August 14, 2003

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 and welcome to the Dividing Line. It is a

Thursday afternoon, had to remind some folks of that. You get busy and, hey, it's

Thursday, we got stuff to do today, don't we? Yes, we most certainly do. We'll be taking your phone calls at 877 -753 -3341.

If you want to be involved in the program today, we're just simply hoping that we make it through the program, since according to the

Doppler radar that I have on my system here via weather bug, there are some mondo -sized storms, and when

I say mondo, I mean a third the size of the state, coming down off the rim.

And they've drawn a bull's eye on our facilities here. And so I don't think they'll get here until about 7, 7 .30,

something like that. But we could get some big, big, big, big monsoons, summer storms tonight, which we really need.

There's no two ways about it, but they can be pretty damaging, too. So that's the same direction they came from when we, a number of years ago, it was a

Wednesday night, no, Thursday night, a number of years ago, they came down, and boy, I'll tell you, just about ripped the roof off my parents' house and tore the place up real good.

So you never know. We need the rain, but we could avoid the 80 -mile -an -hour winds or 100 -mile -an -hour winds or whatever.

I think they hit 100 to 105 during that storm. So we don't get tornadoes, but 105 -mile -an -hour winds, whether they're going in a circle or straight, pretty much do the same type of thing.

So we'll hopefully get through the program before those things get down here. 877 -753 -3341.

What I want to do, remind you of a couple things. Tuesday morning, we have

Dr. Eric Svensson joining us. We'll be discussing his debate with Gerald Matitix, Jerry Matitix, on the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity, the

Roman Catholic dogma thereof, and the clear biblical teaching that that is untrue.

And I'll also remind you of the fact that we have availability again on our cruise in December.

Instead of an 84 % discount, which is what we got initially, now we have a 74 % discount.

And you're still not going to get on a five -star luxury liner in the Eastern Caribbean the week of December 6th and following for anything near what we have available to you.

So make sure to hit the website, join us for fellowship and relaxation and study and so on and so forth.

And also remember the night before the cruise begins, the debate with Gregory Stafford, Jesus, God or a

God, that information is on the main page article which is available on our website.

I already have two callers and I have a whole section here of presentation to make.

So gentlemen, Matthew and Steve, Steve in Blackout, New Jersey, hold on there, we'll get to you as soon as we can.

I wanted to continue to talk a little bit about identifying common errors in debating, but I'm not going to use the debate between Eric Svensson and Jerry Matitix, which is what

I've been using the past two or three programs, played segments and demonstrated the errors in Mr.

Matitix's argumentation. Instead, this coming Monday morning at, oh, by the way, for those of you who listened, let me mention this before I forget it, those of you who listened to Janet Partial's America, I will be her guest next

Tuesday. I don't know which hour it is. She does a number of different hours. I don't know if it's going to be the live one, the one they tape and play later.

I don't know. But sometime on Tuesday, I will be joining Janet Partial to discuss the onslaught of homosexual apologists and homosexual advocates and the onslaught of homosexuality within Western civilization following the

Supreme Court's decision. So if you are interested in that kind of thing, you might want to tune in Janet Partial, especially on Tuesday.

Who knows? Maybe if it's the recorded one, it shows up on Wednesday. I don't know. But I will be on next week.

We'll be recording it Tuesday afternoon on the Janet Partial program, Janet Partial's America from WAVA in Washington, I believe it is.

But on Monday, and I had the time wrong on this. For those of you who are in the

St. Louis area or were going to try to somehow listen, I don't know how you could, on KJSL in St.

Louis, I'm going to be doing a radio debate. It really doesn't, you know, I don't count those as formal debates even though I've done radio debates before.

Some people who are desperate to pad their stats might call those debates, but I don't. I'm going to be doing a radio interaction debate with Dr.

David Bernard, the chief theologian of the United Pentecostal Church International, UPCI, the leading oneness or Jesus -only organization with headquarters there in St.

Louis. And we are going to be addressing the issue of the Trinity and specifically the issue, the real issue that separates us, and that is does the

Bible teach that the Son as a distinct person from the Father has eternally existed as a divine person?

Not merely as a thought in the mind of God, not merely as a plan in the mind of God, but did the

Son as a divine person exist prior to his birth in Bethlehem?

And that's the issue. I listened to a debate this past week, and I appreciate

Jeremy sending me the link for this, between Dr.

Bernard and a Christian apologist, and I was very disappointed, especially because I know

Dr. Bernard knows better, it seems, because they were before a

Pentecostal audience. Well, he just didn't,

I just don't think Dr. Bernard played fair, and I don't believe that he gave his best presentation by any stretch of the imagination.

So as a result, I was very underwhelmed with the argumentation that he presented.

And he did not actually end up focusing upon the real issues, and he knows what the real issues are.

His books demonstrate that, he's attended seminary, and he knows better than the vast majority of one of the

Pentecostals what the real issues are, but he didn't really deal with that, and instead did what Robert Sabin did in 1999 when

I debated him, and he just basically started preaching, and you get the audience all riled up, and you get the audience excited, you get them amening you about stuff that really isn't the issue.

