September 2, 2003

James what well hey you know you do what you got to do you know

I forgot to mention the bailing wire and the chewing gum that's exactly what's going on we can't get one of our computers to work it is very very unhappy and I personally think it's just due to the fact that the

Windows 98 unit and time has expired I think it was built into the systems somewhere that said all right color somewhere around 2003 we'll just die five years is enough for an operating system that's it so it just it's mmm it's dead so I can't take it anymore

I had enough well welcome we just decided to hey

I've still got the song it's called run to the battle that's that Steve Camps stuff you know I know his music pretty well we thought we just sort of play it and mmm and go go from there sky man likes likes your voice too

I tell you you really had it you got to think of another career there you might you might sell Matt well I think they really need to come up with a better way to describe it and they do in the room that's embarrassing

I have to tell you but you would be able to sell the the Tempur -Pedic mattress or something like 1998 was five years that's what

I said five years in 2019 you know not the Windows 98 it's now 2003 five years actually didn't 98 actually come out in 99

Chicago but then Chicago burned yeah

I don't know it doesn't really matter I don't know that it really matters all I know is you got to get that thing fixed are we even recording this yes yes we are we have a good old -fashioned tape recorder a tape deck up here rolling along just fine and we're we're laying hands on it being

Pentecostal today there you go there you go see you back to the old the old yellow pad and you know pencil it's sort of like when the when the

Americans went into space and everybody went to space we discovered that ballpoint pens don't work in space so what the

Americans do the Americans invested millions of dollars in developing the space pen

I mean it and you can buy them you can you give them for Christmas present things like that and it will it's under pressure and it'll right at every angle and I think you know what the

Russians did they use pencils because pencils work fine in space that's just you know that's the difference between us anyway welcome to the dividing line you know we aren't the only ones having problems because you've been getting a bunch of folks writing to us and said hey

I can't get anything to work on straight gate well neither can we and we can't get hold of Steven Luker we've tried and we're leaving him messages here in the channel he's his

Nick is right there in the channel see I'm waving at it but nobody's home so we'll just keep trying to get hold of Steven let him know what's going on he probably does know but we'll just keep trying we do have no control over straightgate .com

that's not our baby and so we're trying to get hold of Steven let him know that yeah we know that nothing's working there but so there seems to be problems all over the place but that's what happens when you are dependent upon technology as we are dependent upon technology that is also unfortunately kept me from getting all sorts of neat fun stuff queued up that I want to have queued up not as far as stuff to play in fact for some reason and I'm not exactly 100 % certain why one of the

URLs that I had just went just just disappeared I don't know where it went obviously you shut down the wrong thing here it is unfortunately this may never come up and it'll probably knock us off the air for me to try to bring it up but starting off this morning here we go it's actually loading a couple things a few days ago

I was watching and believe me the only reason I was watching it was because it was the only thing available where I was at the time but I was watching

CNN's news coverage and man those folks I mean they don't even they don't even bother to try to to to be fair it's just it's just the term bias is no longer doesn't mean anything it's it's worn as a as a pledge of see

I'm a good person to me I'm biased used to be a bad thing now it's just like we're all citizens of the world yeah we all we we all need the village idiot to raise our children or something like that but I think wonky's too busy to do that but anyhow

I was watching CNN and they had two lead stories the first lead story let me get the second lead story the second lead story went throughout the day and it was the the video of the removal of the

Ten Commandments monument down in Alabama and if you've gone to moral law dot -com order net try them all

I'm not sure which one it is and if you've if you've read the stuff that's there then then you know that basically everything on that monument comes from the

Alabama Constitution which is you know very clearly recognizes the the foundation of the scriptures in the moral law of man and so on so forth well they're showing it being wheeled off and you know you think about for just a second here you got a bunch of lawyers walking through this building and exactly what is it about having to walk by that monument that is so absolutely positively offensive to men

I can guarantee you if somebody put up a statue of a naked woman in a suggestive pose that there would be lawyers all over the place defending this is an expression of free speech and you know that I'm right but here is something it's it's rooted in history

I mean even if and I don't take this position but even if you did take this position you can take the position look this is absolutely historical this is a historical thing it goes directly back to our own history you know say what you will about anybody else but it's pretty obvious the folks who wrote the

Alabama state constitution believed in God's moral law and they found that it was to be read in the holy word of God called the

Bible there's no question of that you can't question that without completely rewriting history so what is so absolutely offensive about being reminded about the history of the practice that you allegedly are going about in that building which the practice of law well because the vast majority of people in that building are doing everything they can every single day to erase and efface the history of this nation in regards that one thing because as long as we are a nation of laws and those laws are as unchanging as scripture then they cannot utilize the judicial system to accomplish their social engineering and so they as individuals are offended by the reminder that God is

