so I'm scribbling all this stuff and then you take the offering envelope to to the office and then you type it all up and It's just just the part of the process of being in debate mode the week before the debate so it's gonna be difficult to think about anything else, but I did I Did I was informed a couple of days ago that on Monday of this week a phone call took place and on a well-known national radio program and it was the first phone call out of the chute and It was on a passage a text of scripture that we have discussed many many many times and since of course it presents a different Perspective than that which we have presented.

It would be well to consider what it has to say and respond to it exegetically of course, I'm referring to John chapter 6 and Jesus presentation of the gospel in the synagogue in Capernaum. Some of you know that we have over the years responded to all sorts of different takes I mean there are so many of them out there and All of them which pretty much contradict the others which I find always interesting, but anyway and Recently had been responding to some emails that were sent to the ministry saying well You're you're ignoring John 645 and our response by saying no.

We're not Responding to we're not ignoring any of Of the text that is not our desire to do so it's just you don't start at 645 and go backwards. You know you start At the beginning and move forwards and you follow the train of thought and you don't Jump down someplace pick up pick a verse say I'm going to say it means this and then read that into everything else.

That's that's called eisegesis, so anyway, there is a phone call that takes place and Goodness I guess people already know that there is a phone number that you can call here as well and That's eight seven seven seven five three three three four one we'll be getting to those let's.

Listen to the phone call first on the first color of today. Mark listing on WMCA in Linden, New Jersey. Hi mark I'm well good talking to you. Yes.

I wanted to the first is that the Bible in John 64 it is no one can come to me Unless the father draws him and then the Bible said all the father giveth me all the father has given me will come to me.

Does that mean that unless the father draw you you cannot come to God?

John 6 and the Father's Drawing

Now let me stop for a moment. Good good question. I think I've talked to this fellow remember I've been on Long Island a lot, and I used to be on WMCA fairly regularly. I was on with Andy Anderson before his passing and I even Took over his spot once or twice And filled in for him.

I remember doing that once the one last times I was out there, and I I have a recollection I don't have all those programs. So I can't go back and check him even if I had time to but I have a feeling that I've talked this caller.

So that's another good reason to review it is. Favorite text John 6 different viewpoint of John 6. And I think I think I might have spoken with this fellow either on the air or maybe even You know some some other context.

Let's keep listening.

To us. Well you gotta remember the context of John chapter 6. You have the Jewish leaders who are grumbling about Jesus Christ when Jesus Christ says I'm the bread that came down from heaven and they said in response to the words of Jesus Well isn't this Jesus the son of Joseph whose father and mother we know.

How can he now say I came down from heaven. And Jesus responds stop Grumbling among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the father Who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day.

Now let me just mention just one thing you actually I think need to go a little bit farther back than this because remember and this is this has been an issue that I have found with a large portion of Interpreters at this point.

And that is they missed the fact that Simon these aren't actually Jewish leaders are just the Jewish individuals Who had come across the lake and and they had seen the miracles the day before these are the primary people of Jesus is addressing.

And he says something to them. That's rather important. He says you have seen me yet. You are Unbelieving you are not believing. You are not exercising faith in me. He's explaining Their unbelief. Verse 36 says you're unbelievers.

Verse 37 all the father gives me will come to me. He knows that by the end of John chapter 6 these men are gonna walk away. He knows they're gonna stop following him. He knows that right now this this this excitement They have is because they saw the miracles you know this guy would make a great king Etc etc and so he's explaining their Unbelief.

That really isn't is a vitally important context because most the time people want to try to sort of universalize this. Take it out of the context is here are people who've seen Christ. They've heard his heard his teaching.

They've seen him perform miracles. They have sought him. They have come across a lake. They have looked for him they are seeking him and Jesus looks at them and says you're unbelievers you are unbelieving and Why are you unbelieving and why is it that at the end of this he's gonna go from 5 ,000 really excited people the day before to 12 confused disciples one of whom is a devil on The following day how does that happen?

What what's that? What's the process that brings that about? What is the teaching that brings that about. That's question it is written in the prophets.

They will all be taught by God and then these words everyone who listens to the father and learns From him comes to me. So we're all in the situation. Every single person on planet Earth. We're all dead in trespasses and sin.