There's only one God! Well, you know, we were all agreed on that. The issue is, should we assume

Unitarianism and then use that assumption as the basis for defense of Unitarianism, or do we allow the biblical data to inform whether we accept a

Unitarian perspective on the infinite, unlimited, but one being of God, or whether we allow the biblical information to tell us that God's being is

Trinitarian in nature, and that didn't really end up taking place.

I thought that actually on a simple debating level, that Dr. Bernard lost that debate, but I'm going to play a segment of it here, and we're going to listen to a little bit of it.

We've already got two callers, and I can see at least one or two people in the channel that are talking about calling, so we may have lots of calls tonight to run with.

But I wanted to get an opportunity of listening to some of these comments to give you an example, again, of where proving that which is not in dispute is very frequently the means that individuals will use to defend their position.

So this is from the debate. This is Dr. David Bernard speaking in his opening statement.

Listen as he makes his presentation. So I am stating the proposition that there is absolutely one indivisible

God. We cannot speak of gods, plural. We cannot speak of persons of God.

If we mean by persons, multiple personalities, multiple minds, multiple wills, multiple bodies in the

Godhead, in fact, I would say you can't be in the Godhead. The Godhead is the quality of being

God, and there is no one in the Godhead. The Godhead is not a substance.

The Godhead is a person. Let's stop it right there and immediately make some comments.

Obviously, the argumentation, certainly there is but one true God, but the assertion that is being made, in essence, is we're going to assume

Unitarianism. And this is the fundamental argument of Oneness Pentecostals, Aryans, and Muslims.

Now you couldn't get a more diverse group there as far as where they want to end up at, but all of them argue against the

Trinity in the same way. That is, they assume Unitarianism. They assume that if God is one, that means the oneness is referring to both being and person.

And you just had the assertion made, without any foundation, but just simply the assertion made that God's oneness in being must also mean a oneness in person.

He uses the term Godhead. It doesn't tell us where he's deriving that. The term itself, it's interesting, he'll later on ask questions about utilization of non -biblical terminology, but here he's using a term that while it appears in the

King James Version of the Bible, it appears as a translation of two different Greek terms, and he's not telling us which one he's using.

This again is indicative to me, for someone as bright as Dr. Bernard is, that he is not really overly concerned about which audience is listening to this.

In other words, he's in front of a Pentecostal audience, so he can use terms in such a way that the Pentecostals are going to understand them the way he wants to understand them.

He doesn't have to explain them. But that also means that they're not going to be overly accurate, and they're not going to be very compelling to those of us who are listening from the other perspective.

The term Godhead, as it's used in the King James Version of the Bible, translates to different Greek words that have different meanings.

When it's used in Romans 1 in the King James Version of the Bible, it's translating a Greek term that has as its stem, theot, and it's talking about the divine attributes, and it would not in any way, shape, or form be identifiable with a person.

It's God's invisible attributes, and in Colossians 2 .9, one of the favorite passages of one of those

Pentecostals, there, theotetos is that which makes God God, but it does not, it cannot, this assertion is made, well that's personal, that's a person, well on what basis do you say that?

I would like to see where that comes from, instead of just simply the assertion, but since you've already got the audience, the audience already agrees with you, you don't need to evidently substantiate your assertions or back them up, but you just simply can sort of preach to them.

The one true God known in the Old Testament as Jehovah or Yahweh, the supreme name by which he revealed himself to Israel.

When he manifested himself in the flesh, he became Jesus, known as Jesus, which the word literally means

Jehovah Savior, Jehovah is salvation. So there's one indivisible God with no distinction of persons, that's my first point.

Well that's your first point, but you haven't established it, you may have asserted it, but nothing that has been said substantiates the assertion, to say that there is one

Jehovah, yes there is one Jehovah, however, that name Jehovah is definitely used of Jesus Christ, but it's also used of the

Father, and it's used of Jehovah laying the sins of his people upon the

Messiah who was Jesus. So there is a differentiation in the persons that is seen right there in the text of scripture, you can't just simply throw this thing out there and say, well, hey, you know, here's how you're to understand all these things, but I'm not going to deal with these biblical passages that contradict my thesis.

And what, again, bothers me here is I know that Dr. Bernard knows what the problems are.

Now I admit, he only had 15 minutes, and 15 minutes isn't very long, but still, if you only have 15 minutes, and I doubt

I'll even have that amount of time come Monday, because this is a morning talk radio program, and you know how that works.

So I recognize the time constraints, but still, you have to, you know, what

I'm going to do is I'm going to focus my attention and say, look, there's all sorts of things we can argue about, let's mention first of all, we are all agreed that there is only one being of God.

The difference between us is you all believe that that one being of God is unitarian, shared by only one person.

I believe that one being of God is shared by three persons, and the clearest, simplest way to address the differences between us is to ask one direct question.

And that is, does the Bible give us clear and compelling evidence that there are at least two eternal divine persons?

That is, does the Bible teach us that the Son, as a divine person, pre -existed

His birth in Bethlehem? If Christ, as a divine person, existed before His birth in Bethlehem, in the presence of the

Father, then oneness Pentecostalism cannot claim to be biblical. Oneness Pentecostalism as a whole is immediately dismissed.

It is untrue. And everything that goes with it, because I think most oneness Pentecostals would admit that if the

Trinity is true, then everything else, I mean, that is definitional of oneness Pentecostalism, is to deny the doctrines of Trinity.