God and they are not and they are offended by the recognition that God's law is not going to change it's going to be the same after they're dead and gone as it is today so there's the there's the second story is rolling that thing out that we can't have people looking at that oh no no no the government the government should give money to those who wish to produce art with a crucifix in a bottle of urine but we can't have hearts are our lawyers is poor impressionable souls looking at that monument it will corrupt them that's the second story first story man walks into business and I think all the details it was a breaking story so you know maybe

I got this city wrong or something but if I recall is in Chicago man walks into into I think it was his former placement of employment there's blown people away

I don't know how many people killed by 65 I don't I honestly didn't see any more about it the whole week interestingly enough but there's here's a man he goes into a place of business and he starts shooting people anybody else find it just slightly maybe ironic that the thing that we're pushing out of the judicial building in Alabama says what thou shalt not kill murder positive application human life is sacred oh we can't hear that we're killing our children right and left for convenience sake as a form of sexual liberation so we can't hear that and then we go oh isn't it terrible a man went into a place and started shooting people what you expect what do you expect it's judgment it's blindness it is to not be able to see the judgment of God is falling on this nation is absolute blindness just amazing just absolutely amazing

I I stood there and I sort of looked around the other people that were passing by and we're sort of watching stuff and I thought you know how many people are actually observing this and realize something wrong here there's something wrong that there that the force of government is being used to just remove a monument

I mean what happened to all the free speech advocates oh oh the only speech it's not free is religious because see we've turned history on its head what was meant to protect the free and public expression of religion the founding fathers did not intend this to be a secular society they did not intend this to be a really a religionless society or a religionless government how anyone can read what anyone back there was saying and come to that conclusion leaves me breathless

I can understand why Barry Lynn does it I understand why the

ACLU does it Americans and I have separation church and state amazing amazing just that well folks let me tell you something yeah freedom from religion foundation

Dan Barker and the boys that's what they want they want freedom from religion not freedom of religion freedom from religion don't don't think for a second it is not their intention to curb the freedoms that we have to do what we're doing right now the battle's been going on for a long time folks were real late arriving on the battlefield and I said to myself as well as anybody else but anyway on to other things well we still have the opportunity of doing these things debates go on don't forget the debate coming up October 3rd at the

University of Utah myself and Jerry Matitix and I saw on his website recently a plea for funding seems his credit card had been frozen and you may not get to travel and go do some debates well evidently got the funding needed because I'm looking at a report from a reformed friend of mine email correspondent who attended a debate recently debate on sola scriptura between Jerry Matitix and a local

Baptist pastor local Baptist pastors warning please do not debate

Jerry Matitix unless you know what you're doing please go listen to his tapes first he's not come up with anything new in a dozen years reading over this report the arguments that he presented are the same arguments that he presented against me in 1992 and in 1997 he's not coming up with new stuff he just keeps retreading the old stuff even when it's been refuted and that's what makes me so tremendously angry is that this man is going around and he is specifically calling out non -specialists and then when he debates me or debates

Eric Svensson what does he do well you know I'm living on a coke man you know

I drove here at 98 miles an hour and all my notes are on a yellow pad that I can't read because I was scribbling and I was at stop signs but you don't hear that when he debates the local

Baptist pastor do you know you don't I think of all the effort that we put out

I was on the phone with Chris Arnson just today and we're trying to arrange next year's debate on Long Island and we can't get

Roman Catholic apologist even write endorsement for Roman Catholic apologists that they recommend to be part of the debate

I mean we put effort into obtaining the best opponents we can get and Jerry Manitics is running around taking on the worst that he can get the people he knows have never heard him speak before it just well what does it say that says

I went to a debate last night on soul scriptura between seasoned Catholic apologist Jerry Manitics and a local Baptist pastor it's by the fact that Manitics a former reformed

Presbyterian was on the wrong side of the debate arguing in soul scriptura it was clear he won on points the past was clearly man who loved

God but he was in over his head in terms of debating Manitics. Manitics began his opening statement by affirming his

Roman Catholic Church does the inspiration fallibility inerrancy of scripture again that's the traditionalist

Catholic Church that's not the current papal commission on biblical issues.

