Australia Trip Report

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 a live Dividing Line on the one day of this month, basically, that I'm home.

I got back yesterday afternoon from Sydney, Australia, and leave tomorrow morning.

First thing, looking forward to seeing everybody tomorrow evening in New Orleans. Please pray that my flights make it on time because normally don't speak on the same day

I travel, but doing that tomorrow and so, you know, when there's flight cancellations or issues like that, that could cause some problems.

But anyhow, we are to be speaking on Islam A to Z tomorrow night and Thursday night in New Orleans.

See the nice, very nice banner ad. Thank you very much, Hasim, king of graphics. And then

Friday, Saturday and Sunday, leaving Nolens and again, all the information's on the website if you want to look at the banner ads.

If you actually look at them long enough to allow them to scroll through, basically. And so this very, very, very, very busy time, which finally ends for me

Monday afternoon, continues on. So I just brought my luggage home, opened it up, dragged the clothes out, threw them in the washing machine.

Actually, very thankfully, I've been married for almost 30 years, so somebody else did that for me. But I will just basically repack all that stuff and head back out in the morning, which is a challenge.

But we will. We will press on. You may notice a little bit of huskiness in my voice, not nearly as bad as it was last week in Australia and as I'm sure it will be by the end of the weekend down south.

But feeling fighting it and feeling a little bit better, had a pretty decent flight back as as any flight of I think they said it's a little bit faster going back than it is coming out.

So it's only about 13 hours on the way back. So I had a little turbulence at one point that somehow ended up in a dream.

That was interesting. I knew we were in turbulence, but I didn't actually wake up from it.

That's the joy of those long flights. But wanted to thank very, very much everyone involved.

I'm scared to start naming names because then you skip people. But there were just so many people that made the time in Australia worthwhile, both in Sydney and Brisbane, and especially

David Old and his wife. My wife got to go out for about four days, sort of in the middle of things.

And as she says, we do working vacations. I work, she vacations. And David's wife and Kelly got to go do things that are fun in Sydney.

And for example, she did the Harbour Bridge climb, which I would never do ever in my life because if I can see through the stairs or if I can fall off of it,

I don't like it. But she's not afraid of that kind of stuff. So she went and did all that kind of stuff and had a great time.

And so I very, very, very much appreciate that. Of course, poor David had to do so much work taking care of me and all my many, many needs as he reminded me more than once.

But anyways, you may remember David. He was on the program this last summer when he came by and told us all about the few surviving conservative

Anglicans down there in Sydney and Moore College and places like that. And so he,

I got to, well, he even tried to make me feel guilty about not coming over one night to play with the kids.

And I mean, oh, it's just, but we have a lot of dirt on the other ones. So I won't go into that on the program right now.

But excuse me, we had a lot of fun and he had to do a lot of work.

And I bribed his kids with hot chips. Yeah. That's what, you know what hot chips are? Those are called

French fries. Yeah. Hot chips or French fries. And when you have young kids in the backseat,

French fries and McDonald's are tremendous bribery mechanisms.

Anyway, if once we get, well, if you hear, in fact, am

I correct that after the program? Okay. After today's program, we will be playing the audio of the debate with Abdullah Kunda from the

University of New South Wales, which took place a week ago yesterday. And so you can stay tuned and listen to that right here on the

Dividing Lines stream. And I think you'll find it to be a very useful and a very cordial and respectful debate.

And I think it'll definitely explain some of the fundamental and foundational issues.

I was very, very pleased with it and I hope you will enjoy it as well. And you will hear

David's sonorous tones as he moderated the, well, didn't moderate the debate, but he, what did he do?

He introduced the debate. The moderator had to do almost nothing other than sit there and threaten to ring a bell.

And that's all she had to do during that particular debate because Abdullah and I obviously have debated before and it was very, very respectful.

So we will, you will get to hear that right after the Dividing Lines today. I will be playing a brief portion of it during the

Dividing Lines as well, just one question. And we will go from there.

I was going to play more than that, but then I thought, you're going to be listing the whole thing. So there's no reason to do that. So my tremendous thanks to David Old and Craig, the rector there at Neutral Bay, St.

Augustine's, St. Augustine's Anglican Church there in Neutral Bay in Sydney.

And all the folks there had a great time with them up at their, their get together. I don't even know where the place was, but it was down near the water and I discovered that they have cockatoos or cockatiels, whatever they are, big, huge, honking.

I mean, these are the biggest ones I've ever seen and they're in the wild and they are the loudest things

I have ever heard flying over my head. I mean, like a 747, except much more obnoxious, just incredible.

And those were very, very interesting things to experience out there in the wild and a beautiful place.

And then I spent three days with, with mainly folks from Egypt recording 19 television programs, which will be cockatoos, okay, which will be put into two

DVDs. One's called The Renewed Mind and we talked about Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and gay marriage and a bunch of stuff like that.

And then we did a bunch of stuff on Islam, which will be on Midnight Cry. And they said they'll be sending those to us, so we may be able to make them available.

I don't know what we're going to do with them, but 19 programs in the middle of the week.

That's while, that's when my wife got to go do other things other than sitting there watching me do television programs, which would have bored her to absolute tears.