If Trinity is true, then you can pretty well flush the rest of it as well. So, though I would admit there are some that say, oh no, that's not necessarily true, you can still have, we can write about tongues and so on and so forth, but most of them

I think would admit they're wrong on that one, and they're probably wrong on the other distinctives that are theirs as well. That would become the issue.

And that's what I'm going to focus on. So he can spend all his time proving issues that are not at stake, and I'll spend all my time demonstrating that the

Bible contradicts oneness Pentecostalism. He's going to have to get into the text. And that issue did come up in the cross -examination.

And as I listened to him, and I'm not going to have an opportunity to get to this today because we already have three folks online, but the issue did come up later on.

And I was truly amazed at the comments that Dr. Bernard made regarding Philippians chapter two.

That's going to be big, because on the simple level of the

Greek text, Dr. Bernard has no basis for the position that he took, and I'm looking forward to pressing that issue.

Let's listen just a little bit more, then we'll start taking our calls. And my second point is Jesus is the incarnation of that one undivided

Godhead. He is not one of three persons. He is not a subordinate person. He is not a second person.

But he is the almighty, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the incarnation of the fullness of God.

In Colossians chapter two, verse nine, we find the statement speaking of Jesus Christ for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the

Godhead bodily. The Godhead is the sum total of God's character, quality, attributes, personality.

It's everything that makes him who he is. Well, where does that come from? Where does the

Greek term theatetos, which is what is being translated in Colossians 2 9, give us the lexical foundation of that expansive meaning that has just been provided?

I've studied theatetos pretty closely, and that goes way beyond anything that the lexical sources are going to provide you.

But now notice what's happened in the opening statement, in the opening point that was made, a certain definition of the

Godhead was given, but without a foundation. Now that definition is used and plugged into a verse and see for many people, for many people who do not listen carefully to argumentation to see if it is solid, if it's being presented in a meaningful fashion.

That is a very compelling type of argument. And unfortunately, we not only see that in the public discourse of our land constantly, but here you have it in a theological context.

We need to be clear thinkers. We need to be able to listen carefully and to follow a line of thinking when we hear something being presented to us.

And when we do that, we already automatically see that that Dr. Bernard is not building a solid case that can claim to be truly biblical.

He is presenting a traditional case, but it is not a biblical case. Those are two very different things.

Well, since we have so many folks online and maybe some other folks want to get in, maybe everybody figures, hey, since New York isn't going to be joining us today because they're sitting in the dark at the moment, big blackout back east, that maybe the other folks will be able to get in.

877 -753 -3341. Let's start with Matthew in Dayton, Ohio.

Hello, Matthew. Hello, Dr. White. How are you, sir? I'm doing good. I just wanted to say, before I ask my question, that I wanted to thank you for everything your ministry does.

It's actually through your ministry that my best friend and his wife came to understand the

Reformed position and accept it. Then through him, I got in touch with your web resources and came to a knowledge of the

Reformed position, and now it's ending up Reformed Baptist Church, and things are just so much clearer for me.

Great. That's wonderful. Do you have power tonight? Yeah, I do. Actually, I think up in Cleveland, I think they're out of power.

Down here in Dayton, we're looking pretty good. Well, good. I'm glad you had power so you could listen in tonight and call in.

What's your question? Okay. It's sort of a two -part question. The meat of the question is, as someone new in Reformed theology,

I hear a lot of terms get bounced around a lot, and two of those terms are dispensationalism and covenant theology, and I was just wondering how those fit into the

Reformed perspective. Then along with that, are there any really good foundational writings, maybe, that you would say are absolutely necessary or vital, maybe, as someone new to read and get exposed to the bigger concepts?

Okay. Well, yeah, there are. There are a number of books on all sorts of different levels.

I mean, there are some excellent publishers out there. You know, one that I'd like to mention to folks, and in fact,

I hope I don't blow us off of the air here by going onto the web.

Hopefully, that won't take place. But there's a new publisher that I personally am hoping to be able to write for, in fact, eventually, in light of their, just some of the books they're putting out.

Solid Ground Christian Books. I don't, the website here, it isn't popping up here, but if you just put in Solid Ground, actually,

Solid -Ground -Books .com would be a good place to check out, to otherwise do a

Google search for it. They've got some really good stuff there and some really good prices, too, that you could look at, and that'd be a good place to start.

But, I mean, there's all sorts of different levels of books, from the basic introductions to the

Reformed faith and the doctrines of grace to things that go well beyond those particular areas and the application of the

Reformed faith to all of life. I think one of the best little books, it's actually a booklet that I strongly recommend to folks because it can help to get them out of what

I call the cage stage. The cage stage is when a person becomes Reformed in their theology and they have much zeal, but not a lot of wisdom, and hence they tend to, instead of lovingly present the truth to others, they use the baseball bat methodology.

And it's a book by a Reformed Baptist pastor, a very well -known

Reformed Baptist pastor by the name of Al Martin, and it's called The Practical Implications of Calvinism.

And I think it's a banner of, yeah, it's a banner of truth publication. It's probably not more than 20 pages, 30 pages long, but it's very, very good in basically communicating the fact that a proud and haughty spirit is the exact opposite of what anyone who believes in God's grace should ever have.

And it really is a humbling work, and I would highly recommend it to you.

And then, of course, when you're really ready to bend your mind around deep things, there's such things as, obviously, reading

Jonathan Edwards. You know, if you really want to feel like a complete and total moron, you can read

Edwards's sermon, The Hypocrite's Deficient in the Duty of Prayer. That'll make you question your salvation.

But his work on the end for which God created the world and all of his stuff is just truly amazing as well.

And, you know, there's things like Turretin's Institutes of Elanctic Theology that, when I try to read his sections on dealing with Molinism, I have to read paragraphs three or four times over to figure it out.

So there's everything in between. So it's good to find some of the better websites, like Trinity Bookstore online, which is from Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in Montville.

And they've got a lot of good books and seeing what's out there and what's recommended. Now, as to the question that you asked,

Mai, you like to ask the big ones. Basically, very, very simply, most would understand the difference between Covenantalism and Dispensationalism.

And obviously, there are all different kinds of Dispensationalism. There's the old style Dispensationalism of C .I.

Schofield in the Schofield Reference Bible, and then the sort of modified version of that that a

Charles Ryrie would present. There's very common in Baptist circles in general.

And you've got extreme forms of it. And now there's progressive

Dispensationalism. And there's all sorts of different variants of the term.

But most all forms of Dispensationalism will not only assert that God has saved in a different manner over the course of the world, so that many people believe that a person was saved differently in the days of Moses than today, rather than by faith.

There are other ways that were involved, these different dispensations, as they would refer to them.

But one of the key marks of Dispensationalism has to do with how one views Israel and the relationship of Israel and the church.

That becomes the key element that truly marks a dispensational system.

Covenant theologians, and again, there's all sorts of different types of covenantalism.

There would be covenant theologians who would say that someone such as myself, who's

Reformed Baptist, cannot possibly be described as a covenant theologian because they would make paedo -baptism a definitional aspect of the covenant itself.

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 refers to, very clearly, the covenant of grace that God has always dealt with his people in a gracious manner, and that all of the covenants that he has made with men down through the ages are based upon that overarching gracious purpose.

But the main thing that at least ties the forms of covenantalism together is the rejection of the dispensational distinctives in regards to the church and Israel, and sees the promises that are given to the people of Israel in the

Old Testament as being given to the new Israel, the church, and that these are not two wildly separate things.

In many forms of dispensationalism, the church and Israel are radically separate from one another.

And you see this in a lot of forms of prophecy teaching today, where God has a purpose for the nation of Israel, and they're really focused upon that type of an aspect, whereas covenantal theologians don't tend to have that kind of an emphasis at all.

And so even within covenantalism, however, there's all sorts of different perspectives in regards to the issues of what are called continuity and discontinuity between old and new covenants, and the role of the

Abrahamic covenants, and all the rest of the stuff that all comes together and results in us sitting around and arguing with one another on all sorts of issues like that.

But there are numerous works on that. One that I would really like to be able to recommend to you, but unfortunately it's not yet published, because I've not only written for the book,

I've written a chapter for the book, but I've seen the outline of the other chapters that are there, but is a

Reformed Baptist work that is going to be addressing many aspects of this once it finally gets out, and I obviously will be mentioning it on the air when it finally does get released.

But you would find a number of books, follow some of the links from some of the websites

I mentioned earlier, and you'd find a number of books that would explain covenantalism from you from both a

Pato -Baptist and Credo -Baptist perspective. Wow, that's a lot to chew on.

Well, yeah, that's the nature of brief answers on a webcast, unfortunately.

Yeah, there is a lot there. And it's not something that we should even really, I think, desire to master overnight.

In fact, most of the people I've ever met who claimed to have done so, did so in such a shallow fashion as to really not have mastered it.

And as long as you think you've mastered something when you didn't, you'll never grow past that point. So, you know, it's something that we all need to grow in.

It's something, you know, I'm awfully glad that I never have to worry about exhausting the study of God's truth and the study of these issues.

That's never going to happen. So, you know, that's a place to get started. And some of those links will help you to help you to get going.

OK? Wow, yeah, I appreciate it. All right. Thanks a lot, Matthew. Thank you. All right. God bless. OK, 877 -753 -3341, we're going to take our break and come back with Steve and Blackout, New Jersey, and Maurice in Florida.

And OK, Steve, I'll let you get started here. It's OK. Boy, just sings right over me like that. We'll be right back right after this.

Answering those who claim that only the King James version is the word of God. James White, in his book,

The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true

Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .aomin

.org. What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen but Free, A New Cult, Secularism, False Prophecy Scenarios?

No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Pottage Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, that the pottage freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself.

In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture. The Pottage Freedom, a defense of the

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at www .aomin

.org. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 930 a .m. and the worship service is at 1045.

Evening services are at 630 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7.

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE. If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at www .prbc

.org, where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co -redeemer with Christ, elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

In his book, Mary, Another Redeemer, James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic.

He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed queen of heaven, viewed as co -mediator with Christ and now recognized as co -redeemer by many in the

Roman Catholic Church. Mary, Another Redeemer is fresh insight into the woman the

Bible calls a blessed among women and an invitation to single -minded devotion to God's truth.

You can order your copy of James White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer at aomen .org.

Here I stand, on the ones who are all delivered feet, on the

Word, the exalts above His holy name, here

I stand. And welcome back to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. We are simply sitting here waiting to get blasted by very large monsoon storms.