It reminded me of the many things we conservative reform share with Roman Catholics a belief in absolute truth the trust love to take scriptures affirmation historic reads the church

I would disagree with that I would recommend I would suggest to you that someone like Fitzmyer or Brown is significantly more representative of modern

Roman Catholic belief and that of the magisterium than the historical statements of the

Roman Catholic Church then it goes on I won't read all this is off a blog spot thing anyways as I said

Manitics won the debate it did so by setting up a straw man soul scriptura and then knocking it down nothing new there that's why if you debate the man don't let him do it that's exactly what happened in the cure debate years ago in Los Angeles set up a straw man knock it down you've got if you're gonna come to a battle bring your sword if you know don't don't go there expecting to get treated fairly by Jerry Manitics he is the king of the of the lousy argument of the cheap debating trick so you better be ready for whatever he's gonna throw at you the thrust of his argument was that the

Bible itself contains many indications of oral transmission of God's Word well congratulations certainly does for example

Adam and Eve heard the Word of God God didn't write down for them he used the Obadiah stuff this is I mean he hasn't even changed his notes in years all you gotta just change a couple names and it's and it's anyways so Jerry Manitics went around and beat up on somebody who probably shouldn't have yeah you don't go to a gunfight with a knife that was actually what

I was thinking about but I decided not to say that it is very distressing to me not because the cause of truth is somehow going to be derailed

God's truth isn't dependent upon us running around doing debates obviously but it is you know when when you have defeated a person in debate and then they turn around continues same arguments

I think I may have mentioned this before but two years ago there was this fellow at Bay and Long Island and I walked up to him at the tables outside and I had a conversation with him out there and eventually he just threw his hands up near so why am

I debating you you're the professional because everything he threw at me I had a cogent logical truthful consistent response to and eventually just gave up through his hands why am

I you know you're the professional all right a few hours later relieving as I'm walking outside I hear him with a group of Protestants and what's he doing using the very same arguments that I had responded to and he didn't have an answer to before we those of you who've dealt with Roman Catholic apologists of every stripe and level we can sit here start naming names you know exactly how it works you've seen it happen over and over again haven't you you literally shred somebody on a particular subject and they admit well you know

I need to do some more study and you've done more study on this and I do and yada yada yada yada and also the conversation turns to something else and then the next day three weeks later six weeks later you stumble into a maybe a chat channel you stumble into an email list you in some way or another you hear the exact same arguments being presented by the exact same person the exact same context they have not changed their arguments at all

I don't know how that works how do you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning I got that I don't understand it it definitely leaves me completely and totally befuddled 877 -753 -3341 877 -753 -3341

I don't think we're taking a break today unless you've got a bunch of scripts of actually

I have a great idea what's that well let me start some music up and then we can you know you can start some music up run it gently in the background while you well you probably may not want to use music with this one but I've got music running

I've got a couple of books in my hand here I've got music running you're not playing my music back it off back it off look there you go isn't that pretty well this this would be good for you to talk about the sovereign grace of God and and that is a book that has just been re -released so tell folks about that James huh yeah you get to do the commercials today wait a minute we're not that time for a break anyway well okay then you put the music away but then oh it was time for a break and then

I oh so I need to find some I need to find some like like instrumental music that would be good and then the same -sex controversy

I want you to tell folks about that book we need to we need to be bringing this summer I think is a lot of wild things have happened oh yeah and I think people well in fact they get their hands on this book and start seeing through the huge sorry that doesn't go

I'm fine I'm finding that doesn't go with actually nothing does nothing goes without behind that one

I wouldn't you know maybe something really gothic and dreary or something

I don't know but well yeah you know we've got that that video out there we could probably use that as a as a introduction there so yeah well let's go ahead and take our first caller and then you know we'll get around to the you know the other thing you know eventually and I'll find some music even while we're while we're doing it to to make it all work what do you think sounds good to me okay let's let's go ahead and let's talk with Brian in Illinois make sure to turn the computer down for a second and there we go okay

I'm ready to that's got some music going hi Brian hey dr. white how are you I'm doing all right good looking forward to sailing with you in yes well you know that's

I probably should arrange like a time for everybody and in fact

I've wanted to do this I want to try to arrange a time for when everybody who's going in December we get together in groups of like 10 because that's most you can do in pal talk and I can talk to everybody about what we're gonna be doing and have you ever ever taken a cruise before never before well especially the newbies we should have a newbie night newbie cruiser night because I just got back from a cruise it was a working cruise

I was writing a book I didn't finish it but I've gotten you know I know what the book is all about now and it's just a matter of filling in the filling the pieces and I was on the sister ship to the one we'll be on in December so I know the ship backwards and forwards

I I'm staring at a gorgeous picture in fact you know rich I would love to is there some way that I could put this picture on our website so people could download it because I think people would like this is like maybe on the in in I don't know you could try to scan it you have a scanner a peg dude oh okay it's already there

I just need I just need to put a link I guess you wouldn't need to scan it you could you could do that yeah scanning a JPEG doesn't work real well you don't need my permission to do that well that's true

I just well you get a little nervous when I start playing with the index file but I'll I'll put it up there

I have a gorgeous picture I took from the front end of the Volendam of Glacier Bay and it is just it now we're not going to Alaska that's irrelevant but anyhow hey

I just got hold of Steven Luker and now he knows yes you do so anyway that's not why you call

Brian other than we should do that and I can let you know you know how everything works and where to how to go here there and everywhere and there's all sorts of little tricks of the trade that make things a little bit easier okay good that's great so your call sir is my question

I'm a pastor and I am trying to write a paper on the new perspective on Paul mainly for my own clarity but then also for my people right and I'm wondering if you can just help me clarify as I understand this covenantal nomism concept the key phrase is you get in by grace but you maintain your status in the covenant by law keeping is that a fair way to summarize covenantal nomism well that depends on whether you're talking about Sanders view of it

Dunn's view of it and he writes view of it and any number of 16 ,000 other interpreters right would have a cow basically if it was put in that particular perspective he probably would not you know embrace that kind of view of it at all but basically the you know the foundational aspect of it is that the

Jews of Paul's day were not as N .T. Wright likes to constantly put it so what he was taught they were and that is semi plate or early forms of the

Pelagian heresy and that they believe that they were graciously put into the covenant and as he's as he expresses it in what st.

Paul really said which is probably the one book you'd want to read by him that expresses very well by the way with I mean

I think D .A. Carson was right to describe N .T. Wright's writing as theologizing it is it is a it's not strict theology it's not strict exegesis it's it's create a point and and run with it and make it sound very plausible and he does a very good job of it but he he in essence would say that that the the covenant was with Israel to vindicate

Israel and that through Israel all the nations would be blessed everything would be set right and so when

Paul is converted then that old pharisaical idea he had he believes he was a shamite

Pharisee not a Hillelian Pharisee and that that viewpoint which had strong political implications was then transformed by his encounter with Christ but that theory that he has of what

Paul believed as a Pharisee beforehand becomes it's still really the bedrock of how he then reads everything that Paul writes the problem of course there are lots of problems but one of the main problems is the view of Judaism in the days of Paul it has been well said that it's a brave man who thinks that he knows first century

Judaism better than Paul did and you almost and many people are willing to do this not the more conservative ones but the the other the more liberal new perspective is don't have any problem in saying that Paul did misrepresent first century

Judaism that he did sort of twist the facts but I have to go back to the words of Jesus read

Matthew 23 read his description in Luke 16 of the Pharisee who stands in the temple and and boasts of all his his rightness before God because of who he was and what he did right that part tends to sort of fall out of the new perspectivist view of things but don't don't you know one thing

I would mention to everybody is as you read this material because it's separated from the text and you only have text being pulled in there once in a while it's incredibly easy to create a system if you don't have to be bothered by actually going verse by verse through passages and I think that's what all forms of new perspectivism are guilty of.

I've got a little book that's a summary by Michael Thompson and he does go through Dunsview and Sanders and Wright and tries to synthesize it.

I guess my concern and I guess half the problem is figuring out is there a cohesive view of the new perspective.

Not yet it really it's still it it's hard to describe because the fact that since it is quote unquote and and people need to understand when

I use this term what I mean by it because it is quote -unquote cutting -edge scholarship each new person that writes on it in a compelling way they have to come up with something new to differentiate themselves from someone else and so the people that are writing in that field because that field has become so in my opinion secularized in its orientation the only way to stand out from anyone else is to come up with a new spin on it so how can you ever end up defining a position

I mean you'd basically have to really stop using the phrase and just simply say all right the writers who represent a a broad spectrum of what's called new perspectivism which are they are they are held together by their common view that first century

Judaism was not a legalistic system but was based upon a gracious covenantal concept are these and therefore they are united in their redefinition of justification in this way making it primarily eschatological that's about as much as you can say that's gonna pretty much tie everybody together and then it goes every which direction from there

I mean right obviously wants to hold on to some element of forensic justification but on what basis you know what what scripture texts are left upon which to base forensic justification

I don't know of any I mean all of them that used to refer to it have either been made eschatological in their orientation or have been understood in a completely different way so or they've they've said works of the law are not referring to any kind of works in general but circumcision and exactly exactly what right hold to that view yeah well it is as far as as the idea of works of law being signs of national identity and that that's the big issue the big issue is not salvation how you may write before God all the rest that stuff the big issue is that the works of law that are being discussed are in fact symbols of national identity and that the problem that the

Judaizers are representing is is based on that yeah but then you read other stuff and and because he's an

Anglican and because he's got tradition you know he'll talk about he'll use terms that were accustomed to hearing the problem is they've now been transported into a completely different context therefore they don't carry the same meaning they once had so it is very hard to get a to get a bead what you got to do is get a bead on whoever the most popular writer is right now which would be nt right probably right my concern if if he really does hold to the idea that works of the law are referring to circumcision and food laws and so forth and and Paul all

Paul is saying is those things don't justify then it opens it up to virtually a

Roman Catholic perspective that says there are other things that do justify other works that do justify and I mean in my correct and in thinking along those lines that that's the the where the battle line needs to be drawn well

I would want to speak for him but certainly that that is the danger that all of us are seeing and and certainly those of us who are familiar with Roman Catholic apologists are well aware of the fact that people like Scott Hahn are extremely happy and pleased with the existence of new perspectivism they see it as a vindication of their own

Catholic perspective on justification interestingly enough Robertson Jennison art

Sippo have gone at each other rather voraciously which both of those men I don't think know how to go at each other in any other way than graciously at least all of us who've ever been on the other end of their swords recognize that and over that very issue because the fact

Sippo just think the new perspective is wonderful that's vindication of the Protestants are realizing the

Catholic view has been right all along to Janice argues that new perspectivism is not consistent with Trent Ian of views of justification and he probably has a point there but transfuse on justification are not what is represented by the papal biblical commission of the people who worked on the the accord with the

Lutherans or anything like that so again you're you're left going well who defines even

Roman Catholic theology of that matter but yeah if you're going to define I mean that that argument that works of law is only in regards that kind of ceremonial law is one of the oldest

Roman Catholic arguments around and you dealt with that with both and exactly exactly

I mean you know Paul very clearly indicates it is that it is by the law is the knowledge of sin and that's not circumcision and that's not ceremonial laws he even defines that when he talks about covetousness and all the rest that stuff it just is a completely incoherent view of what works of law actually how they function in Romans but once you completely redefine what

Romans is all about then you don't have to worry about those things right so that's let me ask you this how much of a of a threat

I mean really this is trying to it it could overturn a reform view of justification by faith alone yet except at a scholarly level

I'm not hearing anything you mean a story level I mean you mean in response to it yeah oh yeah there's there's responses to it

I mean da Carson his first volume of a whole series you know

I think dr. Carson really does recognize how important this is the first volume is is nauseatingly scholarly

I mean let's let's face it no one is going to read through this thing on coven of anomism and and first -century

Judaism without I mean you just have to reread things we rethink but the reason he started where he started is due to the fact that that's the foundation of all of new perspectivism is this redefinition of first -century

Judaism and by the way interestingly enough the most important elements of that have come out since World War two and have been very deeply influenced by a cultural concern for anyone to ever be seen as quote -unquote anti -semite so there's a political correctness that goes around in scholarship and if you say what

Paul said in second Thessalonians chapter 1 if you say what Jesus said in Matthew chapter 23 then you're going to be identified as an anti -semite or if you're

Mel Gibson well exactly you know if you do if you if you even narrate the crucifixion events you're going to be attacked as being an anti -semite so there's a political correct thing political correctness thing going on there and that has deeply influenced the development of new perspectivism let's let's face it how much how much of even the evangelicals who are buying into this are motivated by not only the caution about anti -semitism but an ecumenical spirit to find common ground with Catholicism well some of them are

I some of them for whatever reason mainly

I think due to standing side -by -side with Roman Catholics on social issues are looking for ways of reorienting the theology of the

Reformation and that involves reorienting both reorientating both one's view of justification and one's view of Scripture as the as the infallible and sole infallible rule of faith of the church and so I think for some whether it is they recognize it directly or whether it just is dysfunctional in their thinking without them really knowing it yeah

I think it's definitely an element of the issue that is is promoting it let's face it the vast majority of Protestants don't let me change that the vast majority of evangelical conservatives don't have the foggiest idea what the new perspective is or why it would be relevant one way or the other

I mean let's face it most evangelicals they couldn't define the doctrine justification for you they couldn't tell you whether it is a forensic declaration or an internal transformation so you know they're they're not even on the battlefield and so yeah it is it is very troubling to see the speed with which and the ease with which it makes its its entrance into denominations into the thinking of people but I'm not overly shocked by it and the reason

I say that is I haven't seen a tremendous amount of true passion for the underlying truths which

I would include sola scriptura in that because let's face a new perspectivism does not come from a conservative view of Scripture but sola scriptura and justification there isn't any way too much of a reach there there isn't a whole lot of passion and therefore it's not surprising to see people abandoning it when when something attractive comes along its place so would you say other than Carson who else would you recommend and I'm talking about being able to use it at a lay level to teach lay people any author that you would recommend to I can't think of lay level published responses because it's a scholarly issue right now and and the you know

I'm gonna be doing some presentations on it in I think that's what I'm speaking on Austin later this month and so that'll be my attempt to present a lay level you know understanding of what's going on and why it's important but you know it's really difficult to do because you have to start off first of all with a a presentation of what justification is how it's been historically understood why that's important and then go to this and and it's you know believe me

I I do a lot of traveling around and I'm used to talking to groups of a dozen people because you know if if I was traveling around talking about prophecy or something like that I could pack them out but you know it's that's just not that's just not the case so I don't want to take up all your time but would you my concern with even studying it is that it opens the door to losing justification by faith alone is that your main concern with it yes obviously it does involve a you the only reason that I can see that NT Wright still maintains any belief in what

I understand to be the truly biblical nature of justification the well for example he denies the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as you know the the dual imputation imputation of our sins to Christ his imputation of his righteousness to us that's part and parcel of new perspectivism is that the active righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us and that's where Piper has written and that's why

Piper wrote his response to that exactly we do need to mention that that's a that's a pretty that's about the most lay level response you're going to you're going to find in print right now that's only a very narrow aspect of it that he's dealing with yeah but it is an important one and and a student at Westminster Seminary in Escondido who runs the bookstore is mentioning to me in channel right now that old

Palmer Robertson is writing on new perspectivism right now too I'm not sure what level that's going to be on but I just thought I'd pass that on to you but yeah that is the issue is is the only reason

I can see it in NT right even holds the forensic elements at all is primarily due to tradition not due to exegesis of any particular passages and that then leads to again a coalescing with Roman Catholicism because certainly that's the same case with most of Rome's teachings too hey you know we've got a caller calling in from the

United Kingdom and he's paying for this while he's on all right so we're gonna jump over to him thank you very much for your call today very interesting subject thanks looking forward to to December all right god bless bye -bye let's go ahead and talk with Jason from hello

Jason hi how are you sir I'm fine how are you go ahead

I'm going to ask a question about Calvinism I've met a number of guys on you know online from time to time who hold a quite an extreme view they say that you know the

Armenians you know we're not really Christians because you know for various reasons they say that they believe in an idol or all they you know they believe in really believe in salvation by work

I was just wondering you know what yeah whether we would like to comment on that well it happens all the time in channel in fact we will get folks who will come in and and I call them the cage stage

Calvinist I think I stole that directly from from sky man and channel everyone in channel by the way is is begging me not to do an accent because but you do sound a little bit like my friend

Colin Smith who's been the States now for about 10 years but I think you you must you must come from about the same area as he did because from the northeast of England well he went to Hull do you know where Hull is yeah that's very close to me

I just across the you know the Humber okay so well there you go see

I I'm starting to recognize dialects in England this is good not that I could repeat them but anyway the folks that come in the channel we call them cage stage

Calvinist they they come to understand the the doctrines of grace they come to understand the fact that there's nothing that they could do that they were completely dependent on grace they're there they're just amazed at God's grace and that's fully understandable and then it's real easy to jump from that to this idea that well and if you don't believe that then you can't possibly a

Christian well you know I didn't fully understand those things for many years when I was first a believer and if it is if it is only

God's grace that opens my heart my mind understand those things how can I demand when

God is going to give those gifts to someone to come to understand that now I mean one of the

I mean one of the the arguments that you know that they've given me was that they gave to me one time one of these folks and while I was still quite

Arminian in my theology is that is it said well you don't actually believe you know trusting Christ you're you're trusting in your at your decision you know in your in the fact that you have faith yeah and if a person were doing as a person were actually placing their faith in their own decision or their own free will the problem is the vast majority of quote -unquote

Arminians that I know of are inconsistent Arminians when I I wasn't a quote -unquote

Arminian I was my father went to Moody Bible Institute his systematic theology professor or systematic theology text which which he still has and which

I've read was by P .V. Fitzwater who is a Presbyterian and so I had a very broad stream of reform soteriology in my beliefs even though I wasn't aware of all the terminology in the denominational issues and all the rest of that stuff as I was growing up so I was inconsistent and I and I felt as as I became a teenager

I really started thinking about the faith and having a foundation my beliefs I sensed that inconsistency

I and I I began working and I remember as a teenager in high school between my sophomore and junior years walking through the woods at Glorietta New Mexico which is the

Southern Baptist Conference Center in New Mexico beautiful place just wrestling and wrestling and wrestling with election not because I was trying to maintain free will or something like that or want to trust in something but because I was trying to understand it in light of God's goodness and in light of all those other things now did

I have inconsistencies in my theology I did then and guess what I do now I may not know what they are but no one in this life you know walks into the

Christian faith they perfect knowledge of theology every time I run into the one of these I call them hyper

Calvinist who in essence want to damn every inconsistent Arminian to hell in a handbasket you know

I asked them do you know the doctrine of the Trinity perfectly might there be errors in your understanding the doctrines of Trinity and if any person has any gray matter between their ears they're going to say yes

I say so would a person who has a perfect understanding be in a position to say you're going to hell because you don't understand that level of theology as well as they do that that becomes the issue for me now certainly there are dividing lines no

I said inconsistent Arminians you know Arminianism in its in its pure form really there's

I've argued many times given its doctrine the atonement which is not substitutionary and its doctrine of faith and its doctrine generation

Arminianism consistent Arminianism I do have a lot of problems with that and I would have to wonder if a consistent

Arminian which I don't think Jacob Arminius really was personally but a consistent Arminian who takes it to its logical conclusions would have to be trusting in something of the finished work of Christ but I've only encountered a couple of those people

I hardly ever read anyone who's like Dave Hunt for instance wouldn't fall into that category no

Dave Dave doesn't fall into any categories unfortunately Dave because because let's face it

Dave is inconsistent with Dave Dave to strive for consistency in theology is something that Dave Hunt eschews he does not want to do that he does not want to embrace that and so I you know

I don't know where to put him sometimes he is a Pelagian sometimes he says things that are simply Pelagian in their application and I'm sorry that he does that but he does and he's been forced to do that in his response to the reform position and the fact that he just he he refuses to learn from the generations that have come before him to avoid making mistakes that he's now making it's it's a shame to watch but I'm I can honestly say that I attempted very strongly to warn him that this eventuality was coming but Dave Dave still holds to some form of substitutionary atonement is it consistent no are there times when he denies truth yes but why is he doing so because he holds so doggedly to his traditions

I don't get into the who is and who is not a Christian thing because I can't see into someone's heart

I can simply say that look when people get all wrapped up I've never seen anything positive or good come out of all the people who get all wrapped up and trying to figure out who is and who is not a

Christian based upon theological arguments like that look stick with what the issues are foot stay focused upon the issues the issue is what is most honoring glorifying to God by its consistency to his word stick with that and let let the shallow minded argue about the other things there's plenty of work to do just sticking to that particular element of things okay

I was just going to ask one other thing have you ever considered debating Jacob Prash of Memorial Ministries the name the name was was raised to you as someone in Australia and I mentioned to him that I would be happy to do so if he if it could be arranged the problem is

I don't do the vast majority of the arranging of of debates the bandwagon matics the folks up in Salt Lake arranging that the debate with Greg Stafford in Tampa people in Tampa arranging that people in New York arrange debates with their

I rarely do any of the arrangement myself people contact me and say could you come to such -and -such place to such -and -such thing and we work it out from there my understanding is this fellow travels in the

United States I've heard someone sent me an mp3 of some comments that he made standard you know it was that the thing where Dave Hunt was speaking it was very standard stuff it was not you know certainly nothing challenging the reason why

I think he would probably be a more a more worthy opponent somebody like Dave fund is that there's that Jacob Prash actually does know

Greek and Hebrew so you know he'd be able to you know argue from well if he does a little bit more fair if he does then he

I would I would be very interested in dialoguing with anyone on Dave Hunt side who actually knows languages who could then comment on his comments concerning the subjunctive or his comments in Acts 1348 or his comments in a the rest of these things

I would love to hear someone who really does know the language actually correct Dave Hunt if they're not willing to do so then

I have a real problem with their their simple integrity I know that Jacob Prash actually endorses them you know

Dave oh I'm I know he did yeah that that's certainly something like I said someone has raised that name from Australia if you travel in the

United States I'd love to go to Australia I mean if someone could arrange something like that I would I would love to have that opportunity we have a number of friends down in in Australia but it doesn't seem that most of the sound churches down there that would want to have something like that happen are all that big as to be able to help make that happen but I'd love to go down to Australia I'd love to do that kind of a debate but unlike unlike seemingly some ministries in the world we don't we don't have any big person staying behind us that's gonna whip out a wallet and say well

James get on the plane go do it you know I'd love to you know if someone did that I'd get on the plane and go do that but that doesn't work for us so we'd love to we'd love to arrange something like that yeah okay all right thanks for calling all right god bless bye -bye all right well we

I think we have one other call we're gonna try to squeeze in real quick here we didn't get any break -in today but hey probably best we didn't anyways and I don't

I just realized I don't let's see what what what do we use we use Wittenberg's door that's right

Wittenberg's door I'll actually track down Wittenberg's door here while we talk to Scott Scott are you there

James how are you sir I'm doing pretty good we only got a couple of about four minutes here so what you got um well

I go to a church right now where we have an agreement between pedo and cradle Baptist and okay you know that that basically just tolerate each other and we're and we're trying to seek unity on the issue tolerate each other

I like that terminology and it comes up a lot of times in our in our Bible study different issues and an issue that came up last week which

I just had no response to was you know in Acts in Acts chapter 2 Peter's sermon where he preaches about Christ and everything at the end of it he says you know talks about the

Holy Spirit coming and then he talks about how about acts 238 and 39 yeah he talks about you know this this promise is not only for you but also for your children and and for all those who are far far away as many as the

Lord our God will call exactly and so there's this whole concept that I'm finding especially within my church of God's promises being for your children and I'm not

I'm not totally sure if I understand it and I just know that it seems like they almost create this subset of you know the believers of children almost become like this subset of you know

New Covenant people who are in the covenant because they're baptized but they're not elect and somehow they have a choice in the matter over you know what other people have exactly yeah very much so and now there are different perspectives on this amongst

Presbyterians you have your southern Presbyterians who emphasize the necessity of preaching the gospel and calling your children to faith and repentance you have your northern

Presbyterians who I've heard in within the past year calling southern

Presbyterians wet reform Baptists for daring to do so I don't have any problem with the southern

Presbyterian view in the sense that you're you're you're not creating that subclass in the sense of well if I had time to look it up I could read you some fascinating citations from Pierre Marcel's book on infant baptism made me call pedo baptism now

I'm thinking about it where in essence he he says that the children of the elect are in essence freed from the the curse it's it's almost a form of it the children of the

Covenant are are sort of Pelagian children they're they're not he doesn't use that term but they are they are freed from the effect of the curse so they can make a free will choice and I just look at that and go excuse me you're reformed and and a lot of people say yes in fact that's the only person who is reformed the person who says that so I'm very familiar with that that perspective that's always been one of the issues that I have raised and in fact

I raised in some sermons I preached at our church which interestingly enough I've had people criticize me as if I am seeking to start a war with my

Presbyterian brothers because I preach in a reformed Baptist Church and in who knows how many opportunities of preaching

I've done one series on this subject and I'm starting a war because I I would

I would dare address my own people on this subject as if it's not relevant to people in reformed

Baptist Church but one of the issues I've always raised is what is the nature of Covenant children what happens in baptism and that's the big thing with the

AAPC right now is the the whole topic of is that does baptism do something in the sense of communicate something to the child and in place in the special position as far as Acts 238 goes

I think you need to read Acts 238 and 339 we all need to read it in its context and I think when you read it for the promise is for you and your children for all who are far off as many as Lord our

God will call himself what is the defining factor there is it genealogical or is the call of God when it says the promises for you and your for your children and for all who are far off how would a

Jew have understood that a Jew would have understood that the Paul just said it's for you and your children Jews and for all who are far off who are far off who are the ones that are separated from the the

Covenant and all the rest of stuff but the Gentiles it's for Jews and Gentiles but it's for as many as the

Lord our God will call to himself the idea that has somehow becomes a carte blanche that these promises are thereby given to every single child who is baptized so that the baptized child is made a part of the new covenant and now he becomes a covenant breaker when he's not one of the elect and these these these extra curses are called down upon the covenant breaker they're not called down upon the pagan child

I to read that in Acts 2 38 and 39 is just is to me another example of what happens when you have a tradition and that tradition determines how you read the the text of the of the scriptures so that's

I say you still there yeah okay today that help yeah it does

I guess it's just you know the thing that they end up saying to me was you know that the baptized child you know the child of the elect the child of the new covenant member who is you know faithfully you know following Christ you know he's going to be saved if the parent parents that child in faith and almost to the extent that that it almost seems like they concluded that therefore any you know child which has faithful parents and is baptized you know in a

Trinitarian formula that ends up rebelling from the faith ultimately it goes back to the parents lack of faith in God's promises towards that child and that to me was the oddest thing that I had heard and I really agree with what what you were saying about the emphasis being on that those whom the

Lord our God will call and as I look at it me as the seat of Adam I'm going to have children who are born objects of wrath because of you know because of Adam and so you know

God does not have to show them mercy exactly that's that the whole issue of the nature of the covenant child it certainly isn't determined by acts to and I think to force that into its into the context is is a is indicative of something and probably more than we can actually address in the few minutes we had for it but hopefully that'll be of some assistance to you prbc .org

is where my sermons on that subject are if you'd like to listen to them and we are out of time as the music in the background demonstrates we thank you for listening to the dividing line today despite the fact that we did not have an opening and a closing we're winging it anyways and thanks to all the callers excellent calls even all the way from the

United Kingdom and excellent topics will be back Thursday night Lord willing here on the dividing line and there might be one thing that might get in the way watch the website see if we may have to move a little bit later we'll find out talk to you later

God bless the dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106 Phoenix Arizona 85069 you can also find us on the world wide web at AOMIN .org

that's A -O -M -I -N .O -R -G where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks join us again this