Brief Debate Commentary

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 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 And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning

Got lots and lots and lots lots to get to today and already have people on the line So let's hop to it really quickly.

I want to I don't have time to give a full report On the subject of the debate in In Newburgh, I've been blogging extensively on it

Just this morning Dan Barker wrote and complained that I had posted the video of his objection

Saying that it might give the wrong impressions. I Would think that not providing the entire context would get the wrong impression

I as I said, I've never experienced anything like this in my life. I For someone who claims to be a rational thinker a rationalist

A free thinker. He's certainly thinking very freely but very much outside the realms of rationality

Let's just lay just a couple things out here For 17 years 17 years

Dan Barker has Had the same material in his books First it was losing faith in faith

Then godless which came out in 2008 same material 17 years if you go on the freedom from religion web page today go to the store and you can spend money to buy both books and So what we're being asked to believe is that in an opening statement not a rebuttal

So you saying well, you're only supposed to rebut what someone's argued In a rebuttal period fine, but we're talking about an opening argument here and when you are debating person

X and person X for 17 years has published promoted lectured on One set of arguments on the very subject of your debate and He has brought to the debate the same

Published material he is selling it for money in the foyer of the church in which the debate is taking place

What we're being asked to believe is that I? shouldn't deal with Those arguments that he himself has promoted for 17 years

It is Irrational it is absurd. I've never seen anything like it in almost 90 moderated public debates beginning in 1990 and I think it is absolutely a matter of damage control and self -destruction.

It's all there is to it It is amazing but it's likewise amazing to say well you shouldn't you shouldn't post the the thing of the of the of my objection because that someone might

Get the wrong impression. I gave the entire context

That's what the video is all about isn't it? Absolutely amazing Absolutely, how can

I possibly be misrepresenting someone when I give everything they said in the public context on the subject?

I'm just letting the listener the viewer decide for himself absolutely incredible It let me get a little flavor of this is he coming from the perspective that that portion

Wasn't actually part of the debate even though he'd already opened no So you're supposed to trim that out no

No, he I don't I don't see a single rational ground upon which to object to the posting of that of that other than well

He's just he's attacking me. He's making it sound like I don't want my book cited. Well. That's what the objection was

I think my impression of what little I've seen and heard of it is that it's not so much the video

It's the fact that you dared comment and point fingers and go look look at this

Yeah, well I again any any rational person knows what the situation is and is sitting there going wait a minute you're

You haven't pulled your book You you have you've been presenting the same argument for 17 years your opponent called you on it

Demonstrated that you can't even defend what you've been saying for 17 years that is obviously relevant to your credibility

As a researcher and a writer and a thinker on these subjects is it not well obviously it is

So there you go Fascinating situation Ongoing, but I finished last night putting the video together.

This is not the professional video We'll have nice professional high quality mp4s love nice professional

DVDs once we get them But it obviously takes time to Ship stuff and mail stuff, and this is only

Tuesday the debate was Saturday I brought my own personal cameras not high quality stuff

YouTube's 320 by 240 or whatever it is and so the quality is is more than sufficient for people to enjoy the debate

But hopefully not sufficient to mean that we will never sell any of these things because we obviously we invest a lot

That's that's how that's how we're doing We're doing right now and the lights are on and so on and so forth in the ministry

And it's interesting we sent Dan Barker the unedited master of the debate from the

University of Illinois And I searched the FFRF store Online today, it's not there

There's only one debate of all the debates. He's done that I can find For sale in that in that store just one with Gregory Boyd of all people so I Don't get it, but hey.

I I just invite everybody listen to the debate find out for yourself ask yourself the question who presented a meaningful argument here and Who was constantly contradicting himself?

I really think that Dan and of course and we've discussed this and he really has no defense for it, but prior to the

Debate the three of us Dan and I and the moderator went into the the hallway next to the sanctuary and We discussed the rules of debate and one of the things we discussed was the nature of cross -examination cross -examination

You're asking questions. You are not arguing you don't say well I don't think so because of this you ask questions exactly the same kind of conversation that took place between myself and Tim Staples in 2000 in Fullerton, California and just like Tim Staples once we got into cross -examination

At least in this case we can blame it on atheistic ethics Which has no foundation once you're an atheist you can do whatever you want and that's what

Dan did and he looked at me during cross -examination you can see it in the video and I pointed out that he was breaking the rules, and he said that's one rule.

I'm proud to break. There's atheistic ethics for you I Agree oh, I changed my mind.

That's atheistic ethics for you. It's immoral. It's wrong And it would make it difficult to ever debate the man again because if he can look you in the face and say this is

What we'll do and then just a few minutes later do something completely different well Can you really engage in a debate with someone like that?

I don't know As I said if I'm not gonna pursue debates with him But if a third party if some university students, it's only

I'd say hey, we're having Dan Barker in and He's gonna. You know go through his list of contradictions I'd be happy to go through that, but I would warn them ahead of time

Dan has made it very clear that the rules are malleable for him That he doesn't really have to stick with them.

He can change them as he sees fit because it's an atheist He doesn't rules don't have any binding power as far as that is concerned so as of this morning the second part of The debate was posted.

It's not perfectly divided It just didn't work as far as it takes a long time to put multiple gigabyte files together and Render them and stuff like that and so the first half is under an hour the second half is an hour and 37 minutes

I believe is what I recall saying this morning So not exactly divided exactly where it could have been but that's just the way that it came off the camera

And that's that's the way that we're working with so that is on YouTube the links are on the blog once we get the professional recording then we can

Rich can do his magic and make it all pretty and and stuff like that And if you want to show it to your college and career group and stuff like that that would be that would be great so I'm excited about that, but must mention.

Oh, yes the DVD from the previous one is now available So now available, and it's very pretty yes

Rich has spent much much work and and learned much much much To make the

DVD of the University of Illinois debate which was significantly less rancorous Than than this one

Dan Dan had family there, and he had a little group of rah -rah atheists over in the corner who were misbehaving as atheists tend to do and again, it's that atheistic ethics thing and so He purposely was seeking to offend

Christians And he made a number of statements that were I looked out the crowd and the Christians are like Well, he's certainly not trying to gain my attention

It is funny, I was listening to I was looking at the freedom from religion website and They have atheistic outreach

Atheistic outreach well, that's interesting offend the people you're trying to reach as much as possible, and that's atheistic outreach

No, they're looking for the people who are already wanting a reason to disbelieve That's what quote -unquote outreach is to them, and that's why there's such a major difference between how we approach things 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 the lines are full right now already

Amazing how many calls we have already, but I advertised that I was going to be dealing with this so everybody hold on and I'll get to you

But I I need to get to this as well wanted to give a brief discussion about the the debate

And then I wanted to get to Something as you may know we had spent a number of weeks

At least two full weeks. I would say dealing with the Beckwith George ecumenical

Dialogue and I felt it was important to do that It's it's needful to address these things and to focus upon the gospel in it

But in the midst of that I was directed to a fairly recently posted audio from Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel taking phone calls on his program and A woman calls in with a question about the golden chain of redemption in Romans chapter 8

What you're about to listen to I'm gonna play the whole thing for you, then I'll go back through it It's four and a half minutes a little over four and a half minutes long

And that's why I'm gonna play the whole thing so you can get the flavor of it remember that We have here the leader of a non -denominational denomination and He is the leader.

He is the unquestioned leader it is interesting that when you do not allow a

Group that claims to follow the Bible to seriously study what the Bible says about ecclesiology you end up with a traditional ecclesiology that's never biblical and so You you have a man who's in charge of many churches in essence and It makes you wonder you know who made him archbishop

There there are some real parallels between the functional Calvary Chapel ecclesiology As it exists in the

United States today and elsewhere and Roman Catholicism and other high church groups

Where you have people who have authority over others that New Testament never gives to anybody You have elders you have deacons.

That's it You do not have archbishops and you do not have Popes and and people like that But that's how

Chuck Smith functions in this non -denominational denomination and What you're gonna listen to is not only not only are

Calvinists going to be identified as cultists They're gonna be insulted But you are going to hear the most amazing

Ignorance on the part of all three people responding this this question on this program amazing ignorance

That they're willing to insult Calvinist But they are not willing to listen to what Calvinists say because you're gonna hear all the standard texts without any evidence whatsoever

That these men have ever seriously considered what the other side says about texts like first Timothy 2 for second

Peter 2 1 and The handling of the golden chain of redemption is the most shallow unbiblical

Let's just give somebody an answer To satisfy them type of argumentation that you'll ever hear and these are the leaders

That's why Calvary Chapel keeps producing reformed people Because they tell people

Read the Bible study the Bible learn the Bible But when they do they discover that their leaders will only go so far with the

Bible and when the Bible runs up against their traditions well so much worse for the Bible and So let's listen to this call and then

I want to comment on it And then we'll we'll get to our callers in the second half the program And because there's a lots different topics they have there, but let's say let's listen this call.

I have a question about Romans chapter 8 more specifically verses 28 and 30

Someone really close to me as recently has just become a Very very vocal five -point

Calvinist, and he uses these to kind of defend his oh yes And I don't really know what to say because they're really convincing verses for his arguments

And I don't know how to defend where I stand well you call the right place Kelly the golden chain of redemption They're Romans 8 20 to 30

Chuck your comment on it. Well of course whom he did foreknow He did also predestinate

What to be conformed to the image of his son, that's what's predestined and And they they're changing that to say well.

You know we've been predestined to be saved or lost That's not what it says it says whom he did for know he did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son

That's what God's purpose and plan is for you Is that we're conformed into the image of Jesus Christ and that he might be then the firstborn

Among many brethren and so whom he did predestined he called and whom he called he justified and whom he justified

He also glorified, but the predestination is to be conformed into the image of Jesus Brian well

Kelly you know I wouldn't necessarily recommend arguing with this person I would

Probably encourage you to just sort of back off a little bit, and you know

Because these guys get loaded up in some some ways They're kind of like cultist you know they sort of get a number of verses under their belt and they just argue around those verses and you know it can be discouraging to say the least but one of the points of Calvinism the third point is

Limited atonement and this all of the points have their problems, but this one is particularly problematic

And it contradicts the clear statements of scripture, but one that I would

I like to throw out to the Calvinist is 2nd Peter chapter 2 Where Peter refers to false teachers false prophets they bring in destructive heresies?

And then he says this even denying the Lord who bought them Now that would seem to say that Jesus purchased them with his blood

But it's clear that they are perishing so the idea that a limited atonement And it's an atonement only for the elect and the non elect were not atoned for It contradicts this statement here now when

I've brought this up to Calvinist. They tend to say well. That's a hard verse We don't really know what it means. Let's not talk about it of course.

It's a hard verse because it contradicts their Theory so but I'd like to stick with the

Bible and not with the Theories of these guys yeah, if you need another verse Kelly first Timothy 2 4 is one

I like speaking of the Lord Jesus who desires all people are all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth

Well if the Lord wants everyone to be saved then how come they aren't all saved something's keeping them from being saved isn't it?

And doesn't seem to be the Lord's will so somebody else has to get in the way there God is not willing

That any should perish, but that all should come to repentance so God is sovereign Yeah, you know and his will is going to be done.

Yeah, then why did Jesus have to come and die exactly? You know he's not willing that any should perish, but surely

There are people who perish so well, and you know with the Calvinistic view that man doesn't have a will there is

You know one will and it's God's will there is no free will How does that sit with the words of Jesus in John 540 when he said to them, but you are not willing to come to me so Jesus seemed indicated now indicate that they did have a will and it was because they weren't exercising their will properly that they were

Not going to be saved so and again We have to mention one more Matthew 23 Jerusalem Jerusalem How often

I would have gathered you as a mother hen gathers her chicks under her wing, but you wouldn't yeah You would not not you could not they did not they would not believe that assumes

They had a choice, and so if they have Jesus thought they had a choice. We're gonna stick with Jesus We believe they really had a legitimate choice, so anyway done.

Let me throw one more okay one John 717 oh yeah anyone wills to do his will he shall know concerning the doctor

Jesus said it right there. You know I've often said about Calvinism guys Calvinism is Christianity without Jesus because they leave

Jesus at the equation They just take certain statements of Paul, and then of course and read their own

Theology into it so okay boy would I love to debate those fellows on John chapter 6 We would see the same kind of self destruction that we saw in the

George Bryson debate These are these are men who will never expose themselves to the other side they will never expose themselves to actually interacting in a meaningful exegetical way

But what you just listened to was an ignorance fest I heard nothing

That indicated that these men have ever taken the time to find out what the other side

Says about any of these texts those of you who've read the Potter's freedom know that we've addressed every single one of these texts multiple times

And you've got the Cultists you know don't argue these people you know all they're trying to do they're not trying to seriously deal with the scripture

They're just throwing out their own proof text without any context that was showing any Knowledge of what the other side has to say so there are numerous errors there.

We're gonna run through them right now And this time I'll stop and start, but I want you to hear a whole thing So you could get the sense of just how dismissive and yet how shallow

This kind of presentation as this these folks will not represent the other side in any meaningful way

We show much more respect for them because we actually play everything they have to say I'd be happy to come on their program discuss these things, but We have to do it this way because only one side wants dialogue only one side wants to go to exegesis the other side wants

Monologue just listen to what we have to say believe we have to say and don't listen to those nasty Calvinist So let's let's listen again, and this time stop and start and to provide a response

I have a question about Romans chapter 8 more specifically verses 28 and 30 mm -hmm someone really close to me as recently has just become a

Very very vocal five -point Calvinist, and he uses these to kind of defend his oh yes

And I don't really know what to say because they're really convincing verses for his arguments Yeah They are very convincing verses because when you read them in context allow the text to flow and to speak for itself

They're they're extremely convincing now will Chuck Smith provide an exegesis of the context of Romans 8 that demonstrates.

It's not talking about the sovereignty of God and salvation remember let's Amazingly they didn't bother to actually read in the context

This was a classic example of proof texting and we know that God causes all things to work together

For good to those who love God to those who are called and of course you might want to stop and consider

What called means who are called according to his purpose who's called according to his purpose is that everyone mr.

Smith Is there a specific people here? Can we find other places where Paul specifically refers to the elect as a specific people in contra distinction to others well certainly?

He endures all things the sake of the elect Is just one of many examples For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to become conformed the image of his son definitely there

So that he would be the firstborn among many brethren who are these Many brethren what does it mean that he is the firstborn among many brethren is this is the brethren all people or isn't being first born among many brethren is that Jesus is

The leader the the one who leads up the company of the elect those who are saved

But it doesn't stop there because it says and those whom he predestined He also called what is calling are all people called and These whom he called he also justified isn't justification

Something to do with the gospel Isn't justification being saved and these whom he justified he also glorified only isn't only

The saved going to be glorified to be conformed the image of Christ called justified glorified that's salvation right

Will anyone who is not saved be conformed the image of Christ? Well of course not

It absolutely amazes me When these men can sit in front of microphones and say what does this isn't anything about salvation?

It's about being conformed the image of Christ and any old reprobate could be conformed the image of Christ, right?

well of course not that's like going to Ephesians chapter 1 and saying the elect one is Jesus and An election is just it's just being in Jesus Even though that ignores the grammar of the text and then well, you know that stuff about forgiveness of sins and his blood

We don't have to worry about all that pure eisegesis manhandling the text

No concern about handling the text accurately here at all It is truly amazing and I don't know how to defend where I stand

Well, you call the right place killing the golden chain of redemption there Romans 8 20 to 30 Chuck your comment on it

Well, of course whom he did for know He did also predestinate

What? To be conformed exact image of his son.

That's what's predestinated and And they're changing that to say well, you know, we've been predestined to be saved or lost.

That's not what it says Nope Nope, so somehow Being conformed the image of Christ has nothing to do with whether you're saved or not

Somehow you've you've shoehorned into this Well, what's he's really saying is that all God is predestined is that those who believe in Jesus would be conformed the image of Christ So they break up the chain

They ignore the fact that predestined continues in the next verse leads to called justified glorified and well, see we've answered it and They wonder

They wonder why so many of their people Who study the Bible end up leaving

When they won't deal with these things when this is the level of response that's offered It says whom he did for know he did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son

That's what God's purpose and plan is for you. Is that we're conformed into the image of Jesus Christ Wait a minute.

That's his purpose for you who? Implicitly he'd be having to be throwing their believers

He certainly couldn't be talking about other people. So if if if this is limited then how can the call?

Be limited since the call is universal in his theology You see just like John 6 these people cannot walk through this text consistently.

They can't do it but they're rarely put in a position where they have to and when you ask them to you become a troublemaker and how many people in the audience right now can tell you what happens when you start asking the tough questions of These types of folks and that he might be then the firstborn among many brethren

And so whom he did predestined he called and whom he called he justified and whom he justified

He also glorified but the predestination is to be conformed into the image of Jesus now notice

Doesn't touch the fact that what he just read So plainly states in any language in any translation

That this is a chain. It's all connected together It fits with what came before it fits with what comes afterwards afterwards

It's gonna talk about the elect and Christ dying with them and all that kind of stuff But no, no, no, no, no, we that's you're just getting too deep.

See When you when you do I just listen to what pastor Chuck has to say and move on from Brian Well, Kelly, you know,

I wouldn't necessarily recommend arguing with this person. I would yeah

Yeah, you don't you don't want it. You don't know that that's dangerous You need to you need to get away from any discussion of these things because we've seen what happens when that happens is

That people end up Finding out what the Bible is actually saying on this subject probably encourage you to just sort of back off a little bit and Because these guys get loaded up in some some ways they're kind of like cultist you know, they sort of get a number of verses under their belt and they just argue around those verses and Yeah, okay.

Well, so If you're going to call people if you're gonna say that people are acting in a cultic fashion

Then may I suggest that you at least accurately represent them? I mean, I think That that even our opponents except for the irrational ones

Even our clear -thinking opponents would agree that we have a long track record of demonstrating that we

Seek to fairly represent anyone when we say that they are wrong about something, you know

That's just so amazing about the Dan Barger situation right now. I don't like you posting that that video of my objection

People might get the wrong impression won't they get the wrong impression if we don't post the video of the objection

You know, we let people speak we're playing this whole clip played all the way through so you could hear the whole thing That's what we do around here

So I can I've got a firm foundation upon which to stand if you call say someone's acting like a cultist

Obviously I could sit here and say well Isn't it the cults that tell people to avoid? Others who might ask them difficult questions and isn't the cults that give this kind of surface level response and isn't the cults

That never listen to what the other side has to say and so they can give these these shallow responses to show no

Understanding of the exegesis that's offered these texts by other people Who study the original languages more than they themselves do and know more about the original languages and they isn't that cultic?

I Mean I could go that direction But I think it's just a whole lot more effective to just point out that the arguments they present are just fallacious

You know, it can be discouraging to say the least but one of the points of Calvinism the third point is limited atonement now notice

Now, let's just bash Calvinism. We we we don't want to stay with a golden chain of redemption because that's that's gonna cause major Difficulties for us.

So now let's just start throwing out some scattergun stuff here They didn't go through Romans 8.

They didn't provide any exegesis of Romans 8. All they did was well, here's how you can avoid it

That's the major difference between a Biblically exegetically sound presentation and someone abusing scripture and this all of the points have their problems

But this one is particularly problematic And it contradicts the clear statements of scripture, but one that I would

I like to throw out to the Calvinist is 2nd Peter chapter 2 Where Peter refers to now, let's see if this man gives any indication of Recognizing that our garage.

Oh here is not used with a price that would make it unusual Let's see if he knows anything about despot a sunny about Deuteronomy 32, or is he just gonna throw it out?

That the Atonement of Christ accomplishes nothing Outside of your edition of human faith. Let's just see if we're gonna throw the

Atonement under the bus forget about Hebrews 10 Forget about Hebrews 8 doesn't matter. Let's just let's just throw it on the bus

Does he show any? sense of having done any Serious study at all false teachers false prophets

They bring in destructive heresies and then he says this even denying the Lord who bought them

Now that would seem to say that Jesus purchased them with his blood, but it's clear that they are perishing

So the idea that a limited Atonement And it's an Atonement only for the elect and the non elect were not atoned for It contradicts this statement here now when

I've brought so any evidence there Any evidence at all that this man has taken any serious effort to find out?

What we say in response to this know the the attitude that I found amongst these folks whether it's amongst

Southern Baptist churches and Calvary Chapel churches, it doesn't matter is look these folks are the enemy and So what we need to do is we need to develop an apologetic against the enemy.

We don't care whether we correct them It's not the truth of God. That's At issue here.

We just need to find answers that will keep our people from considering these things, that's what

I hear and Listen to what he says not to septic Calvinist. They tend to say well, that's a hard verse

We don't really know what it means. Let's not talk about it. Oh, yeah, that's yeah, that's that's what

I've always done. Sure you bet I'm sorry, it's difficult to respect that kind of thing.

That's just absurd That's just I I haven't done my homework And so I'm gonna come up with something silly to say to make myself look better that I'm sorry

I don't know who this gentleman is, but that's that's just not even worthy. Of course. It's a hard verse because it contradicts their theory so but I like to stick with the

Bible and not with the Theories of these guys, you know, if you need another verse now, remember remember

I Like to stick with the Bible not these theories these guys He who does not recognize his own traditions is the slave of his traditions

He thinks he's just going with the Bible when he's going with Arminian traditions that totally overthrow any meaningful exegesis

Kelly first Timothy 2 for is one I like speaking of the Lord Jesus say who desires all people are all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the

Truth so here we're gonna go with the big three We're gonna get so first Timothy 2 for second Peter 3 9 Matthew 23 37, and I think

I'm gonna listen carefully I think they misquoted Matthew 23 37 again Many times have we documented that they can't even read the text right?

They're not even looking at the page anymore it's just all tradition and Again we simply ask are they gonna show any familiarity with the counter exegesis the context anything?

No, it's just quote the verse. Don't worry about the context. Just just just throw it out

Well if the Lord wants everyone to be saved then how come they aren't all saved something's keeping them from being saved

Isn't it and doesn't seem to be the Lord's will so somebody else has to get in the way there Yeah, we don't look at the

Old Testament all those places where God hardened people's hearts and stuff like that. No, no, no Let's be very simplistic here. God is not willing

That any should perish, but that all should come to repentance so God is sovereign Yeah, you know and his will is gonna be done.

Yeah, then why did Jesus have to come and die? I mean so I guess God isn't sovereign and his will isn't gonna be done because man is

Sovereign and his will will be done that seems to be the only other option being presented exactly you know He's not willing that any should perish, but surely

There are people who perish so well, and you know with the Calvinistic view that man doesn't have a will there is you know?

One will and it's God's will um why didn't anybody pipe up right there? Oh, no, no wait a minute brother brother

That's that's that's dishonest Calvinists do not say that man does not have a will now

We've caught George Bryson on that and here's a situation where something just it's just dishonest.

It's wrong. It's a lie But you repeat it enough times, and if and if pastor Chuck says that it must be true

It doesn't matter that you can go to all sorts of of reformed writings, and they'll say that man has a will

I mean, what's this Jonathan Edwards book on the will anyways who cares come on? Just because this has been documented to to be the case for hundreds and hundreds who cares

We'll just keep repeating these myths because they work How does someone get up in the morning and look at themselves in the mirror,

I don't understand it I don't I do not understand this kind of thinking I really don't

I'll never get it and God protect me from ever getting the point where I would engage in this kind of Activity I just I don't get it.

There is no free will How does that sit with the words of Jesus in John 540 when he said to them?

But you are not willing to come to me Indicate that they did have a will and it was because they weren't exercising their will properly that they were

Not going to be saved and maybe because their will is enslaved to a corrupt nature But again, just that's why

I said an ignorance fest just I'm not gonna listen to the side, but I'm gonna tell you you're wrong How do you get away with it?

I don't understand again And we have to mention one more 23 Jerusalem Jerusalem how often I would have gathered you as a mother hen gathers her chicks under her wing

But you wouldn't yeah, you wouldn't there it is. Did you catch it? They misquoted it again the same thing that started all this with Dave Hunt back in the day

How many people have we documented over the years that can not their tradition is so thick

They cannot even quote the text, right? It does not say how often would

I have gathered you but you would not it's not what it says Nowhere, does that say that is a perversion of Scripture how often

I want to gather your children together But you would not that's not the same thing as we have discussed so many times before But these folks do not have ears to hear

They they they've got their traditions and that's just all there is to it. There is a problem though Because if their traditions are that central that you can actually pervert the text of Scripture Then you are no longer preaching the

Word of God You cannot say what you're saying is the Word of God thus saith the Lord When you do not engage in meaningful exegesis not not you could not they did not they would not believe

That assumes they had a choice. And so if they have Jesus thought they had a choice. We're gonna stick with Jesus We believe they really had a legitimate choice

Okay, well after destroying what he said, we're gonna stick with you John 717.

Oh, yeah, anyone will Okay there again

Didn't deal with John 6 did you and you have to depend upon lying about Calvinist say they don't believe that we have a will and and Wow, what an incredible example of Gross eisegesis showing no respect for the text of Scripture and destroying every text you cited

That's not a good thing folks that is not a good thing To hear leadership doing that and I would invite you to Express that fact maybe in a contact to the folks at the leadership of Calvary Chapel because that was just that was just That was embarrassing

Absolutely positively embarrassing Unbelievable, let's try to get our phone calls real quick. Sorry But had mentioned the blog we're gonna discuss it need to discuss it let's talk with David in Delaware.

Hi David Hey, dr. White. I don't hey, I'm wondering how many Books did a

Dan Barker sell? I heard five. I heard he sold five of his ten Okay, I think that's probably that was probably from Christians who wanted to go.

Wait a minute. I want to see what's going on here What do you what is it in this book? Do you don't want to be the point of having some of those debates and even if you lose, you know

You get to talk a few more. I know you I guess I guess I was I'm still sitting here stuttering at the whole thing

I do have a question I don't want rich to think that I was lying to him about what this call is about It has to do with Islam Uh -huh, and I've noticed with your ministry and I've looked at a lot of the materials and I probably haven't looked at all

What I haven't noticed and I haven't seen this hardly anywhere else only a few guys are doing this is going after Islam in terms of the historicity of a lot of the claims a lot of times especially in the moral claims of like Muhammad people want to take the

History of faith value because it kind of shows how morally bankrupt Islam is but there are a lot of problems in the

Hadith and the Sira even in the Quran and I don't see many people or even in academia, you know secularist

They look at these accounts and say hey, you know, we got these other secular accounts that contradict this

You know the Hadith contradicts itself all over the place Doing that type of thing instead of accepting what

Muslims say is their narrative, you know is their own No, there's there's actually plenty of that. The problem is it's primarily practiced by the same kind of liberal scholars that would apply the same kind of standards to The New Testament or Old Testament or anything else and come to conclusions that it's all mythological

Supernatural by there's a there's a strong anti -supernatural bias now There are some that are dealing with those those subjects and you can in fact,

I mentioned a book on on the blog I just got in a few weeks ago, and I was looking again at last evening just briefly

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, which is very much along those lines and very very in -depth you can examine those things and I Just have been hopefully very consistent in warning my fellow apologists who do deal with the

Islamic area that we need to use the same standards in Whatever scholarship we're drawing from that we're demanding other people use in examining of ours now

The Muslims are not going to do that That is that is just a normal part of this situation is that the

Muslims are going to use double standards They it's part of their they don't think that's wrong. They think that's fine. We have to keep pointing it out

That's just part part and parcel of what you have to deal with but we who serve him who is the truth do not have the luxury to be inconsistent at this point and so when

I look at Naturalistic scholarship on the subject of Islam I have to try and it's not it's not an impossible thing to do but I have to try to differentiate between The facts that can frequently be gleaned from those studies and the conclusions that are frequently drawn from it and so yes, there's there's all sorts of work that can be done in the inconsistencies of the

Hadith and the Mechanisms by which they were collected and all sorts of issues like that all sorts of questions about The origination of the

Quran and things like that, but right generally In a especially in a in a in a debate you would really hardly even have time to even begin to develop

A foundation upon which to even even start making any any type of meaningful application Don't you think though at the street level that there is a difference though between Islam and Christianity in that way?

like if I were to give a background, let's say for a Gospel narrative or even a narrative from like let's say like the early church

There would be people probably very quick and willing to challenge that Outright that that's not true or what the context that I'm providing didn't happen yet.

Yeah, so people do that with the Quran It just it seems like it's accepted at face value, and I've noticed if you do challenge

Muslims on that They're so used to not being challenged that they look at you surprised like oh everybody believes the biographies like yeah

Yeah, when I was trying to set up a debate in Australia my debate opponent when

I Suggested the issue of the perfection of the Quran said why do I debate that we all believe it and I'm like well

That's the whole point So yeah, I know there's there's there is reason to to do that but the general reason that people immediately dismiss the gospel accounts things like that is because of a

General culture of disbelief and anti -christianity in the West and the fact that you know you can throw up Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan on the on the television every

Easter and every Christmas and you know your History of religions professor at your local community college is just gonna be assuring you that everything they have to say is gospel truth themselves so and I think a lot of people are just simply afraid to say anything about Muhammad given

What we know in Western culture, you know, that's a good way to lose your job or you know, so on so forth

I mean is that an area of where you could possibly be going? Oh is from a not a bias, but just a point where you could say, okay

I'm willing to ascend mentally that miracles can happen not necessarily as they did in this instant

But here are some as a consistent Christian. Here are some areas where I see major problems that I Truthfully could not reconcile and I don't see the same in my camp

Oh, yeah, certainly and and I think there are people that are doing that I think you'll you will find that kind of argumentation being presented by David and Nabil and Sam and others in in their debates.

I've seen Sam do some of that. I got to be honest and I know J Smith right at times he does that but it usually it's like a side note

It's kind of like well, we're looking at this, you know this narrative from you know There's still a lot of work to be done.

And and so you do have to have a higher standard. I mean Adnan Rashid will will read a book on Gnosticism and Quote the conclusions of a extremely biased scholar as if this is simply factual

This is you know, everyone just simply needs to believe this We have to try to avoid that just simply to be consistent with our own.

What is actual history? But I mean it seems it's easier to disprove and prove and I looked at some of the narrative the one that I have in mine right now is the

The the Christian delegation from right. Yeah, there's Yeah, yeah, but but you have you really have to be able to establish the the foundation is like that.

Hey David I've got a bunch of other stuff need to get to you. Thanks a lot for your call today all the way from Delaware Thank you very much.

Let's talk with Chaz. How you doing Chaz? I'm doing good. I appreciate your ministry. Dr.

White. Yes, sir Here's my question. I'm a pastor of a church in Mississippi and I appreciate

Old Baptist Confessions and you know, I'm of this stripe that I wish

Baptists would kind of reclaim their confessional history instead of you know Typic trumpeting the typical we're not creedal people mantra that I think to hear a lot, right?

but for me the Baptist faith and message seems a little light and Ambiguous on a lot of issues and so I'm looking for something that's a little more specific and got teeth

Into it and 1689 London Baptist Confession, obviously does that my question is concerning chapter 22 article 8

I'm concerned the language in this goes too far and I wanted your thoughts on it it's on religious worship in the

Sabbath day says the Sabbath is kept holy unto the Lord and You prepare your hearts or your common affairs beforehand and observe the holy rest all day and then you abstain basically from worldly employment and Recreations and are taken up it says the whole time in public and private exercises of worship and And in the duties of necessity and mercy and I guess my question is if I affirm this confession

With which I agree with almost everything else that said but after attending to corporate worship services

Having time of family worship time. Can I not go fishing with my kids on Sunday afternoon?

Can I not play Uno with my family? Can I not watch a football game? What exactly is that saying and is it going too far?

Well, I'm not going to make any claims to any expertise on that particular subjects.

Not really my area I've actually tried to avoid it because it has caused so many Divisions and things like that.

So I'm going to disappoint you on that level. I There there are two primary views In regards to the issue of Sabbath keeping one is the

Puritan view and the other is the Continental view I would recommend you're reading the Both sides of that particular issue that represents the the

Puritan perspective Rather than the Continental view in regards to what the

Sabbath is and how it's how it's fulfilled. I think that there's also the issue of Works of necessity and works of mercy and things like that.

I'm not sure if that's mentioned in a previous portion of that particular chapter but Clearly there are differences in understanding what that what that means as to whether that precludes when it says worldly entertainments

Well, what does that mean? Does that mean something that is anything other than church?

Does that mean something that would distract you from the continued consideration of God's goodness during the day something like that?

There's different ways that that's been understood. I'll be honest with you Chaz. It's not my area and It's just you know

You can only do certain things so well and that's just not an area that I that I focus on so I guess my question is

I mean just using basic rules of hermeneutics is I mean is there any way to read that?

without coming out at the end of it is what this belief says what this is stating is that you you don't

I mean I Guess I'm just struggling with the actual words that the way it's phrased.

Yeah, it would it would seem to be reflecting a Puritan understanding but again, like I said

To answer that question. You would have to look into the confessions from which it was drawn the people who put that together and To be honest with you.

I just haven't done that section That's that's not an area that I that I focus on so I really can't be of any assistance to you there

Are you familiar with another? Confession that is more confidential and perspective that maintains many of the other doctrinal standard on no

That's not my area. So I wouldn't they wouldn't be comparing confessions on that subject. I apologize.

So thanks. Thanks for calling Let's talk with Daniel. Hi Daniel Hey, dr.

White, how you doing good? I Had a question about actually some tenets of reformed theology.

I've recently While back on your YouTube channel, you planted some seeds and Read RC Sproul's book race unknown that shook me up and then read

Chosen by God left me squirming and then I read chosen but free and that just kind of destroyed all the

Really actually hit home in the inconsistency of many of those positions I love it and it just emphasized it all the more

And so I guess I have one question just kind of wondering. I know this is not a problem.

That's specific to reform theology, but wondering what What positions would be on original sin?

So we sin because we are sinners But the original sin would there be a position there on the explanation of that first original sin?

well original sin is more of a reference and not so much to the Event of the first sin as it is to the fact that we as the offspring of Adam because of his federal headship of the human race are constituted sinners thereby so original sin is is

Really has to do with how sin is transmitted in the sin nature and things like that not so much any question concerning how the original first sin was was committed, so there would be a major difference between reformed theologians and non reformed theologians as To God's knowledge of sin.

I mean open theists are going to say that God didn't know that man would sin He he knew as a possibility, but he didn't know

Though historically Arminian theologians recognized that when God created since he knew

Perfectly all of future events when he created it was his will to create in such a way that sin would exist

So you have to ask yourself the question. Why then would that be and how does it come about that sin could be a reality that is

Certain from God's perspective, etc. Etc. So how they answer that by throwing it off on foreknowledge or Things like that's going to be different But the reality is not going to not going to be different as far as an

Arminian theologians considered at that point the the general answer that that mankind gives down to the ages is well, it's all a matter of It's all a matter of man's free will but that doesn't actually answer the question

Because if God knows what man is going to do then The question still remains when he created was that part of his will or not so is is are there things in time that are not a part of God's creative decree and Who then is responsible for those things?

And how does God say he's going to bring good out of that? Which was not a part of his creative decree in the first place so there's there's all sorts of questions that that go into that and I really think that open theism is a

Consistent form of Arminian ism. The problem is it is an inconsistent form of theism So that's that's where you you end up with the trade -off at that point well, and the second question

I'd have I began to deal with the issue of that What I perceived is the justice of God unconditionally electing and then finally came to the point of if this is what scripture states and I have to submit to the sovereignty of God there and trust in his grace and trust in the fact that he is ultimate good and That he's just and but a second question kind of arose from that that may even just be wrong headed in the direction to begin with and it's

I guess dealing with the principle of what if I Had not been elect. What if I had what if God had not chosen me and perhaps the entire question is wrong headed to begin with But I wondered if you how you would tell someone

What would be a biblical perspective of the way they should look at that question? What if you hadn't been elect?

What? Well more along the lines if Acknowledging that it's by God's sovereign grace that I was even able to choose

Christ Then acknowledging dealing I guess dealing with the

Maybe emotional aspect of if it if it had not been for God, I Literally would not have chosen

Christ. And so we can Hello Hello Daniel, oh

Man, what's that? Did you cut him off? Oh, there he is. Oh rich cut you off.

It's all his fault. I'm pointing pointing pictures fingers at rich So I'm still

I'm still a little lost and maybe you said what I needed to hear right as you got cut off I don't know but I'm not sure what the question is.

Yes, if you were not electing you you would not have believed. I'm Missing what the question is,

I guess correct. And so I guess Scripturally, what would you tell a person who's having an issue?

Who's dealing with that trying to You Know the possibility that they could not have been that it could have been that they would not have been saved well, they've got one either when neither would they have wanted to so The it's not that you have innocent people who

Are being forced to be disbelievers What you have are guilty sinners who are being curbed in the expression of their sinfulness, first of all, right?

And they're not going to have the desire to submit to Christ and so I'm not sure what the what the the question is because they're not going to have a desire to do those things in the first place well,

I guess I guess the consistency there is Getting used to the change the changing of that perspective the assumption that we could have chosen

Christ on our own Yeah John 6 no one is able to come to me unless father sent me draws him

I mean, yeah, it is right if that's right If it's always been pounded into your head that you know Jesus is just standing there and really hoping and we've all got this capacity in and of ourselves.

Yeah it sort of is the The the kick in the gut that you get when when you hear someone say the real question is not what will you do

Jesus? But will Jesus do with you? That really does turn the perspective a great deal and and yet all you got to do is just keep reading the

New Testament and you'll keep running across it Expressed over and over and over again. And and so it's a matter of constant exposure to the word at that point.

So But yeah Being consistent on that application. Well, thank you very much for your time.

Okay. Thanks Daniel. God bless. Bye Bye, let's sneak one one one more in here real quick as he's calling all the way from down I was down in Australia.

How you doing Ryan? I'm doing all right Ring and thank you very much for your ministry and Unfortunately, I'm laboring under a

Calvary that the Calvary Chapel ministry myself at the moment There's a you better hope you better hope you better hope they're not listening mate

Yeah, no, I mean it's a good church, but and I can't complain about it but Yeah, it's certainly hard in that respect that I mean that particular clip that you just played is just infuriating

And that's some of the things that I have to deal with all the time Yeah But I'm just about at the stage where I'm gonna take that clip and I might even submit that to my pastor

It could be in the end. I might I might be showing the door after that. Yeah. Yeah. Well there you know

Let's let's face it There are some some some Calvary Chapel pastors who have stood up and and tried to buck the trends

I can think of a few right now. It's it's not easy because there is a pretty overarching authority structure there

But there are there are great people in the Calvary Chapel movement. They keep running across what the Bible says and It causes the very difficulties that you're facing

Chuck speaks extra Cathedral and you know, it's very very difficult to Try and convince these guys also wanted to thank you very much for ruining my

McDonald's experience So now every time I go to McDonald's, I always think about how you're getting larger portions over there.

Thank you very much. Oh My goodness are we ever let me tell you something

Just For you Ryan, I'll maybe I'll go out and get a nice big huge Angus burger for lunch today just to just for you

If God finds unjust scales and abomination is that I'm just wondering if all the McDonald's restaurants are gonna come under the wrath of God It was it was a culture shock at that point, but it's you're probably healthier for it to be perfect I did enjoy.

I love my time down there. Your people are wonderful people beautiful land. I'm looking forward to getting a chance to get back there Well, they were we had folks from Melbourne talking to me and folks from New Zealand and so We've got contacts in Sydney and Brisbane again as well.

So I'm not sure but What's that there's this rather large portion, there's this rather large portion of the continent called

Western Australia as well where I'm calling from the most isolated capital city in the in the world, but Certainly love to get you over here.

I mean, well, maybe that'll maybe that'll happen But if we can get enough folks over there in Perth or something together, we could do it

So we'll we'll try to make it happen. Thanks for your call Ryan Thank you very much. All right. God bless. Bye.

Bye. I Had to get Ryan in there so I could practice my my Australian accent again for a while So everybody's told me that my

Australian accent English accent and Scottish accent all the same, but they're not very clearly they're not so Yeah, Italian and Pakistani, yeah

Well, all right. Well, that was another eclectic dividing line a little bit of everything but hopefully of use to you

Certainly probably offended all sorts of folks, but that's that's what happens when you speak the truth

We will be back Lord willing on Thursday afternoon here on the dividing line more your calls or discussion of the truth of God We'll see you then

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries If you'd like to contact us call us at six.

Oh two nine seven three four six zero two or write us at p .o Box three seven one zero six Phoenix, Arizona eight five zero six nine

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 this