If anyone has weather bug and you'd like to look at that, just pop in 85051 as your zip code and hit the radar and go, look at all that green and red and yellow and stuff like that.

And it's heading straight toward Phoenix. Isn't that cool? It's covering like a quarter of the state.

It's just like walking straight down toward us. It'll probably all disappear though. It's weird how the monsoons work out here.

All right. Why is everyone so fascinated about that lady's voice? I wonder how many times

I've gotten questions, who is that lady who did the advertisements on The Dividing Line? I don't, yes, it's very, very interesting.

Anyway, let's go ahead and talk with Steve. Steve has moved to Blackout, New Jersey.

I've never heard of Blackout, New Jersey, but how are things in Blackout, New Jersey, Steve? Well, I've got power,

Dr. White. How are you? I'm doing pretty well. It was fun driving today with no traffic lights.

I imagine that was sort of like bumper cars. No, actually, it was very good. People were generally very well behaved with that.

And even in New York City, the people are usually pretty good at these things and handling these things. In fact, I don't even know if my brother's gotten out of the city yet.

Well, I was seeing pictures of huge crowds of people. Oh, yeah. And it becomes a they just sort of become a make it a festivication.

Everybody helps everyone out and they make the best of it. Cool. So anyway, here's my question.

I was listening to your Sunday school lessons on Romans, on the defense of the reformed faith or tax against the reformed faith.

And when you finished it up, there was a section on evangelism when you were finishing up Romans nine.

And you said you're assuming I'd actually remember things like this. You sort of defined evangelism.

Well, I mentioned my assumption is that I mentioned the fact that evangelism is frequently misidentified as being solely external.

Is that what we're referring to here? Yeah. Okay. Okay. And I'm looking at Ephesians four, where it says he gives some apostles and some prophets and some evangelists and some pastor teachers.

And if evangelism is is is internal, then why would that not be part of what the pastor teacher does?

Maybe that's answering the question, too. But well, again, I simply refer you to the fact that Paul uses the term evangelize and he used a lot utilizes it of his desire to evangelize the church at Rome.

And that's all I was referring to. I wasn't even addressing the issue of offices within the within the

Ephesians or anything along those lines. The fact is, he wanted to evangelize the already existing church at Rome and hence to identify the term evangelism as merely something that is external, something that is only done outside of the church to individuals who are not believers, simply doesn't follow from the use of the term evangelize the verb within the

New Testament as to the evangelists. Again, that could be very well used of individuals who are spreading the word of the gospel.

But the term I was looking at is the verb, not not the noun referring to an office.

So evangelism is something that is throughout the church and to the outside of the church is something that goes on as opposed to someone who might take a specific part in that as an evangelist.

Well, an evangelist would certainly be someone who proclaims the gospel and that that would normally frequently most frequently be done with outside in the sense of the way we use the term evangelism.

But like I said, the verb itself is utilized of of work within the the church itself.

Okay. Okay. All right. Well, I'm glad you survived the blackout back there. Oh, good, too.

And by the way, you mentioned Al Martin before. Yes. I just saw him Tuesday night.

Oh, really? I live about 15 minutes from where the where the church is. Oh, OK. Good. I do get over there from time to time.

All right. Well, we had heard of some other folks in that area that had visited and appreciated the ministry of the word there as well.

All right. You take care. All right. Thank you very much. Bye bye. 877 -753 -3341.

Let's go to Maurice in Florida. Hello, Maurice. Hi. How are you doing tonight,

Dr. White? Doing well. How are you? Oh, just lovely. You still have power in Florida? We have power in Florida all the time.

That's my wife and I were discussing this tonight. You know, we have one of these phones that plug in. And I said to my wife, I said, you know, if your power goes out, you can't even make a phone call to anybody anymore these days, can you?

That's true. That's true. Dr. White, the reason that I'm calling is I seem to have gotten myself in a bit of a pickle with a few of my acquaintances over the years.

I guess I don't particularly understand fully the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism.

And I guess the perplexion that I've given to them is they can't figure out which one I am exactly, because I guess

I draw on both sides of the issue as far as what I believe in the perspective of salvation.

So I was hoping, and since you got me into this mess anyway, listening to your broadcast, I just happened to come across the point...

No, I'll tell you what it was. A friend of mine turned me on to your Mormonism book and was listening to the show and really have gotten in kind of over my head as far as this particular subject.

And I really don't understand fully the differences between the two. All right. Well, the fundamental issue that you have to start with, the fundamental issue is the difference between, and I'll use the technical terms, but they're not difficult to understand, monergism versus synergism.

Synergism is descriptive of all of man's religions as far as I am able to determine.

And synergism means two forces or two powers cooperating to bring about salvation.

A synergistic system of evangelism would be similar to what a pastor

I had a number of years ago would frequently say. He would say, the doctrine of elections should be understood as following.

God has voted for you. Satan has voted against you. And you have the tie -breaking vote.

If you vote with Satan, then you're going to be lost. If you vote with God, then you're going to be saved.

And so the one vote of God isn't enough. The one vote of Satan isn't enough.

You're the one who makes the final decision. Without your input, though God may desire to save you and wants to save you and puts out a tremendous effort to save you by sending his son and sending his spirit, all of that effort is fundamentally dependent upon your final enablement of the whole system or the whole plan for it to work.

And so there's a synergistic cooperation of the will of man with the will of God that brings about salvation.

Now, various and sundry religious groups would then add things to that. And they would say that synergistic cooperation would involve the necessity of being baptized, the necessity of going through certain religious rites, being baptized in a certain way, doing various and sundry works of righteousness over time, and so on and so forth.

But the fundamental thing is that synergism requires the cooperation of two wills to bring about the final work of salvation.

Monergism, as you can tell by just seeing the difference between the two words, soon at the beginning of synergism is together.

Monos means one. There is only one particular force that is involved, and it is the force of God.

It is God's will that brings about salvation. It is God's will that accomplishes salvation.

And that is, yes, I know. Okay, I'm turning it off. See, there it goes here.

Okay, there's the phone turning off. I apologize to everyone who's going, Oh, somebody, someone else doesn't know that it's time for the dividing line because they're calling

James on his cell phone, which you've got to turn off. I apologize. Monergism, obviously being the idea that there's one will, one power,

God saves, and he saves perfectly, and the work of the Trinity is not dependent upon the creatures, whether it's going to fail or whether it's going to be accomplished.

That is completely and totally God's work, and it is a work that is sovereign and free. And that is the fundamental difference.

And then that then works itself out in the doctrine of man's total depravity.

It works it out in the doctrine of the concept of God's sovereignty and salvation, the perfection of the atonement of Christ, election and predestination, the work of the

Spirit of God in raising us to spiritual life because we're spiritually dead and unable to save ourselves and to raise ourselves to spiritual life, and then the perseverance of the saints, the fact that is going to be accomplished and accomplished perfectly.

So that's the fundamental foundational difference between the two. So in light of that, why do you feel like you're over your head?

What is the issues that are causing you a problem? I think that I was okay, Dr. White, until I was asked point blank, which side do you see yourself on?

And my response was, I don't think it makes any difference which side you're on. It's not that important of an issue in the terms of your salvation.

The importance of the issue is your salvation. Are you saved? Aren't you saved? What do you care how you got there as long as you got there?

And this really caused some eyebrows to be raised, and I guess I was looked at as being either a total idiot or someone that just has no basic knowledge of what the scriptures actually say.

My understanding is, of course, that it is by God's will and only by God's will that we are saved, but I also believe that I'm going to have to make a determination of whether or not

I'm going to accept that salvation. But as my friends were trying to explain to me, well, and he gave me the corpse on the table example that seems to be a very popular one here in the state of Florida.

You know, you're a dead corpse and there's no life in you at all, and God comes and gives you the spark of life, you know, and brings you back.

Well, that's not something limited to the state of Florida. That's because the scripture uses the term that we were dead and our trespasses and sins, and that God is one who made us alive.

And that is the fundamental issue. Is it something to where God has made salvation a possibility?

It's theoretical until we actualize it through an exercise of, quote unquote, free will.

Or is it God's free will whereby he could allow all of us simply to encounter the penalty of our sins, but instead, in his mercy and grace, chooses not based upon anything that we have done, but solely upon his own will, the good pleasure of his own will, to be merciful to his people who are called the elect?

Certainly when someone asks me, well, so you're saying that you don't choose

Christ? No, I certainly have chosen Christ, but I have only chosen

Christ because he first chose me, and that choosing was an effective choosing. There are people that he has not chosen, and they will never choose him.

There's no one who would, it's important to understand, there's no one who would ever turn to Christ who would be turned away by Christ.

There is no one who has ever longed for Christ that Christ would reject.

Any person who turns to Christ and longs for Christ and chooses Christ and follows

Christ, things which all Reformed people believe we do, and we do actively. Not to get off into another tangent or anything, and if I am, we can skip this, and I'll call back another time, but does this go back to the question of, and this was presented to me before, and at the time

I thought it was ludicrous, did Christ die on the cross for all men? And my answer was, of course, yes, he died for all men, and then we get back to the elect issue again.

Well, it does, but that's not, from a logical perspective, it is all directly interrelated, and it is interrelated because it does speak to God's purpose in the atonement.

In other words, if it was not God's intention to save every single individual, why would he then have the

Son take the sins of every single individual if it was not his intention to then accept that offering in the place of every single individual?

Yes, that does come back to it, and an Arminian historically does not believe in substitutionary atonement.

If you say Christ died for every single individual, first of all, dying for someone in someone's place, that is a

Reformed or Calvinistic concept. Arminians historically rejected that. Arminians historically recognize that if Christ does substitutionarily take the place of someone, then that someone must be saved, because the punishment for sin could not be extracted from both

Christ and the sinner. If Christ bore their sins, there's no basis for their condemnation.

Is God going to punish both his Son and that individual for the same sins?

So they recognize that, and so historic Arminians would not use that terminology.

So it's an inconsistency on the part of modern day Arminians to use Reformed terminology when in fact they're being inconsistent at that point.

The question you'd have to ask yourself is if you say, yes, I believe that Christ died for every single individual, what do you mean by the death of Christ?

What was the purpose of the atonement? What does the atonement accomplish? Arminians or inconsistent evangelicals today will say

Christ's death makes salvation a possibility. But if you read the book of Hebrews, you will never find that as being descriptive of what the atonement actually was intended to do or actually what it accomplished.

I believe that the scriptures are very, very clear that the sacrifice of Christ, the atoning work of Christ, perfects those for whom it is made.

And so unless you're a universalist, you believe everyone's going to be saved, everyone in some way, shape or form limits the atonement, limits the effect of the atonement in some way, shape or form.

Modern evangelicals tend to do so by saying it doesn't actually save anyone. It doesn't actually accomplish anything.

It makes something possible. Or as Norman Geisler would put it, no one saved the cross.

We were made savable. The Reformed person says, no, the cross of Christ was was not a theoretical atonement.

It was an actual substitutionary atonement. And as such, it accomplished the very purposes that God intended to accomplish, because that that offering was made specifically for the people of God.

Those that God from eternity had chosen to draw unto himself, not based upon anything they do, but based solely upon his goodwill and good pleasure.

And so that's that's the difference between the two different views of the atonement. And unfortunately,

I rarely find folks who argue against what's called particular redemption that really get into the the biblical aspect of, are we really saying that Christ's death is theoretical or is it truly substitutionary?

That's that's unfortunately been my experience that that that doesn't end up getting really discussed.

Well, maybe this is why I'm causing the distinction that amongst the ranks, you know, I do believe that that Christ died for all men.

However, my view of the elect in scripture is that, you know. But those who have received

Christ as Lord and Savior, they are the elect, not that they're a.

And like I said, if I get off on a tangent here, that's completely opposite direction, just cut me off. I don't believe that the elect are a group of individuals that God has already and I hope

I don't use the wrong word. Dr. White predestined for salvation. I believe that salvation is an opportunity for all men.

Well, see, the problem with that is, well, first of all, yes, you're not reformed. OK, at least not yet.

We're working on it. That's why your friends are looking at you going, OK, let's see if we can get you to understand this.

If it sounds like what you just said is the common perspective that the elect basically elect themselves, that is, that God has foreknowledge.

He he knows who's going to choose him on the basis of knowing that they're going to choose him. He chooses them. There are far too many problems with that to get into in the in the three minutes we have left in the program today.

And and I'd invite you to to to call back and we'll keep going right up to the music here.

But if we don't get through all of it, which I doubt we will, we can go from there. And by the way, let me just mention to you,

I address really a lot of this in my book, The Potter's Freedom, where I and you might find it useful because I'm responding to Norman Geisler's position and many of the things you're saying are exactly what

Norman Geisler says. So you might find the book to be very useful, but especially in regards to this issue of the elect.

The question is, you know, God does use that term predestination of the elect in Ephesians chapter one,

Romans chapter nine and John chapter six and things like that that present these truths.

But the question I would have to ask you is biblically, who is in charge of of all of creation?

Is it is it true that God works all things after the counsel of his will? Ephesians one eleven. Or is

God basically looking down the corridors of time and he just sees what takes place and responds to what takes place in time?

I don't think you find that the Bible presenting that kind of a perspective in regards to to God and his and his relationship with his creation.

The elect are not we do not elect ourselves. Election is something God does, not something that we do.

We are the objects of his choosing, not he being the object of ours.

Yes, we choose him, but it's only after he raises the spiritual life and gives us a new nature whereby we do that infallibly.

So, yeah, I would just ask you, where do you find in Scripture this this concept that the elect are actually in essence, we elect ourselves?

It would be the first question I would ask. Well, I wouldn't say that. I definitely would not say that we elect ourselves. You know, again, I have to agree with you.

It's only only by God's will. Well, then why does one person believe in another person does not?

Well, this is where I'm trying to settle the issue. I mean, you know, I understand that we have the you know, the will to to choose one or the other.

I mean, to say that we so what was what did

Jesus mean in John 644 when he said no one is able to come to me unless the father who sent me draws him?

Well, well, this is the the point that I'm trying to get across. You know, we you know, we hear so often on another radio show.

You mean the radio show I was talking about on my last radio show? Yeah, that was that was a great episode.

By the way, I really appreciated that. That that answered a lot of questions that I had about about that particular statement that I hear repeated again and again.

But also, we hear that, you know, Paul mentioned that, that in each of us, there, there is a spark that causes us to quest for God.

We would explain the the fictional Amazonian tribe that no man, white man has ever seen, and they've never heard the word of the

God, the Word of God, etc, etc. But there is that one spark in his soul that God has put there that causes that causes that individual to seek him out and the individual to respond to that spark, or to ignore it.

Okay, let's let's stop that one there. Because as common as it is, you won't find the word spark anywhere in in Paul's writings.

Instead, Romans chapter one says that all men know that God exists, and they are actively suppressing that knowledge, the

Greek term is kata kanto, and they are holding down the revelation that God has made within them, they know the

God that is there, and they twist that knowledge and engage in idolatry. So the result of that actually is

Romans 311, where Paul says, there is none who seeks after God, no, not one.

And in fact, the literal rendering of that of that phrase is there is no God seeker. So in reality, though, again,

I understand it is very common to hear that. That is a tradition that does not have a biblical basis that that term spark isn't there.

And in fact, the opposite of it is that that man is actively involved in suppressing that knowledge of God.

And so the will of man and and do not misunderstand me, man willfully suppresses that knowledge of God man willfully continues in his rebellion.

And in fact, the term that Jesus uses is he who commits sin is what the slave of sin.

And so man is enslaved to his spiritual deadness, he is enslaved to his rebellion.

And what must you do to a slave? Do you do you simply encourage the slave to free himself?

No, you have to free the slave, just as you have to raise a corpse to eternal life, when

Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. And I know that, again, that is an illustration that has come in for a few shots from a certain radio program as well.

But I think it is an extremely appropriate illustration is that Jesus could not have stood outside the the tomb of Lazarus, and said,

Lazarus, free yourself from the bonds of death. Instead, Jesus stands outside the tomb of Lazarus, and he says,

Lazarus, come forth. And I've actually had people say to me that Lazarus could have chosen not to come forth that the

Son of God could stand in front of all these people desiring to demonstrate his power and his glory, but he was dependent upon the cooperation of Lazarus.

Now, I find a possibility. I'm sorry, that would be an impossibility. I agree 1000%.

How can you resist that? There's no way to do it. But that's, that's the point is someone like a

Norman Geisler, the thing that he truly detests most about the reformed position is that very truth of what you just said, how could anyone resist that?

Well, what I'm saying is when the Holy Spirit of God chooses to bring spiritual life into the life of an individual, who can resist that, that is what begins everything that's what any anyone who's a believer,

I believe they are so because the Holy Spirit of God at God's appointed time, brought spiritual life to them as a result, their nature is changed, they are given the gifts of faith and repentance, they believe they repent, and they cling to Christ.

And I believe in Christ, I repent, I follow him, but it's only because that irresistible change has been brought about in my life.

I am that Lazarus that has been brought out of the spiritual grave. And that's why I believe.

But you see, that means that it's God's choice that I do so. And it's there's no ground of boasting left.

I can't say, you know, the question I asked before, why do some believe in one? Why does one believe in one does not?

I mean, is it because I'm in any of the Arminian systems, fundamentally, when you boil it all down to the to the to the final analysis, anyone who's saved is saved, because they somehow are better spiritually, intellectually, they lived in a better society, something, something made them to differ in that something was internal to themselves.

And I'm saying, that is not the case at all, the only thing that's going to separate those who stand in the presence of the

Father in heaven for eternity, worshiping him and loving him. And those who stand upon the parapets of hell screaming out their hatred for God for eternity is a five letter word called grace.

It's not because I'm smarter. It's not because I'm better. It's not because I'm more spiritual. It's simply the word grace.

Otherwise, you can say it's 99 % of God, but that 1 % was still me.

And that's the difference between me and somebody else. And that makes me better. So that really becomes the fundamental issue between between the two positions.

It keeps coming back to is it is it theocentric? Is it God's work? Or is it anthropocentric where man, you can say

God does 99 % of it. But as long as you leave the 1 % up to man, then that becomes the fundamental issue that we're discussing.

And I think we go into the scriptures. And that's the one thing I wish I would hear happening.

Believe me, we try to get these dialogues going. And I think you'd find real, real useful, not only the potter's freedom,

God's sovereign grace drawn by the Father, the three books that I've written on that subject. But if you'd like to hear, and we don't get many of these folks, believe me, we've asked

Norman Geisler, we're trying to get Dave Hunt, these, these folks will not do the debate where you can actually hear the two sides brought together.

But we have done this. We did it last April of last year, in California, myself and a man by the name of George Bryson.

He's the number three man in the Calvary Chapel movement. And we did a debate on salvation, who is in control.

And it's available on mp3, audio, video, the whole nine yards. And you get to hear both sides in a in a controlled environment, equal time.

And I think that you'll see it keeps coming back over and over again to this, this very issue. And I think that'd be extremely, extremely useful to you.

Terrific. You know, just as a side note, Dr. White, you know, we hear it all the time about God looking down the corridor of time, as God is omnipotent.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say, or could it be said that he's in the future? If you understand what I'm saying, not that he's some seer that, you know, that looked into a cloud or into a crystal ball.

But because he's omnipotent, he occupies past, present and future. Not only that, but not only is this

God exists outside the realm of time, and is not himself subject to time, but I would submit to you that the reason that God knows the future is not just because time exists externally to him, and he is personally present in the future as well as the past, not experiencing a progression of time.

But I would submit to you that the reason he has perfect and absolute knowledge of the future is because time is his creation.

That is, all the events in time, time itself is the result of his eternal decree.

I would challenge anyone to really present a biblical case as to how God can have exhaustive knowledge of future events, if those future events, in fact, are not a part of his sovereign decree.

This is the whole issue in what's called open theism now, and those people who are promoting the concept of open theism.

This is part and parcel of what is at stake here, the immutability of God the whole nine yards.

So it's a very important issue. And I think you'll see how that comes out if you avail yourself of some of those resources.

Absolutely. I really appreciate your time, Dr. Lloyd. Well, in fact, we went five minutes over just to make sure that we could get to all that.

I really do appreciate it. All right. Thank you for calling. God bless. All right. Well, thank you all for listening and sticking with us a few extra minutes.

Don't forget, Tuesday morning, Dr. Eric Svensson will be joining me and we will be discussing his debate with Jerry Matitix on Mary and her alleged perpetual virginity.

We hope you'll join with us then. God bless. Thanks for listening. Web at AOMIN .org,

that's A -O -M -I -N .org, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks.