Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
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 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.
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.
Have been informed that they are expecting quite a group. There should be Larger than the Fullerton debates. I don't know that we're gonna have anyone all of a sudden in the middle of 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 UCOC 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 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 be early 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 result 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 and so 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 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 Scribbling away at something because I was I agree I 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.
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 the 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 some place 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 will 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 says no one can come to me unless the father draws him. And then the Bible said All the father gives 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?
Now let me stop for a moment. Good good question. I think I've talked 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 so 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.
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 it 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 I'm 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 the non-histos.
Somebody 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 opponents 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 Clement 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 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 apply it 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 phenomenon thoughts, but like on page 256 He states that Gregory of Nyssa considered his brother's Basil's 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 2nd century into into the beginning of the 3rd 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.
And and if you don't start there if You start with the human factor if you start with well Let's look back through history and see what we can see and determine. Well all of that's fine and wonderful and necessary and we can look at Muratorian fragments and we can You know have fun trying to piece together what was referred to by this father that father and origin of course is always fun if they ever finished translating everything he did and and.
All those things are fine and wonderful and they let you get a degree in various sundry subjects. But that's not actually going to get you where you need to go. I sort of argue along the same lines here that I would with the nature of God you can you can do theistic proofs.
Until the cows come home. But the God of the Bible is not proven in that way. That he says in his word that it is by his will that he has chosen. Not to be discovered by man's wisdom. It is in the foolishness of preaching that he makes himself known not through man by his wisdom discovering him and so I Viewed the same thing here.
You can have all those can discussions you want but until you recognize that Jesus and the Apostles felt that God had a purpose in Speaking and a purpose in defining what his word was for us. I don't think you're ever going to come to any type of solid conclusions only conclusions you can be able to come to are that Wow a lot of people back then had a lot of different viewpoints and We don't really have a clue which one was right is about the only conclusion you can come to unless you Look at it in the in the proper light.
That's why I tried to argue for that in my book scripture alone and just try to Bet you it wasn't being used at your school either. Yeah, but she tried to lay those things out and and to do so in such a way as demon somewhat Demystify this subject because let's let's face it.
What was the last time you heard a sermon on this subject you just you don't. For the vast majority of Christians you open up your Bible and it has that index in the front. It's always been that way and so I've said many times especially when we're spying to Bart Ehrman and to Islamic apologists.
This is an area. We really need to do work in amongst the regular Christians who are faithful believers, and they're the ones that are out there doing the work of Evangelism and and they're doing it the way it should be done in the in the everyday walk of life.
They're the ones who are getting hit by this stuff from the internet and everything else and so that's why I tried to explain it in such a way that Let's face it after about the third page of origin. You've pretty much lost almost anybody you know, I mean I think origin was lost after the Personal opinion about that but There has to be some way though to explain it and that's what I've tried to do in talking about God's purposes and things.
So it really is an issue of how you approach that very word can in itself and is this something that that God does is this something that God has a stake in or Or did God just sort of throw it all out there and then run off and see if we could figure out.
You know sort of like throwing a big puzzle box out there and come back later to see if we managed to put it all Together. I don't think that's what he did.
All right. Well, I'll just close with out of my graduating class I was the the lone pretty much conservative and and you were a big part in keeping me from About it about a year and a half ago I started just losing it all and random encounter with your site.
Really and and yeah. And I'd come across a long time earlier when I was big in and Mormon Ministry and then I I left because I wasn't big on the reform stuff. But then it I got drawn back to it and then I started eating up All your debates and all that sort of stuff and I got me thinking and I read other stuff and basically it was it was Pinnacle and basically keeping me from going the way of all my other friends.
One friend who was a hard He now doesn't believe in the Trinity or the Bible or really any pretty much falling apart. And and I I've been saved by the grace from that and you were you were a big tool on that.
Well mark a thank you very much for that mark. I can't tell you how much that really does mean to myself and to the man sitting through the window over there. Who is the.
Other.
Person in the ministry here. We work very very hard, but I'm very thankful the Lord used our ministry. But of course, it's the grace of God that kept you and I would just say mark now that you've been through that It's been my experience that God brings people through those things so that they can learn lessons to communicate with others and You're going to be able to understand the struggles that other people are having.
I went to fuller seminary So I know exactly what you're talking about, but people who haven't been there just don't know they just they just don't know what the the struggles are and so maybe the Lord's gonna Give you the opportunity of being that very same kind of encouragement to others, too.
So press on and God bless you in your ministry. Thank you very much. Thanks mark. All right. Bye-bye. Wow, that's that's cool. I. That's that's really cool. I came in here with my left wrist killing me and I don't I don't care about my left wrist.
That's cool. What is this Canada Day? Did did all the USA lines collapse or something because we have another have another Canadian. And on the phone line, let's go up to Joel. Hi Joel. How you doing?
Dr. White. It's the Canadia call hour.
It is thanks for breaking protocol. Normally you save the best for last, but I see you've got the better quality callers.
Hmm well, we're getting toward the end words. We're two-thirds the way through the program. So I'm not sure what that means. But yeah, yeah.
No.
Thanks for taking my call and I just echo the last callers comments that Really thankful for your ministries had a positive impact on my life. And I've also had an opportunity to pass along a lot of the content that I've written your books to others.
Thanks for that, well, thank you the question that I have dr. White for you just with respect to your blog entry on April 29th to do with John 645. Mm-hmm, and I'm a Calvinist. So I certainly don't have any Qualms with your exegesis of John 6, but just something that might be a little bit more incidental.
Is it all right if I just read a little part of that blog? Yeah, I'm.
Scrolling down to it Myself right now so that we can follow along with it 29th John 645. And free will yes.
And the question really has to do with the nature of saving faith. And your first point you say first There's no question that an unregenerate man can read the words of the Bible and even come to a correct understanding of its contextual reading.
But there is an 18-inch separation between the heart and the head and mere knowledge has never Saved anyone and I was just wondering if you could sort of flesh out what you mean there. And I guess the reason why is the last couple of months.
I've read a book by Gordon Clark I'm not sure if you're familiar with him. I am. Okay. I've read a book of his. It's actually a combination of two books. It's called. What is saving faith? And he takes What I would consider to be sort of a bit of a departure from most Reformed people when it comes to how he understands saving faith very much.
I'm saving faith is intellectual ascent to propositions or and so basically the question is With what you said in your blog entry, how do you reconcile that with for example with first 1st Corinthians 2 14 where it says the natural man Cannot understand the things that come from the Spirit of God and also 2nd Corinthians 4 for and I guess verse 3 as well Where it says that the gospel is veiled from the perishing and that the God of the world has blinded their minds.
Yeah Gordon Clark is just completely out of the mainstream of anything to be perfectly honest with you on the nature of saving faith. He's as he's as far off there as the as Robert Wilkin and the anti Lordship people are on that very same issue.
They actually take pretty much the same viewpoint with obvious differences because of certain peculiarities within the non Lordship camp, but yeah the idea of simply defining faith as a certain kind of proper intellectual knowledge.
What you can always find any text that is going to talk about the doctrinal content of saving faith because faith always has an object and it has to have the right object and the only way for it to have the right object is for there to be truth involved.
That's why despite what certain rather odd people say about me the Normative means by which God draws his people unto himself is through the spirit and the word that is the proclamation of the gospel.
That's what provides that revelation that that that Instilling of the truth of who Jesus Christ is so you have the proper object of your faith. What he who he is what he did so on so forth all that is part of the proclamation the gospel.
The spirit making that to come alive in the heart those the spirit and the word together. It's not just the one it's not just the other and that's where Gordon Clark fell off the fell off the boat. Basically is that classical reform theology from the beginning?
Everyone that I can think of has Recognized that there is two elements to well actually if you want to get into the whole issue of saving faith three classically, but That there is more than just simply one let's put this way.
There's more than simply one element to saving faith and that because of the fact that a natural man can I? Remember years and years ago. I'm sure you've been protected from this fellow up in Canada, but I was a fairly regular Guest on a radio program here in Phoenix with a host who is now a nationally known shock jock by the name of Tom like us and Tom has made his name by being just a Just gross on the air, but back in these days He wasn't quite that bad.
He was moving that direction he wasn't quite that bad, but he called himself an atheist and I was on his program if I recall correctly 16 times and Sometimes just alone with him and we just be sort of arguing atheism.
But sometimes he had American atheists on and he had. One time he had this guy who had written a book and I have this book. It's just back at my old office right now or in a box someplace. But he had written a book as an atheist for Prometheus press if you see it I'll go meet his press, you know where it's coming from he had written a book and it was amazing to me how Accurately he understood the message of the New Testament.
I mean he said clearly the New Testament teaches that that God is in charge. He has a sovereign decree. He's working all things to his own honor and glory and he has elected a certain people on the salvation and the rest.
He justly damns because of their sins and and Christ dies, too. I mean, I mean, he's just going down the whole thing. He he he gave a clearer Distillation. He's not a former Christian either. He's not an apostate.
He wasn't a former minister some this guy's just an atheist. He says I read the New Testament and if you take it at face value, this is what it says that's what happens you don't have a bunch of traditions in the way to you know, get you know, smack you around a good bit and He could enunciate with clarity The the necessary knowledge and truth in fact more than the necessary knowledge I would say that a person would have to have to embrace the gospel.
But though he knew those all those things he he had the knowledge that all those things he completely rejected him he did not believe in any of them and and that was the function of our Conversation and and so all I'm saying in the in the text aside from yes I would definitely disagree with Gordon Clark is that yes, there is a There is a core to the knowledge that is necessary that the Spirit of God brings to the elect's heart so that we can become God lovers so that well as as John 645 says There's something that God does he is that this this teaching they shall all be taught by God is A restatement of what verse 44 is drawn drawn by the Father to the Son raised up by the Son.
We are coming to Christ that's not a that's that that term coming is Paralleled with believing and they're both made present tense, and I'm sorry. Those aren't just simply taking in facts, but they don't exist without the taking in of facts.
And so we have the true knowledge of who Christ is we are coming to him not to a fake. That's why you know, we've had a Mormon fella coming in the channel the past. What did he start yesterday morning?
I think I think he started coming in yesterday morning from Germany. Okay, and we've been we've really been sharing with him and you can just tell he's getting he's he's quite simply scared by by The things that I've been sharing with him and things like that.
But in fact you all pray for him all we know him by his LDS, and he's in Germany so we pray for him, but Here's here's someone that we are we are proclaiming the gospel to them and One of the problems with them is with with this fellow is there is a roadblock to the true knowledge of who Christ is.
He's been given a false Christ, and so we're not saying oh well any Christ will do we're saying no. You've been given not only a false. God, but a false Christ and so the that element of the necessity of Orthodox truth about Christ Completely affirmant, but the problem is that's part of it and that ignores In at least as Gordon Clark is redefining as merely intellectual belief that then ignores the fact that we have to be raised To spiritual life that it's an ongoing thing that even Jesus and John 6.
What is he going to what is he? What's the next section after the one we're talking about he continues the theme of what? Drinking his flesh a drink his flesh eating his flesh and drinking his blood now.
That's that's intimate. That's that is that is coming to him, and that is having a having an intimate relationship with him. That's not just simply going. Oh, I accept certain certain facts about Christ.
You can know certain facts about Christ as as you know Jesus said into the Jews and John 8 unless you believe that I am He you will die in your sins. Okay. You have to have that knowledge you have to accept the fact that he is who he claims to be.
But the Spirit brings us into union with Christ the Spirit Changes our hearts and our minds and makes us to love Christ. We love him because he first loved us. You know there's so much more to it than just than just that and and I think Gordon Clark was simply reacting in an imbalanced way to the fact that.
Generally in evangelicalism it goes the other way so just if I may interrupt sure if you look at the three levels of faith. So would you say that the that third level that fiduciary is? Sort of has to do with the Spirit and with the Spirit enabling us.
And yes. Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, definitely.
I I think we're really short changing the work of the Spirit in regeneration if we don't recognize That the reason that saving faith endures is not because it just got the facts right once. He who endures in this there's something more to endurance than just getting the facts right once there is there is growth there.
There is intimate communion there. I think we need to be really careful. If church history should tell us something we can look around and we can find places that were once very quote-unquote Reformed that are dead as a doornail today, and why is that well?
The Christian faith is not something that is passed down In it's not passed down genetically. It's not passed down through mere emotion experience. Look at all the places like upstate, New York. That had all the great revivals and all the what's what's the place like now?
I mean those those things don't last but in the same way. It's not passed down through mere intellectualism it is a balance and the older I get the more I see that the fundamental element of the Christian faith in in in maturity is balance balance balance and When I say when I made that comment, I'll give you some background here.
As to what I was talking about when I made that comment There was an experience in my life that I was specifically thinking of and I was thinking of a guy That I knew back many many moons ago who? Did better in Greek at my school than I did and I had set all the records up to that point.
He didn't go as far as I did so I can say he never quite eclipsed me. But yeah, he never he never missed it, and I don't know if you have you stayed Greek. I've taken a year. Okay here, then you will understand this he never missed an accent on a quiz.
Okay, that's good got an idea now. We're talking about all right. Okay. This is this is someone who would sit around and read Lad just for the fun of it. He'd read Berkhoff just for the fun of it. Okay, you know so you just sort of go whoa you know and I will never ever forget the Easter at a certain church that will remain unnamed.
Was the Easter or was it Christmas do you remember? I'm looking it was Easter. Yeah, the Easter at a certain church will remain unnamed. When I had to sit there recognizing that that fellow was in the choir and He had just left his wife with three kids and was getting ready to run away with a single lady in the choir.
It sort of ruined my Easter. But it ruined it ruined the presentation the Messiah I think they were seeing in that particular point in time, but the point is here's someone with all the knowledge in the world.
Yeah, but there's an 18-inch distance between that and the heart. And so that's that's what I was thinking of when I made that statement. No. I appreciate that like.
I I have to admit that I am actually leaning in Clark's direction a bit like I and it's for exegetical reasons like for example. The the dichotomy that I see in the Bible is not between the heart and the head.
It's between the tongue and the heart. It's between what you say and what you actually believe. And like even with the example of the shock jock like he may have articulated. What we understand to be the gospel.
But the question is was what he said did it correlate one-to-one with what he actually? Understands and with what he actually receives in his heart or in his mind, whichever you want to call it. You know, I mean like like with this shock jock.
How would you reconcile? His understanding of the gospel with first Corinthians 2 14. And if he said of him that he does not understand the things of the Spirit of God, you know, he articulated.
Exactly and and and the point is though that that when it when it when and you look at the first Corinthians 2 14 What does it mean to to decant I to receive? The things the Spirit of God is that is that just to have an understanding is is is Gnosko only the the taking in of Certain facts, I think that when when Paul prays for the Colossians I believe that they would have a true knowledge.
Yeah. Is that just simply that they would they would be completely Orthodox or is there or is there more? Is there this this being filled with the fullness of God? Do we do we limit that just to?
Certain.
Doctrinal precepts. I Say no, I I don't see that I.
Like like I know where you're going. Dr. White like it, but again, like there's just some exegetical concerns I have like I'm not challenging you but like for example, I bought the I'm not sure if this was a good purchase or not but I bought the theological dictionary of the New Testament and They make mention of the fact that in the Greek which I'm a little bit familiar with that.
There is no difference between Believing Jesus and believing in Jesus, you know how sometimes the third level of saving faith seducia I like Wayne Gruden, for example in systematic theology. He says that when you have that phrase in the New Testament to believe or to trust in Jesus that it's referring to that third level that it's it's sort of a Something that's extra that's beyond mere intellectual content.
But when I look at the the Greek grammars, they're saying there isn't really a difference between those two Greek instructions believing and believing.
In or into well, I mean, let me suggest something to you at that point. I I think that's Two things first of all, if you're talking about kittles you need to differentiate between whatever kittles says concerning historical sources syntactical issues grammar and things like that and the conclusions drawn there from.
That's the first thing to remember about kittles. You can get a lot of really good information out of them just Recognize you're dealing with Way way way left German liberals from the 1930s. I don't have an idea but beyond that I see a completely different context between what someone like Wayne Gruden we talked about the systematic theology and the full-blown revelation of Scripture and Just simply well syntactically or grammatically.
Can you say that that ongoing faith in Christ or believing Christ are two separate things? What I'm sure Gruden is attempting to communicate is the fact that there is a complex of images and words that are used in the New Testament to describe our relationship with Christ and Believing in Christ for example the difference between the aorist and the present in John I think is extremely important and I think it actually bears upon this because the present tense Belief in Christ is what is saving faith in John the aorist is what for example the men have in John chapter 8 Who at by the end of the chapter picking up stones to stone him now?
What how does how does that relate? To that particular. I didn't even see that that that particular issue. That's that's something we could continue this discussion about but we are Unfortunately completely at a time I didn't realize that we've been talking the whole time.
But be glad to continue the conversation because I think it's an important one the thanks to your phone call today, okay? Thank you. God bless. Bye. Bye. All righty. Wow that was a fast one. Well some of your price didn't going no not really it lasted forever.
Last one before the Shabir Ali debates obviously next to Tuesday my desire will be to share with you a Report from what took place and I would of course ask for your prayers for that Lord be glorified.
And his truth would be proclaimed with clarity. We will see you next Tuesday Lord willing. God bless.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries. If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O. Box 37107 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks.
Join us again next Tuesday morning at 11 a .m.. For the dividing line.