And then I took a flight up to Brisbane and that Friday evening, the debate with Roger Perkins, I want to thank everybody that was involved up in Brisbane.

There's two different churches up in Brisbane, Craig Ireland and his folks did the debate and then

I was with them Sunday morning. And then in between time on Saturday, I did a family camp with Craig and David DeMoor and all the guys that I was with two years ago.

You may remember, well, some of you might remember that Phil Johnson and I were with them two years ago and did a conference at that time.

And so everybody was involved and, you know, there were the folks at the TV studio were running out and finding guafenicin for me because I was starting to get sick and my, you know,

I just never gave my throat, my voice a break, just never did.

I spoke Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and for hours, not just 45 minutes, but like before the

Abdullah Kunda debate, I did two hours of lecture at Moore College. And so, you know, with all the speaking you do during the debate, before the debate, after the debate,

I mean hours and hours and hours of just constant use the voice and then 19 television programs and another debate and, you know, it eventually just caught up with me.

And, you know, you look like you're zoning into the next universe out there, Probie, especially with that huge Arby's thing that you're munching on, that's great.

No, no, no, no, that's, I do not want to hear you talking with your mouth full. No, you just, you just keep eating away. You need all that protein that you can get.

Anyway, so many, many thanks to everybody. Some reports, I blogged from Brisbane about the two debates and there really couldn't be more of a contrast.

I didn't even bring up, evidently, Roger Perkins has written some type of response that has been posted on the net.

I saw the first few paragraphs of it earlier today, a response to my article on a tale of two debates.

And I'm going to play some of the cross -examination with Mr.

Perkins. Now, all I have of the Perkins debate is what was recorded on my pen.

Yes, my pen, I have a live scribe pen. And some of you have heard of live scribe pens.

I am not a paid spokesperson or an unpaid spokesperson. But I, Ralph just said, read the

Perkins response, didn't get the vibe of it. I'll explain that later. I'm not sure,

I think I did explain to Ralph. If you hear it, if you hear it, silence, it's because I'm coughing. That's just how it works.

I think I did explain in channel the vibe thing and the dreamin' thing. But I may explain that again,

I don't know. Anyhow, I will play a section of the cross -examination from my live scribe pen.

If any of you have students in high school or college,

I cannot think, honestly, I'm saying this absolutely seriously, I cannot think of a greater tool for a student than a live scribe pen.

I really can't. My daughter may be going back to school, and so she may not listen to this.

But if that's the case, I know what I need to get her for Christmas, because there is just nothing more useful than I can imagine.

And so I have on my Mac in the other room, which is currently transferring to another

Mac in the other room, all of the notes from both debates on my computer in my own handwriting.

However, I can take my mouse and click anywhere in my handwritten notes, which are on the screen, and it will play what was being said at that time during the course of the debate.

And that's how I have the cross -examination available to me, even though we have not yet received the much more high -quality recordings, because this will be a recording from my pen, so I'm much easier to understand than Mr.

Perkins is, because I was closer to my pen than he was, for obvious reasons. But that's how

I have that, is I have that in case anyone, it hasn't happened yet, but in case someone says something during a debate, and then they go back and say,

I never said that. I could actually stop it. If I've got a microphone, hold it down next to the pen, go back and click on what

I was writing at the time, and it will replay exactly what was being said. And that's why

I've got it. So I think it's pretty cool. Anyway, so I will play some of that.

Tale of two debates. Most of you know, if you are a listener to this program, that we spent a lot of time reviewing a number of debates.

We reviewed a major portion of the Perkins -Slick debate, major portions, we played all of the

Perkins -Reeves debate, and reviewed opening statements and some rebuttal in both days.

And of course, we did the same thing with Abdullah Kunda's debates, a major debate on Trinity and Tawhid between Abdullah Kunda and Samuel Green, who

I got to meet down there in Australia as well. Do you know he's from Tasmania? You know, Tasmania actually exists, but I'm not sure if they have

Tasmanian devils there. That's the only thing it's famous for amongst Americans. But anyway.

And as I mentioned in the blog article, it was amazing the completely opposite reactions of the two debaters to my reviews.

One debater chose to listen to what

I had to say, hear what I had to say, evidently accept correction when needed, and understand the insights provided on a subject where, look,

I take the time to listen to Muslim scholars lecturing on Tawhid.

And I want to understand how various Islamic groups understand

Tawhid. Okay. They're the experts on it. I need to learn from them.

So I listen and learn. When it comes to the doctrine of the

Trinity, Abdullah Kunda is a Muslim. I have written on this subject.

And so he was the wise one to go, it would be good for me to listen.

There may be things I can learn. I can increase in my understanding of where you're coming from. Can dialogue more effectively, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

That makes sense. That's doing the same thing in reverse that I do looking that direction in essence.

And so I got no feeling that Abdullah took offense.

There were times I said, no, you're wrong in my reviews. I said, no, I'm sorry. For example, his, you know, we didn't talk about this, but his view of the woman touching

Jesus's garments and Jesus turning around, you know, I took strong exception to Abdullah's comments on that.

And I just don't think it's even close to a meaningful reading of the text. But he could have very easily chosen to be offended by everything

I said. You said negative things about my position and, you know, could have just simply chosen to be offended at the whole thing.