Now you know so far.

Nothing that I could object to. We've we're tracking perfectly up to this point now. We just emphasize. What was just read. All the ones. Listening and learning from the father come to me notice that phrase all the ones.

This is a divine action. That's going that's going on here. All the ones listening and hearing come to me not some. This this ability to hear this ability to learn members as they shall all be taught by God.

Is a redefinition a restatement of the previous phrase the previous discussion of being drawn by the Father to the Son who is it that is. Taught by God those who are drawn by the Father the Son who is it?

There's coming to Christ those who were given by the Father the Son. You follow these phrases through and if you'll just be consistent and defying them accurately each time. You will have no problems with John 6.

But no one can do that unless they're willing to accept the sovereignty of God in salvation. In other words.

We're all of our father the devil until God comes to us and God comes to us in various ways. He comes to us through the light of creation.

And now we'll back up the truck. We just we just we just missed each other. There's nothing in John 6 about the light of creation. There's nothing about the father coming in the light of creation. John 6 is about the father doing specific things the father gives To the son the result is all those given come.

John 6 the father Expresses his will for the son. John 6 38 and 39 which the son does perfectly that is all that are given to him. He lose none, but raise it up on the last day. The father draws to the son the son raises up all those that are drawn to him.

John 6 44 the father Teaches they all be taught by God. John 6 45 those learning and hearing all Of them are coming to Christ. So these are all divine actions that all have the exact same result. There's nothing about the light of creation in John 6.

There's nothing about the father coming in the light of creation. John 6 and Given that in each one of these Preceding segments, right? It's very same context very same argument very same flow of text.

It is divine action That results in everyone who is the recipient of that action coming to Christ so if that's the Consistent paradigm all the way through we come to this the light of creation comes to everybody.

What does that have to do with a statement that says all? Who Hear and learn are coming to me. It has nothing to do with at all.

He comes to us through the light of conscience and if we respond to that Then God will give us the light of Christ. But if we do not listen and learn from him if we don't respond to the light he has given to us Then we will not come to Jesus Christ now.

I'm sorry. That's not what John 6 45 says.

John 6 45 Nowhere says if we will respond to certain light. Then we will come to Christ and he'll give us more light. Nowhere does John 6 45 even present to us this idea of someone who is learning and Listening.

Learning and hearing from Christ who doesn't all those who are why because the learning and the listening are the result of being taught By God and God is teaching those that he draws the Son whom he's given to the Son.

It is it is the the desire to avoid. And Toto the the specific electing action of God. That misses forces people to miss this rather clear statement. So, you know if you've been following along in your text and and you've been going, okay, okay, okay.

And then all of a sudden you you come to this point. No one can come to us. Father sent me draws him I'll raise him up in the last day and then it is written the prophets they shall all be taught of God.

Everyone who has learned heard and learned from the father comes to me and. Now all of a sudden all of that just sort of disappears and it's like well. All the way up to the middle of verse 45. Yes, you know, maybe God's sovereign all that.

But once you get to verse 45, it just means everybody Has the ability in and of themselves through the light of conscience and creation? To hear and learn from the father because he just makes this generally available.

Where does that come from? Talk about completely destroying The context it just where does that come from? It comes from tradition. It comes from Holding a position that is not consistent with the text this point.

I don't know how else to explain it. We've heard this many many many times before and and. So there we go with that. So we will continue with the the phone call here.

And again, this is not a matter of whether or not we can respond. It's a matter then of whether we will respond.

No, I'm sorry, but that is not what the text said in in any way shape or form. The text says everyone Who has heard and learned those are heiress. They go back to the drawn of verse 44. Everyone hearing from the father.

That's but that para to Patras Takes us again back to being drawn by the father. Given by the father all of these are divine actions. Everyone who hears and learns is coming to me. Who is coming to me.

John 6 or 7. All the father gives me will come to me. Who's coming to me? John chapter 6 verse 44. All who are drawn. It's perfect consistency. No question about it. But here we have a classic example of how tradition Will override exegesis and result in is a Jesus reading into the text something that Is not there and in fact, the text is rather clear in denying is an element of its own teaching.

Every single person has the light of creation and every single person has the light of conscience. And if we respond to that Then we will also be given the light of Christ. In other words The entirety of Scripture teaches us that God is not capricious that he's not hiding from us.

Now I mean I stop and I go we've we've lost all contact with John 6 now. There there's nothing here about John 6 everything in John 6 teaches has just flown out the window and We have this universal ability and if everyone will just respond to this.

Well, we know man does respond to all these things, but the Bible is very plain and how he responds universally negatively. There is none righteous know that one. There is none who seeks after God. There's none who understands.

So the response is a universal negative. So if we're gonna go with this, we're in big trouble because there's gonna be no one who is saved. I mean again This this this desire to defend libertarian free will.

It doesn't it doesn't fly and it has nothing to do with John chapter 6. John chapter 6. So so the caller says so so God draws everyone. Well, everyone has the light of creation. Well, wait a minute. The the draw was John 6 44 all who are drawn are raised up.

This is restated John 6 45. They're taught by God. They learn they hear they come. What's difficult about this? The only thing that's difficult about this is if a person doesn't want to believe this. Because you already believe something that that contradicts this and that's what's going on.

None of this has anything to do with John 6 44. It's just it's it's a complete disconnect that God is.

Available to those who call on him. The problem is there are people who do not seek after God as Romans chapter 3 makes clear.

No, let's let's there are people who do not seek after God. Yes, they're called the entire human race without exception Romans 3. Luke hot eggs. They don't taunt. They on there is no God seeker. It's not that there are just some.

It's everybody that's that's where the again that the disconnection takes place. I think the caller gets completely lost this point. He hasn't understood the previous response because it really wasn't an extract the sound response.

And now he's asked a question based on John 6 44 got no response that either and so I think then he gets. A true statement for Romans 3 thrown out but only a partially true statement because there are some who do not see.

No everybody.

There is no God seeker. And I think he gets completely lost that point. Or you can find the same thing communicated in Ephesians chapter 2 indeed.

Yes, exactly. Okay at that point I'm just Sitting here, I'm in my mind I'm visualizing this poor caller who is sort of looking at his phone going if do I have a bad connection? Yeah, I Do not understand.

That's that's why I think I've talked to this fellow. Yeah, he's just banging on the phone. They're going I'm Confused here, so he's he's just gonna move on. Yes.

It is men. The heart of men as many projects, but the response come from God. God is directing our steps. Everything we do is directed by God. Mm-hmm. Yes. So everything we do is directed by God.

Yes, and and you have both sides of the coin given in the book of Proverbs. So we choose our path, but God directs our steps. In other words we have enough light to step into more light, so we are like a Old Testament person walking down a dark and narrow pathway with a lantern in our hand and every time we Step into some more light we have some more light in other words.

We're stepping into light as we move down the path. God is directing our steps. But we are also involved in the process. God knows what we are going to do, but our Direction is not fatalistically determined by God.

Men have a lot of projects. What it is what God wants that is accomplished. In another word the response is from God.

Well, yes, I mean there are two things that are going on. It is true that what we do counts. So we are involved in washing our hands in order to get our hands clean. We can't simply say if God wants our hands to be clean.

He'll make them clean in and of himself. With no action on our part. So our actions do matter and God has designed the world In such a way that our prayers make a difference. Okay.

I'm I'm I Don't get it either. Yeah, I didn't follow the last part sound like somewhat of an explanation of Something like what I would say almost I mean obviously we make decisions but the caller was trying to say is there not an eternal decree that determines what happens in time and and Obviously once you start defending libertarian free Will you you have a hard time confessing that and there are a number of passages that say exactly what?

Proverbs 16 one says in regards to the many of the plans man's heart, but is the Lord Who determines the words on his tongue and there's other passages in proverbs 16 that say similar things in regards to well psalm 33?

Especially is a is a text that Makes that very type of type of emphasis, so I'm I didn't follow the response. At least in the John 6 thing we could follow it and go nope That's everything was just fine to right here and the the next step would have been this but that would require a belief in the sovereignty of God in the sense of a eternal decree and divine election things like that and all of a sudden we had Lights of conscious conscience coming on and things like that so it was it we got lost Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

I love that text. It is just so wonderfully consistent. Let's let's pick up with our oh, thank you very much pick up with How's my fault let's pick up with our phone callers here and talk with Mark hi mark Hello, hi mark.

Oh.

I just want to first Thank you that God has used your teaching and radio shows and debates and books and everything to transform my Whole Christian walk and I'm very uh, thank you. Thank you. Well. That's wonderful now.

I understand. You're up in Canada that that have. You met the other ten Canadian Christians. Yeah, we're keeping track. We're sorry. We're putting we're implanting a satellite tracking devices in each one because you know they're almost as rare as as Certain species of animals and so we're sort of keeping track about where all of you all of you are.

Yeah, I hear you.

That's it's tough up here. Yeah, well I had a question I had a. I just finished reading Bruce Metzger. Yeah, and. And he says in chapter 11 Concerning the Canon section 2 pages 254 to 257 on inspiration in Canon that the early church writers described I know that you have said in your debates that we only see Scripture and Scriptures being called to non-estop.

Some way of the Eastern Orthodox persuasion could use this Argument from Bruce Metzger in defense of their arguments for tradition being on par with Scripture.

No not consistently because if they were to do so they would have to do so in a in a fair manner and that is I would assume and It's odd. I was Ransacking my office today looking for a Metzger book, and I eventually found it my old office.

I thought I'd moved if I hadn't been one of them. I did find was Metzger's book on the Canon I know exactly which box on the floor. It's in Right now, but what he's referring to is the fact that there was not a unanimity of opinion By every single person whoever picked up a pen and wrote After the time of Christ as to what the Canon Scripture was so that would mean for example that Clement of Alexandria had some odd views and There were some people around Rome for example who thought maybe Clement of Rome Was an inspired book and some other people like the Shepherd of Hermas or something like that and and so since you had very small numbers of people like this they would refer to those books as as Inspired.

I've not actually done a search on Theano Stas but The Catholic would have to agree that they were wrong in other words if you ever heard some of my debates where I for example point out that Augustine held a different view than has been dogmatically defined by the Roman Catholic Church.

You'll hear my Roman Catholic opponent saying well, but he was just a single individual writer at that point. He was just a private theologian at that point and dismiss it well if they're gonna be consistent They would have to do the same thing at this point because as far as the Canon of the New Testament is concerned We don't have any disagreements over that we don't have any disagreements that no matter how you determine that that took place.

Whether you take the Roman Catholic perspective that there's some canonical authority within the church itself or you take my perspective That is God fulfilling his purpose and giving Scripture that leads the church passively to a recognition of Scripture.

Whichever direction you you go there both sides would have to agree. That those individuals who looked at the Shepherd of Hermas or Clements or Barnabas or whatever else it might be were in error in what they said and so.

The only thing that would prove is that yeah, you know when you look at the early church fathers Some of them said some pretty silly things and it is that very fact that ironically We're the ones that have to keep bringing it up because we will see patristic sources cited.

As if they are almost infallible sources of authority then you turn around and say well that same author also said this. Why do you pick and choose? If you're gonna make him authoritative over here, why not make him authoritative over there and That can become it becomes quite a quite an interesting match of ping-pong in essence if if people want to try to start building a foundation for their positions outside of The canon of Scripture itself so those I don't think Metzger was saying that these individuals were saying that they had some sort of inspired tradition they're referring to writings that everybody would know what they were and There were canonical disagreements now.

They were always localized. It wasn't like there was I mean and I'm glad that there were because for example the book of Revelation didn't just sail into the canon there was a lot of Discussion not so much sitting around voting about things.

But there was a lot of care Taken on the part of the church in regards to such works. And when you look at the book of Revelation and you see seven-headed beasts and things like that I'm glad there was a fair amount of concern taken to examine those types of things so so that's what that's what Metzger is referring to and they would have a hard time that they'd really have to rip it out of context and Applied to something that Metzger was never intending it to do which I suppose I could see a couple Roman Catholic apologists doing that.

I can certainly see some cultic apologists doing that. But the ones that are you would never find a Mitch Packwood doing that. You probably would not find a Jimmy Akin doing that because these folks know that you're going to check out their sources, and you're going to hold them to some level of.

Concern at that point. Now like I'm looking more at the definition of finonious thoughts, but like on page 256 He states that Gregory of Nyssa considered his brother's basils commentary on the first six days of creation as an exposition given by inspiration of God and No less than the words composed by Moses himself, and I'm just like Like what would he be meaning by that statement?

And how how do we know that it's different than what Paul meant by a statement in second Timothy. Well again?

Gregory is writing many hundreds of years after the time of Christ and so While you'll have many people who will claim visions and will claim. Well well many things I mean if you look at the desert fathers starting as as early as the late Second century into into the beginning of the third century in Alexandria folks who live in a in a cave in the desert tend to have visions and You can find all sorts of Claims on their part in regards to how wonderful one thing is and especially if they're in conflict if if they're defending for example in that situation defending a Relative against someone who's attacking them as a heretic or something like that they make some pretty you know extreme statements.

I mean Cyprian makes some very extreme statements about Stephen the Bishop of Rome and Some of his Correspondence likewise made some very strong Statements about to Stephen as the Bishop of Rome and Stephen as the Bishop of Rome made very strong statements in the middle of third century.

And what do you do with those things. Well you realize that? Just as you will have very strong statements made by people today in various forms of conflict. Sometimes people will overstate their case and that happens today.

It happened back, then as well it is odd obviously for anyone to to make that kind of claim and and to to. You know were they seriously attempting to argue that this needs to be added to the canon of Scripture well If they never went so far as to do that.

Then this is probably rhetorical in its in its you know sort of like Luther saying that James is an epistle of straw. He never tried to rip it out of Canon. He quotes from it numerous times in the years after that, but what he was doing is he's in a particular Apologetic situation he's in a particular situation of conflict.

It's constantly being cited at him, and he gets frustrated, and he says something he put something in print that Ten years later. What do you wish that he hadn't done that. Well probably but Luther was Luther and so was Gregory for that matter so I think that's probably if there's no evidence to my knowledge anyways.

Maybe someone can show me where I'm wrong where Gregory tried to to do that. But I know He also is the same one who made the statement that we make the scriptures the canon rule of every dogma. And we accept only that which can be made conformable to those writings now which one actually represents the real Gregory.

It sounds like the one is much more in line with what you'd read from Augustine and other people like that the same period of time than any Elevation of his brother's writings to some some higher level.

No, I just graduated with my BA in religion theology. But I have a class that's sort of still going until it finishes in a few weeks and it's on the Canon and Reading several books. One of them was Bruce Metzger's which I just finished.

And what were the other ones if I could ask. Yeah. The other ones I'm reading are Lee McDonald. His and then his bigger work the Canon debate and then I'm also reading Martin Hengel's the Septuagint is Christian scripture and.

They're not a whole lot from an overly historically conservative perspective.

No, FF Bruce was actually I started reading that and the prof said no no stay away from that one, but I was curious. Yeah, well you are you are in Canada. What do you expect? Yeah? Yeah? Well? It's quite a liberal institution University that I got got the degree at but yes I was curious of what your your opinion of was especially of the Canon debate book by by Lee McDonald.

I I really.

Was disappointed with it. It's. You know I there's there's much to be said about the subject. Unfortunately given the very nature of the word Canon You you almost almost any source has to state. It's it's bias and it's presupposition right from the start and very rarely will they.

In other words what I mean by that is. If you view the Canon as a a human creation an evolutionary process if you view it like Bart Ehrman views it in essence as. One side having just managed to beat the other one up long enough to win out over time.

Even though it looked like at other times. They were gonna lose they you know they. They pulled like the Kobe Bryant shot there out a couple days ago where the Suns beat the Lakers beat the Suns. You know just last-minute.

Watching the Edmonton beat Detroit game. Oh, okay, hockey, which was the biggest thing in the universe?

Here so well I fully understand that I was when I was over in the UK. The England had just beaten Australia and had in the cup and had gotten the ashes back and Everybody was just floating on air it was the British were much nicer for about five days there anyway.

I fully understand that but the point being that they their perspective basically is that the Canon is not to be first defined as a theological necessity if God has spoken. If God has spoken Then there has to be a Canon in other words if he has said one word.

That one word creates a Canon by nature and since he clearly has not said everything that has ever been said in his name. Then there it has to be a Canon there has to be a limitation a delimiting list of what is and what is not a revelation from God.