And the result would have been a less than cordial, meaningful debate, but he didn't.

And the result, as you will see from the debate, I think was very, very useful.

I would be happy to have any Muslim view and listen to the debate because I am confident that they will feel that the topic was addressed with adequate depth and respect and cordiality and everything else.

And so that's what I wanted. And that's what I said from the beginning. Why am I doing this? So that we can have better debates.

So we can have more in -depth debates so that we don't have to deal with all the straw men and the false argumentation and we're really talking to each other and so on and so forth.

However, the polar opposite was the case with Roger Perkins.

And Roger Perkins chose to be offended at everything

I said. He chose to interpret everything as ad hominem. Evidently, if you're in the oneness camp, if someone says you are factually wrong about X, Y or Z, that is ad hominem argumentation.

And you're attacking somebody and he is not the first person.

Rich was mentioning that we have a fellow who calls. He's actually called the program once or twice. And he just seems to have a perennial chip on his shoulder.

I mean, he's in constant overdrive emotional mode.

And if you even want to try to talk to the guy, you've got to talk him down off the roof before you can even start having any meaningful conversation with him.

And evidently, this is just part of, for many, oneness Pentecostal is just the mindset of this just constant in -your -face type thing.

And so it was very, very odd. He had flown in four days before he needed to be there.

I guess he was deathly afraid of jet lag. And so he got there on Monday and the debate was on Friday.

He did nothing all week. He did absolutely nothing all week and really required a fair amount of looking after, shall we say, on the part of his hosts, something

I try to keep to a minimum as much as I can when I am traveling. But anyways, in the course of the debate, it became very, very clear that Mr.

Perkins was there to, in essence, defend himself by not so much engaging the subject, but by defending himself and oneness theology in general by making accusations against me.

For example, he numerous times said that he had examples where he, for example, he says,

I misquoted Moulton Milligan. He never gave us an example. Did anyone notice, did he finally say where this allegedly was?

Because look, every time I've looked up Roger Perkins' use of scholarly materials, I've found it to be an error.

So I can't even guarantee things like that.

But you can't even respond to that kind of thing. He just throws that stuff out there.

I found that to be extremely, well, that would have disqualified him at that point.

Here it is. I can't even,

I don't even have Moulton Milligan in the room right now, but evidently that was put in there. So I'll look it up and be happy to respond to it.

Anyways, he threw this stuff out and it was just a sad example of choosing not to take all that time and focus your arguments.

Because look, remember we even listened to where Perkins mentioned, when

Mr. Reeves, remember when Perkins made reference to the Savin debate?

And evidently from what I've been told, Perkins has little respect for Savin, which

I found interesting. But anyways, and he mentioned the Savin debate. So he knows of the

Savin debate. Everybody on that side knows of the Savin debate. What did I say in this program?

I specifically said that I would be presenting pretty much the same material that I did in that debate.

And I did, I presented pretty much the same texts. I didn't do them in the same order. I had to cut things back because as I recall,

Savin wanted these huge, what was it, 45 minute? I think they're like 45 minute opening statements or some incredible thing like that.

And so I had to cut back a little bit. I had to go through it a little bit faster than I did, but I presented the same material.

So he knew exactly what I'd be doing. So if he really, really, really wanted to respond to me, if he really wanted to refute what

I had to say, all he would have had to have done was to provide a meaningful counter -argumentation from the texts.

That's all I had to do. And is that what he did?

Unfortunately, no, that isn't what he did. And in fact, he just left responding to Philippians 2, 5 through 11 and these other things for later in the debate or during cross -examination.

He didn't provide any meaningful exegesis because I am absolutely positively convinced that he cannot engage the text on that level.

I am absolutely convinced that Mr. Perkins, while he will say in his debates,

I can tell you about Diyah with a genitive. I think if I showed Roger Perkins a line of Greek that had

Diyah with a genitive and he couldn't even find Diyah with a genitive in it, he doesn't know what it is. I don't believe he can read the

Greek alphabet. I don't believe he can pronounce Greek words. I don't believe he knows anything about Greek grammar. And don't even start on Hebrew.

He just doesn't know these things. He's going on secondary sources and tries to make up with bluster what he lacks in training.

And that came out very, very clearly in the cross -examination. Which I'll play a portion of later on.

And so as a result, one of the two debates was what I had hoped for.

It showed respect for the audience. We set a standard for how these things could take place.

The other did not. I cannot do any more than I did for both of my opponents in laying out for them exactly what it is

I'm going to say and exactly what it is we need to be discussing. One had ears to hear, the

Muslim. One did not, the guy who claims to be a Christian. I'm not sure what that means.

But it is a fascinating commentary. It really, really is a fascinating commentary.

So let's start. Sometime in November, probably late

November, I'm going to be doing a radio program with a fellow by the name of Patrick Navas.

Mr. Navas is an anti -Trinitarian Unitarian who, together with Dan Magus, was on the

Gene Cook Show a number of years ago. Both went to master's college and both are now anti -Trinitarian

Unitarians. And one of the things that was confusing about listening to the

Gene Cook program, which I listened to this morning again while writing, was that I couldn't always tell who was talking.

They didn't identify themselves. They both have very similar voices and they were on the phone. So it was a little bit confusing as to who was taking what position.

But at least one of them was a person who doesn't believe in hell, open theist, anti -Trinitarian.

And I'm not sure exactly where the other one was. But one thing

I did find very, very interesting was how many times the arguments being used by the

Unitarians were the same arguments that Abdullah Kunda had presented. Very similar.

So right toward the end of the program, I think this was Patrick Navas asking

Gene Cook a question. Listen to this question. And then

I'm going to play the last question that Abdullah asked me and see if you don't see an interesting parallel.

It's difficult to make a case on a statement like that. I have one question I'd like to just present. Maybe it's kind of a final question.

I see that time is running out. Just curious how you would answer this question. It's claimed, as we talked about before, that the

Trinity doctrine itself is necessary to accept to be saved according to the classical orthodox position.

My question is simple. But the question I've always had and it's kind of always driven me to pursue the issue is why, if in fact that doctrine is so crucial and in fact required for us in order to be saved, why, in your opinion,

Gene, why do you think that the Bible writers never made it a point to teach it in a clear way in the same sense that they teach other doctrines?

For example, Jesus, he's the Messiah. God sent him into the world to save us. That God raised him from the dead.

Those are all doctrines and concepts that the scriptures teach not only clearly but they emphasize so that anybody who reads the

Bible, you don't need or require a class in theology to understand those concepts because they're taught directly.

Why do you think, in the case of the Trinity, a unique concept distinguishes mainstream

Christianity from other beliefs? Why do you think and why is it that the writers of scripture never made it a point to directly teach us that?

So there's the question there. Now, I don't think there's any collusion here.

But here is the very end of Avdolakunda's cross -examination of me and I tell you what

I'm going to do is, well, we're going to play all this. So, well, anyways, here's the question.

The idea that you put forward when words like or terms like God -man are not present in the

New Testament or the Old Testament, for that matter, when, you know, it's a historical reality that the idea of God taking on a temporal form was repugnant to, you know,

Jews in the Greek period and therefore the time that Jesus came. I mean, has God not made it extremely difficult for us and basically asking us to accept it?

Well, yeah, this contradicts with that but if we put it together we can only marry it in one way and that's just what we need to accept.

Now, isn't that interesting? That's pretty much the same question. They both said the same thing and that is, well, you know, why is it so difficult?

Why isn't there just a nice clear creedal statement? You know, if this is so central and I'll just briefly play my brief response to him.

No, I don't think God has made it difficult. In fact, Abdullah, I pray regularly that when the spirit of God moves upon your heart you'll find it to be very easy.

I really do and I do not say that in a flippant way. I do not say that in a flippant way.

I do honestly, I can honestly say that I have prayed for Abdullah Kunda and I respect him.

He's about the same age as my son, so. But in answer to the questions they only have allegedly 19 seconds but give me just a little bit of leeway there.

I do not believe that God has made it difficult. What I do believe is that God requires us to believe all that God says.

And as you said, my argument is there are three biblical teachings. There's one God, the distinction of persons and the equality of persons.

I think from your perspective you have to believe everything that God has said in the

Quran. I'm simply saying, if God has said it all we believe it. Could it be more conveniently stated?

Well, maybe in a western mindset, maybe. But I think there's something beautiful in the fact that it has been revealed in God's activity with his people and in the way that it's revealed in Scripture rather than, well, to be perfectly honest with you

I don't find a printer manual overly compelling or anything like that. It might be easier to look it up but I'm glad God hasn't revealed it that way.

So there was my response to that question with Abdullah and then

I had my 12 -minute closing statement and then he had his. He did liken my closing statement to a 12 -minute sermon.

And I suppose in some sense, you know, come to think of it I just realized even though we are playing this afterwards we won't be playing as a part of the regular dividing line rotation.

So it would be okay, I think, if I played that because that's what will be heard farther on down the road.

So I did want to do that. But before I do that I do want to, let's even see if this is listenable because I'm not sure that it is.

It's amazing how things can sound in earphones in comparison to when it goes out.

I want to play a few minutes of the cross -examination with Roger Perkins the first cross -examination

I had where I'm attempting to get him to deal with the text of Philippians 2, 5 and following because that's what

I presented as really the heart of my presentation. And that is that the son as a divine person pre -existed his birth in Bethlehem and here is evidence thereof.

So let's go ahead and listen to a few minutes of this and I'll try to leave enough room to make sure to get to my closing statement and maybe a little bit more with Abdullah Kunda.

But here's hopefully understandable. I will be louder and I suppose

I'll have to explain this or I'm going to get accused of something. I will be louder and more understandable than Mr.

Perkins in this recording because the recording is coming from my pen which is lying on the desk in front of me and he is about 10 feet farther away from my pen and therefore you will not be able to hear him as well.

We aren't trying to doctorate or anything else. I'm sad to have to even make that kind of comment but that seems to be the mindset of certain people.

Here's my interaction with Roger Perkins.

All right, thank you very much. Mr. Perkins, could you please tell us who is performing the actions of the

Firds, Hegeseta and Ekenosen in Philippians 2, 6 -7 and when they were performed.

But Philippians 2, 5 -9, I have to say to you yourself it was also in Christ Jesus, the name of the historical

Messiah. Referring back to Christ Jesus, although he, who,

Christ Jesus, manifested himself in the form of God, nothing there about a second individual, did not require a partnering with God or anything of the kind.

Who is that referring back to is the Messiah, so based upon these words,

Christ Jesus which Paul used in every verse always referring to the historical

Messiah that all deserve. I asked for two verbs,

Hegeseta in verse 6 and Ekenosen in verse 7, the term means to empty literally.

Could you please tell me, are you saying that the historical Messiah did not consider the equality he had with God something to be grasped but emptied himself?

Could you explain when this happened, please? Well, I'm just answering that, I'll go again, it was the historical

Messiah who walked this earth, though he was in the form of God, he did not have any

NSV footnotes this year, he made a sign of divine privilege, he did not retain and rightfully grasp all of his divine prodigies as being in the form of God.

The word morphaic can be as a body, as an external entity, as faith, so I would say that he would...

I'm still not getting an answer. When did the action, when did the action of Kena 'o in verse 7 take place?

If you're saying it's during the human ministry, when during the human ministry of Jesus? As you may,

I don't want you to kneel down and say exactly what this is describing.

I mean, if you want a millisecond, I can give you that millisecond. So you just said it's describing the

Incarnation, which is what I said, but I thought you just said this is actually describing Jesus' human ministry.

How did he divorce the Incarnation from his human ministry? What is the Incarnation? Could you please explain to us how

Jesus, the Messiah, was equal to God if he was

God? What does it mean to be equal with God?

Because this is what he does not consider something to be held on to. How was the human

Jesus equal with God? Because he was God in human existence.

He was God in flesh. Okay. So how would this be an example then of humility?

Are you saying that God did not give consideration to being equal with God?

Jesus is God in the flesh. So I know you're asking me a question.

I don't understand what kind of a thing it would be for Paul when he says, let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God.

That's how it's an exhortation to humility. Jesus Christ is

God in the flesh and he is our example as God. Well, I know that's your position, but I haven't gotten an answer yet for what it means for the text to say that he did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped.

What does that, how is that related to his humility if he did not lay that aside?

The first part you're getting is you're just not getting the answer that you want, but still it is. The answer is uneven.

God in Jesus is God in the flesh. Paul is not telling us that he would say something that God did in heaven but in eternity.

What kind of thing would that be? But he's telling us to imitate the Messiah. Could you explain the use of the reflexive pronoun at the beginning of verse seven?

Hey, Alton, he emptied himself. Who is the specific subject of the verb?

Who does this act of emptying? Christ Jesus, the Messiah himself, through all of he, referring to Christ, he lifted in the form of God did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, the reflexive pronoun, is still talking about the

Messiah. It is not good talking about the Messiah.

Okay, so what was involved in the Messiah emptying himself that would be related to equality with God?

How did Jesus do that? In the sense that he was God. He was God in the flesh, and he rightfully had his body brought in to get anybody to his side, and that was perfect.

So the following words, taking the form of a servant, really aren't filling out what the emptying actually was?

The emptying is in the sense that he added humanity to himself. He became, he was a man who walked this earth, but yet he was still in the form of God.

I don't know how to say it. But you just said adding humanity to himself, that takes us back to the actual incarnation, which would mean the consideration of verse six had to be before the incarnation.

According to that, according to your position, you would have independent thought processes from God and Son in eternity past, which would necessitate three minds in one.

But on a simple Greek grammatical basis, can you dispute that the verb of hegesata takes place before akenosin, and in light of what you just said, forces you to believe that there is an action on the part of the

Messiah before his incarnation. Before the incarnation? I'm not saying before the incarnation.

You are. I don't understand the question. Okay, you just said that the emptying of verse seven referred to the incarnation, but hegesata by any translation of the language has to come before the emptying.

So you have a divine person not considering equality he had with God something to be grasped prior to the incarnation.

How is that not a vindication of my exegesis? In John chapter 17 verse five, could you please explain to us who is speaking when the temporal phrase pra -tutankhasma is used, before the world was.

Who is speaking about this time period? As you said on your podcast, section 2, 140, when

Jesus speaks, it is the entire person who is speaking, not just a part. I'm asking,

I'm asking. I would just ask you to be consistent with that. Okay, I'm just asking from your perspective, not my perspective, from your perspective, exegetically, who is speaking about this time period before the world was?

The son. Did the son exist before the world was?

Yes, as the law talks. And is the log off a divine person? Then what is the then what is?

Then what is the log off in your understanding of John 17 five?

This was a plan that is speaking and speaking of the time when the plan existed, para se auto and para soi.

So a plan knows of its pre -existence. This human being who is

God in the flesh, praying, and he said, now I will walk on me with the glory

I have. Of course, you're asking the question, so I can't ask you the question, but you find your own admission, say, through Jesus' speech, it is the entire person.

Mr. Perkins, do you recognize that the statement you've quoted to me three times had a particular context that completely removes it from relevance to what we're talking about?

Yeah, I'm the one who said the words. Here's here's the let me let me try to focus once again that the human nature of Jesus is it is the father speaking in John 17 five.

This Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. The son of speaking. OK, so since Pater, the father is the direct object.

This is someone else praying to Pater, right? OK, then.

So he defined who that was prior to John 17 five. OK, so who is the person who was by the father's side in eternity?

All right. The human being was para se auto was by the side of the father before time was.

Signed in the first place. OK, I think you get a good sense from from that of the nature of attempting to cross examine

Roger Perkins. While I was playing that, all of a sudden it struck me.

I have the time to look up Moulton Milligan. So I just looked and I.

I despair. I'm sorry Mr Perkins feels this is all ad hominem.

I don't need to do ad hominem against Mr Perkins. He provides me with all the necessary argumentation.

I need ad hominems for people who don't have an argument. Mr Perkins interprets refutation of his horrific lack of scholarship.

And in fact, his horrific inability to understand basic English sentences as being ad hominem.

It's not when he gives us so many examples of this, which unfortunately is done again.

In this debate, he accused me of misrepresenting Moulton Milligan. And then he didn't say why.

Well, when I mentioned that, someone put in channel the specific reference quoted from what

Mr Perkins put up on the web. So I went and got Moulton Milligan and I looked at the quote.

I looked at page 417 and I quoted it exactly correctly.

The only possible accusation you might make is that the Greek term monogamies actually starts on page 416.

So maybe, and then unigenitus is right afterwards. So maybe

I should have put 416 through 417, but it's all in 417. The actual

English that I quoted is all in 417. So I'm going, all right. What did

I do wrong here? So I said, somebody give me the URL. So someone gave me the URL. And so I looked up what he said.

In your article, The Preexistence of Christ, you reference Moulton in dealing with monogamies theos as more accurately, the unique God end quote.

Moulton says nothing about the unique God in his given definition, yet you included in quotes, question mark.

So I said, huh, okay. So I went to the article.

This is an old article. I wrote this in seminary, about 1988 ish.

And so I looked it up and you can look it up for yourself. It's vintage .aomin

.org won't be there for long. I hope in the sense that that's going to be switched over to the new format someday.

It probably already has been. We're just waiting for the new, we've got a new website heading in your direction, folks. It's going to be really cool.

But anyways, it's the underlying pre underlying existence, underlying of underlying Christ at HTML.

And I'd say about a third of the way into it. The prologue continues to identify the log offs of the person who

Jesus Christ in 114. It is interesting to note that John very carefully differentiates between the word in his absolute nature and all of the things.

When the eternal word is in view, John uses in when created things are being discussed, such as John in John in one, six, the

Aristogenes is found. However, oh, that was ain. I'm sorry. When we come to that, we're gonna have to stick the

Greek in these eventually. These were this was back before you could actually use much Greek and that kind of stuff. When we come to the time event of 114, i .e.

the incarnation, John switches from the timeless aim to the Aristogenes. The word became flesh at a point in time in history.

Finally, in 118 footnote nine. John seals the case by calling

Jesus the quote only dash begotten God, comma, quote, or comma, more accurately, comma, the quote unique God, close quote footnote 10, who reveals the father who exegetes footnote 11,

God to man. If you go to footnote number 10 and you just scroll down to the bottom of the page, not a hyperlink, unfortunately, maybe someday.

Notice what I actually wrote for the true meaning of monogamies.

See J Hope Moulton and George Milligan, the vocabulary, the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids, WMB, Erdmann's publishing company, 1935 pages, 416 to 417.

So I even had the 416 there. So what does my footnote say for the meaning of monogamies?

Can any rational person, any person with the slightest bit of scholarly training, think

I was saying that Moulton Milligan identified his unique God? No, only

Roger Perkins can come up with that kind of stuff. Because only Roger Perkins has the ability to misread any scholarly source that is presented to him.

We have caught him at it over and over again. And now we've caught him again. He was lying in our debate.

And as much as I would like to try to give him some, you know, he didn't even want to meet me before the debate.

He was sort of forced to because the moderator wanted to talk with us. But as much as I'd like to try to give him, to bend over backwards, to try to give him some credit here, it's just impossible.

After the debate, I walked over to him and I said, do you have a photocopy of Bauer?

And we have to go a little bit, well, actually, I'm just going to finish at the time with this. Everybody's going to get to hear the closing statement.

So Milton Milligan is a standard. It's a well -known, it's a little bit dated now, 1930 -ish, somewhere around 1935.

What did I say there? 1935, yeah. But it's an important vocabulary study in the

New Testament. I walked over to him and I said, do you have a photocopy of Bauer?

Because in our discussion of Colossians 115, at least three times, maybe four, I haven't gone back to count.

He kept saying that Bauer says, this is of a man, of a man.

The icon in Colossians 115 is of a man. That was his key argument in Colossians chapter one to get around what it said.

It didn't make any sense, but that was his key argument. I did not have, during the cross -examination, the time to look it up.

During his closing statement, I did. I looked up Bauer. I realized he had completely misread the entry again, as we have documented that he's done over and over again.

He does not even know how to read a lexicon. He refuses to learn.

So I'm standing there. I have my iPad in my hand and I have Bauer right there. The entirety of Bauer right there in front of me.

He opens his notebook up. His notebook are single lines with colorful markers all over them.

And his entire entry is Bauer, quote, of a man, dot, dot, dot,

Colossians 115, end quote. Not even a page number. I have the actual entry right there.

I show it to him. I show him the semicolons. This is of a man. This is of Christ.

This is under of Christ, not of a man. It's a different entry. He will not accept correction from me.

He refuses to. A man, to my knowledge, has never spent a day teaching anything in Greek or Hebrew or taken a class in either one.

But he refuses to hear what is said to him. Now, I don't know what all the reasons for that are.

I, I don't know. But all I can say is cultism is marked by its fanatic inability and unwillingness to accept correction and to hear what the other side has to say.

I have listened to what Mr. Perkins has to say. I understand his perspective.

I'm able to hear him. He is not able to hear what is said in response to him. He's not even able to hear the questions that are put to him.

So, I just, I just don't even know what to say. So, his accusation that I misquoted,

Moulton Milligan, is a lie and has now been fully refuted as anyone who goes to the web and looks at the sources will see.

I think we need to recognize that Mr. Perkins is not a scholarly or meaningful representative of the oneness position and move on to try to find somebody else who can actually read lexicons and cite things accurately without engaging in this kind of behavior.

It is just, it is simply reprehensible. All right. I'm going to go ahead and play a part of my closing statement here.

And are we, does it matter where we go? I mean, if we went ahead and played my closing statement, could we just go ahead and start the thing afterwards?

Are we cool on that? Okay. Let's just go ahead and play my closing statement.

And then I will, I'll just cue you and we'll just go to the music and then roll right into the Abdullah Kundat debate.

Please continue to pray for, you know, I really don't feel like I'm home yet. Because I got to leave first thing tomorrow morning and I won't be back till next week.

But Lord willing, normally scheduled dividing lines next week and through all of November, hopefully, even though some of them in the middle of November might have to be via Skype, because I will be sort of out of town, but not something to where I'm speaking every day and stuff like that.

Please pray for the ministry down in Louisiana, down south this coming weekend. And Lord willing, we'll talk with you on Tuesday of next week.

Here's my closing statement with Abdullah Kundat. Well, the answer that I'm going to give, it would help if I was at the right way.

That was the right one. Oh, here we go. Click on the right one. All right.

We have we have 24 minutes left together. And I want to begin by thanking you very, very sincerely for your attention this evening.

You have been an attentive audience and a respectful audience. And I think that when you have that and you have two individuals down front who are very serious about what they believe and are very serious about seeking to communicate with you.

And I was not making anything up when I when I said that I'm very serious and having a respect for Abdullah Kundat as an individual and that I as a

Christian pray for him. That is not an insulting thing. From a Christian perspective, that is a sign of respect, because none of us have any reason to boast before God.

And so to pray for someone is not to say I'm better than you. To pray for someone is to ask God to be as gracious to someone else as God has been to me.

And so as a sinner saved by grace, as a debtor to grace, I am truly when

I say I pray for someone, I am not in doing that, putting myself in a position of superiority in any way, shape or form.

I want you to understand that I know the Christians here understand that, but I know they're Muslims here. And I do not want you to hear that in an offensive way at all.

It is a matter of being concerned about individuals, but also concerned about God's truth.

And that's what has brought us here this evening. And I think we have had an excellent conversation about what really we are we are missing in listening to one another.

And I have learned and I hope Abdullah has learned and I hope you have learned as well and have been challenged to look more deeply.

I have written a book called The Forgotten Trinity right there. Abdullah has his signed copy.

I'd hold his book up if I could, but we're just waiting on that one. But I would encourage all of you to not make this evening an evening of entertainment.

That's not why we came. I think we'd both be disappointed, honestly, if you saw it in that way.

I hope that you take this evening as an evening to start to really enter into thinking about these issues.

Our two communities must communicate. We talk past each other.

I always ask when I speak to an audience, how many of you have read the Quran? And Christian audience.

And I get a few people. They always go parts and stuff like that. And if I was speaking to an Islamic group,

I'd get the same type of percentage as to how many have read the Bible. And as a result, we frequently talk right past each other.

My sincere hope is that the Muslims here, Abdullah included, have a better understanding of what it is we are trying to say when we say that Jesus is

God. We are not confusing him with the father. We are not saying that Jesus as the son of God came into existence and he needed a

God had to have a partner to have a son because there is no parallel between what Christians are saying about the sonship of Christ and relationship of the father and the son to the pagan idols in the

Kaaba. There is no parallel there at all. We are not talking about a situation that came about in time.

But we Christians realize we are saying an amazing thing. I appreciated the last question that Abdullah asked.

Don't you think God's making a little bit hard for us? I think it is really hard for anybody to bow the knee before God and to say your ways, not mine.

I think it is hard for anyone to say I have gone the wrong direction. I repent. I return. In fact,

I would say to you it is so hard that the Bible says it is actually impossible. It is impossible without the spirit of God changing my heart.

In fact, the prophet Ezekiel described it as a heart of stone being taken out and me being given a heart of flesh.

Now, believe me, that heart of stone does not want to come out. So, yeah, it is tough. But when God chooses to do so by His grace and only by His spirit, that heart of stone beats in love for the

God who has been so merciful to us. And so, has God made it difficult? Well, I hope you do not think that what

I am saying is that there is some sort of set of intellectual hoops that you have to jump through to become a

Christian. I hope you do not hear me saying that unless you have a perfect understanding of the hypostatic union, that there is no hope of salvation for you.

That is not what I came here to say. Now, I think the hypostatic union is vitally important. I think it is beautiful. But you see, what makes it beautiful is it is a description of the

Savior who gave His life for me. And maybe that is, you know, we suggested some of the possible topics down the road.

There is a lot of logical ones. I think the crucifixion is a really good one. Because I will be perfectly honest with you,

I think I have got the ground on that one. From any historical perspective at all, we would be happy to do it sometime to enter into that particular discussion.

But the reason these things are important is because from the Christian perspective, we are talking about what

God has done. He has to glorify Himself. The whole reason of creation is wrapped up in what

God has done in Jesus Christ. But also, what

God has done to show His love for each one of us here this evening. The message that we have is a message of love.

I believe that the reason that the Son voluntarily submits to the Father is love. The reason the

Spirit takes of Jesus' things and makes them real to His people is love. The relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit is marked by love.

And it is God's love that brought about the incarnation. Do you remember the story?

I know we have a slight difference in interpretation, but of Abraham and his son.

The Bible says it was Isaac. And you don't have to necessarily disagree with that, but do you remember the difficult thing that God asked

Abraham to do? I mean, that is one of the most difficult things in all of the Old Testament Scriptures is what God asked

Abraham to do. And the Qur 'an verifies that God did ask him to do that. So we're both in the same boat in trying to interpret such a difficult thing.

And yet, when you think about it, what God asked Abraham to do to give his, the

Greek term that's used there is monogamous, his unique son. Don't you think

God can do more than Abraham can do? If Abraham was willing to give his unique son, then do you see why the incarnation is important?

Because you see, the incarnation means that God didn't give just one of his creatures. God's made lots of creatures.

God can make human natures right and left. He has the power to do that. But you see, because of the incarnation, what we're saying is

God gave himself. He didn't send somebody else to do it. He came himself.

And yes, as I pointed out, because of the incarnation, we have a perfect mediator. We have perfect peace with God in and only through Him.

This is the whole reason why Christianity, at least one thing we're not arguing tonight is whether exclusivism is a bad thing.

At least we're not arguing about pluralism tonight. If God has acted decisively in Jesus Christ, does it make any sense for someone to go, well,

I don't really like the way he did that. Yeah, he came himself and gave himself. But I'd like to have a different way of doing it, please.

I'd like to have a different way of peace with you. Does that really make any sense? At least we're not having to argue that this evening.

The incarnation is vital in regards to Jesus being the mediator and redemption and all those things.

And I don't think we can really argue that this is not the message of the New Testament Scriptures, because it is.

But even recognizing all of that, what it all comes down to for you and I here this evening, as you walk out of this room, do you have peace with God?

None of us has any guarantee of tomorrow. You walk down a street, someone gets drunk, they drive their car off onto the sidewalk and take you out.

You don't even see it coming. None of us have a guarantee of tomorrow. How do

I know I have peace with God? We know God exists. Both Muslims and Christians together, though we use different terms to describe it.

You talk about the fitra, do the nithak and the covenant that was taken from all of Adam's offspring.

And we identify it as the image of God, because we create the image of God. And therefore, we suppress the knowledge of God.

We have different ways of saying it, but we both recognize that people know God exists. And you're going to stand before Him.

And you know He's holy and you know you're not. I need a mediator. I need a go -between.

I know I cannot provide what I need in and of myself. I can repent all day long.

Even my repentance is unclean before a holy God. I need a mediator who can grab hold of me and my

God. And that's what I have because of the incarnation. And so this isn't just an academic subject.

Yeah, I stood up here for 12 minutes and Abdullah and I talked about categories and Abdullah's got a good bit of Aristotelian philosophy going on in some of his worldview there.

And we talked about stuff like that. But you know why I did it? Because it all comes down to my belief that I have peace with God because I have a perfect Savior.

And He had to be the God man to provide that for me. Am I passionate about it?

You better believe I am. I don't know why anybody would do this if they're not. I do not make an apology for being passionate about my faith.

But I hope, I hope to every Muslim in this room, I hope you hear me when

I say to you, I have sought to accurately represent your beliefs.

And I hope you see that as a sign of respect to you. If I've said anything that has offended you outside of my repeating

God's truth, if God's truth offends you, I make no apology for that. And I expect no apology from you when you say the same thing to me.

If there has been anything about me, my mannerisms, my tie, that has offended you as it has offended some of my

Christian brothers, then I apologize. But I hope you truly hear my heart that I do what

I do first and foremost out of love for my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. But in this context,

I hope you hear when I say to you, I love you. And I hope you have heard the message that I've brought for you this evening.

Thank you very much for being here. Abdullah, thank you, sir, for being here. I. 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 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at AOMIN .org, that's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks.