Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.
Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.
If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.
Now if I hadn't been so busy this morning, we should have queued up a cut from the debate. We've got it sitting there, right there on that computer you're sitting in front of. We actually have. I hope that's not the final audio for the debate, to be perfectly honest with you, because the audio that we got on one of the video cameras for the debate Sunday night, we had three video cameras going.
Two of them were ours and one was from Biola. And ours, of course, can not only feed but also record. So we recorded it on a tape, you know, backup, redundancy, always a good thing to have, especially since, for example, I have no tapes from the Sedalia debate yet and I'm not certain that I will, to be perfectly honest with you.
Right now, given that I'm not hearing anything from back there, I don't know that we're going to ever have a recording of the debate with Dr. Wright from Sedalia because my MP3 player didn't work right, my fault.
Error exists between user and manual. And the videotape didn't work. And so the only thing left is the cassette tape. And I haven't heard anything back from Tim Hutchinson. And I'm still waiting on that.
So I don't know. So redundancy is a good thing, especially in a situation like this. So a couple days ago, Tuesday, I was actually watching the debate, but it was only one of the three cameras, so one-third of that.
The DVDs are going to look really, really good. But the audio, unfortunately, that was on that tape, every time I'd start, I sounded like I was standing 25 feet away from the microphone. Shabir sounds like he's right there, you know, they're right on top of him, but I'm 25 feet away.
So I don't know. We'll see what happens with it. I'm hoping that the actual I mean, that's fixable. You know, you can go into the digital and you can make it sound better. And then when it it would eventually kick in two or three minutes after I started talking, all of a sudden I sounded as good as Shabir did.
But I hope that that was just the feed that was coming out to the cameras and not the feed that was going to the final thing.
But even if you fix that stuff, you still get the tin can effect.
You know, I don't I don't know what else to say. But we could have started with that. We could have started with part of the cross-examination, because at least the cross-examination sounded good.
Maybe Tuesday. Well, the problem is, next Tuesday we are going to have a special guest on The Dividing Line, and that's going to be Dr. Tom Askell, the president of the Founders Movement, founders .org, and, of course, my partner in the upcoming debate October 16th at the New Thomas Road Baptist Church.
I was informed by email today by Dr. Ergin Kanner that the New Thomas Road Baptist Church will seat 6 ,400 individuals. And I remember going to a Southern Baptist Church for many years, and we said that that place could seat what was it that we said, 57?
We said at least 5 ,000.
Didn't we say that? No, it was 6 ,300, and you could get 1 ,000 on the back row and the top. Are you serious?
That's what he'd always say, yeah. Yeah, but you know that when the new pastor came, he actually went out and measured it and said it was 4 ,300 or 4 ,400. So there's always a little tendency to
I think you could have gotten 6 ,000 in that place, elbow to elbow. He said it was less than 5 ,000. Well, you know, everybody's complaining about how Americans are fatter these days. That's true.
I've heard that. We were all skinnier back then. You know that. Back then when you couldn't get any food, we could have fit 10 ,000 people in here. Yeah, sure, okay, all right. But anyway, as it may, 6 ,400 may be pushing it a little bit, but that's okay, whatever.
And so obviously what that means is the cone of silence has been lifted. I have so far not seen any commentary on what caused the sudden silence. But you know what? I may never, ever find out, and that's okay.
But I got my first e-mail yesterday that said we'll be talking about it tomorrow. And so today, this morning, I got the e-mails and the proposed format, and we're discussing it. Evidently, the folks in the debate department finally got involved one way or the other.
I'm not sure what. Yeah, somebody in channel who will remain nameless because of his former association with the Southern Baptist Convention, 6 ,400 normal folks, 3 ,000 Baptist folks. Well, you know what?
And I can give him credit because that was a student of mine at one point. And when he was a student of mine, he would have been one of the 3 ,000 Baptist folks. Now he'd be one of the 6 ,400 normal folks.
He did what I did. He slimmed down just like I did and looked real good last time I saw him. So maybe that's he's got grounds to say that. You know, once you've dropped as many pounds as he has and I have, we can say things like that.
So anyway, what in the world was I saying? Oh, the folks at the debate department, Dr. O'Donnell has been asked to moderate and I guess has said that he will, and that's great with me. Obviously, from my perspective, anybody who goes back on the blog will be able to see that from the start of this particular discussion, I have asked for a three-hour debate.
And the debate with Shabir Ali at Biola was two hours and 40 minutes approximately. And that's only two guys and that's a pretty focused topic. If you have four men at the Thomas Road Baptist Church and you only do two hours, which is what is currently being suggested, that's half an hour per person.
That's three-quarters less than three-quarters of a normal sermon. Why in the world would anyone want to travel to hear less than three-quarters of a normal sermon? It doesn't make any sense to me.
You know, it strikes me that out of all the debates we've done and you get to that two-and-a-half to three-hour mark and sometimes three to three-and-a-half, how many people that leave, I honestly think that California audience was so into that debate and people, when they're going to get to hear these MP3s and the CDs, they're going to realize why.
I think 95 of them would have still been there if another hour had gone by. I think so too.
They were that into it. If we had had interaction, if Shabir and I had been interacting with one another, you bet, people are going to stick around for that. And I think a number of things. The topic absolutely positively requires more time than two hours.
The audience, if they're going to travel, requires that. It just makes no sense to me. So I have consistently asked for three hours. That's still only 15 more minutes per person. That's not that much difference in the time.
And so I'm asking for that. The format that has been suggested is a parliamentary format, and I asked in my response email this morning, I asked, is this something that the debate folks suggested? I'd like to know if they, basically your first and last statements are uninterrupted, but then it goes 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, and it just keeps going for the entire course of the debate.
But after your first one, then you can be interrupted and asked if you'll yield for a question. I don't care as long as it's done fairly. I would love to be able to ask a question in regards to what you just said, how is that consistent with the, you know, the use of the present tense of believe at John 6 or something like that.
You know, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. That would be fine with me. I can handle that, no problem. I'm just wondering exactly how that's going to work out, and I've asked if the debate folks have been involved with that, and I would like to be able to talk to, I'd like to give Dr. O'Donnell a call and ask how often can that be done, are there parameters, you know, I'd like to get Dr. O'Donnell involved with discussing that particular aspect of it.
But so the conversation has begun once again as to the format, and I'm just simply being right up front with everybody. Anybody can go back on the blog. You can follow this. You can see the documentation.
One of the very first things I said was we need to have sufficient time to be able to do this. We need to have sufficient time to be able to address the subjects in a proper manner, and I can guarantee you that is Dr. Askell's concern as well.
Otherwise, we have nothing more here than an issue of competing soundbites, and anybody can listen to that right now. If you want to go listen to Eric Encana's sermons, you can go listen to Eric Encana's sermons.
You can listen to my responses to Eric Encana's sermons, but that's not what the debate is supposed to be about. The debate is supposed to be back and forth and actually doing something and accomplishing something, and so I think that's something that needs to be done.
The other thing was about the issue of the thesis statement, and I have suggested a thesis statement a number of times. Evidently, those haven't really been accepted, but the thesis that was suggested, I'll just be honest and ask everybody else if you can make a head or tail of this because I can't.
The thesis resolved that God is an omnibenevolent God to all of humanity through salvation and opportunity. That's what was suggested. I'll read it again. Resolved that God is an omnibenevolent God to all of humanity through salvation and opportunity.
That's what it is. And I wrote back and I said, quote, I honestly have no idea what this thesis statement means since it is ambiguous both on grammatical and lexical grounds. Surely this can be expressed with sufficient clarity to allow for honest discussion.
This statement assumes but does not define a definition of omnibenevolence. It then turns a noun into a verb, through, demands a verbal concept in antecedence, and then uses salvation and opportunity in a fashion that, again, begs for clear definition.
So I don't know what that means. That could be, Rich just pointed out, a universalist could say that. A universalist could say the exact same thing. So what does that mean? I don't know. So I said our counterproposal would be, quote, Resolved God seeks to save every person equally and without distinction.
Nice, simple, shorter, clearer, no ambiguity. It's grammatically correct. It's syntactically correct. All the words mean what the words would normally mean. Everybody understands exactly what it means.
That's exactly what Ergen Kanner believes. That's exactly what Ymir Kanner believes, that God seeks to save every person equally without distinction. That's a denial of the doctrine of election. And so I think it's a whole lot clearer, and it would define the issue, and it would give clarity to the debate, and it would be something we keep coming back to, and we could examine it on a biblical basis.
So that's what I've written back. I think that is a much better thesis statement. God seeks to save every person equally and without distinction. They'll take the affirmative, we'll take the negative.
If they argue with you on that, tell them, Okay, whatever you come up with has to be able to fit on the DVD. That's true. The title has to fit on the DVD because that one would not fit on the DVD. I mean, you're talking microscopic text.
Oh, I don't know. That God is an omnipotent God to all of humanity through salvation and opportunity. That would take at least two or three lines.
Well, then you have to put in who's on. You have to put additional information in the copyright statements and on and on. I don't care about the DVD. I care about the clarity of the statement. I do. I care about the DVD.
But I care about it. But you know what? I outrank you on this one. Yeah, well, you know what I'll put on the DVD whether this is it or not. I'll put yours. That's true.
That doesn't make it. That's true. So anyway, that's what I suggested on that. I think it's a much better thesis statement. It makes plenty of sense. Anybody can understand exactly what it is we're supposed to be debating.
So we'll see. That's the situation. Once again, we are up front, out front, being very, very clear and straightforward in what it is that we are attempting to accomplish here. And I'm just thankful that after more than two weeks, I think, of silence, that I've gotten an e-mail back.
You know, maybe I just the fact that I finally wrote and said, I'll tell you what, I'm going to start calling this week. I'm just going to call you up and maybe we can talk. And maybe that was enough for everybody to go, no, I don't want to talk to you.
Let's go ahead and start doing e-mails again. I don't know what the whole situation is, but we will see what the case is. But one other thing before we start taking our phone calls and at 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number if you would like to, especially if you'd like to comment in regards to the debate at Biola on Sunday evening.
If you were there, maybe you'd like to comment on that. By the way, those of you in the Phoenix area, I forgot to mention this. The reason that we had to move the program today is that I will be on KPXQ this evening talking about, well, all sorts of things.
I haven't been on KPXQ for years. It's been since Marty Minto left. I forget when Marty Minto left, but it's been I think the Dave Hunt thing was one of the last things I did on KPXQ. And that might mean something.
Maybe I should take a hint from that, but it's been a long time since I've been on KPXQ. And so we're going to be doing the program. November of 2000 has been six years? No, no, no, no, no, because the Hunt thing was after that, wasn't it?
I thought the Hunt thing was after that. But anyway, I thought the Hunt thing was 2001, but summer of 2001. Whatever. It's been a while. And so if you're in the Phoenix area, I'll be on from 5 to 7 p .m. this evening on KPXQ, and you can listen in at that time.
One other big thing before we start taking the phone calls, I am very happy to report that since Sunday evening, there has been continued contact and correspondence between myself and Shabir Ali. As those of you who were there know, I, in my closing statement, made a plea that this not be the last of the conversation, that this be the beginning, not the end.
And it seems that Mr. Ali is amenable to that perspective. And so we are in discussions right now about arranging Glasgow 2007. Yes, Glasgow, Scotland, University of Glasgow. Some people are saying, why?
Why Glasgow, Scotland? Well, first of all, I love going to Scotland, and I am Scottish, and so I fit in there. At least I feel like I fit in there. And I spoke on Islam in Glasgow just a number of weeks ago when I was in the U .K.
I know that Shabir has contacts there because I've seen his debates. I believe the debate that I saw on video was between himself and Jay Smith there at the University of Glasgow. That means I would assume that he would have connections in the local Islamic community.
I have connections in the local Christian community, at least amongst the Reformed folks in the local Christian community. And Glasgow isn't that far from Edinburgh, and I know that I've got some connections in the broader evangelical community there in that area.
And I'll be back over in the U .K., at least in London anyway, in just a matter of weeks in July to speak at the School of Theology at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. So there's lots of connections there, and there's a large Islamic community there.
And I think Shabir would have certainly more support there than he did in California at Biola. And so there'd be more of a mixture in the audience, and I think that's always a good thing. And the topic that I had wanted to arrange a debate in September up in Toronto, but he's not able to do that because of the Ramadan celebrations.
And because I'm going to be up there, and he lives there, and I still would like to try to arrange something for Toronto, just not for Ramadan, I guess. I'm going to have to mark that one off in my palm calendar.
Ramadan, no Islamic debates for this period of time. And that way I'll just remember it. But I'd still like to arrange something up there because I've got connections. I'll be speaking up there in September.
And obviously I want to debate the issue of the deity of Christ. I've debated the deity of Christ against the likes of Greg Stafford, who's considered one of the most expert deniers of the deity of Christ.
At least the deity of Christ has been defined within orthodoxy. Obviously he's taking a little bit of an interesting viewpoint on that. But the point is I've written on the doctrine of the Trinity. I've defended the deity of Christ in many contexts.
And Shabir has written against the deity of Christ. He's written a little booklet on that particular subject. Shabir mentioned he listened to The Dividing Line on Tuesday. So Shabir, if you're listening, greetings.
And if Shabir has started looking around our website, he's going to discover that I've actually said a lot about him over the past six months or so. I've written a number of blog articles. I'd go out writing and I'd listen to another debate and I'd come back going, I can't believe this was said.
And one of my great frustrations was very frequently Shabir would say something and he wouldn't get challenged on it. Now some of that's because when you're in a debate, you can only address so many things.
There's only so many things you can throw out there. So that would be part of it. But part of it was I keep hearing the same things being said and they consistently would not be challenged. And so I would come back and I'd write a blog on it.
I'd go back in the archives and listen to where I've played a number of his debates. And I've commented on each thing just over and over again and said, well, this is an error here. This is an error here.
And so he's going to discover that now. And I could have known that all along. It's not like I was hiding anything. I wasn't. All these archives had been up for a long, long time. But I would expect that Shabir will have very closely looked at the Forgotten Trinity by that point in time and some of the articles on my website.
And, of course, I had already very carefully looked at his book. And hopefully he will discover that the level of material in his booklet, I think pretty much everything he said, I have already refuted without even having seen his book in the Forgotten Trinity.
I mean, comments on the I Am sayings of Jesus and things like that. The booklet just simply wasn't up to par on a scholarly level in dealing with those things. And his booklet does not deal with the issue of someone just said I should have given him a grotesque copy of the Forgotten Trinity.
I did. I gave him the Forgotten Trinity, Scripture Alone, the Justification Book, and a New American Standard Bible in my closing statement. So I did do that. Those of you who are not used to the dividing line may not know that there is a live chat channel.
And it's sort of our studio audience, we might say. But hopefully there will be a much deeper discussion, especially on the issues of the deity of Christ. And I figured, look, if we're going to arrange all this, why not do two debates?
And so I have suggested to Shabir Ali that we do two debates at the University of Glasgow on two, back-to-back, two nights. And the first is on the deity of Christ, and the second on the Islamic assertion that the Bible predicts the coming of Muhammad.
And Muhammad is mentioned by name in the text of the Old and New Testaments. And I have heard Shabir Ali's presentations on this, Ahmed Didat's presentations on this. And I would be more than happy to debate each one of those texts that have been proposed by Islamic apologists as having something to do with the Prophet Muhammad.
And obviously I don't believe any of them do. And I would be more than happy to address those on linguistic and textual critical grounds. Because I'll be straightforward, that's my home turf. That's my area.
So I'll be more than happy to address those particular issues. And so my hope is that within probably the next two months or so, because obviously here's what we've got to do. Shabir and I have got to coordinate our schedules.
There's already a church up near Sterling that has contacted me. And they've already shown a willingness to be fluid with their schedule to arrange an apologetics conference around the same time. They would allow me to do the debate for Shabir Ali and then to be with them for the apologetics conference, either before or after, however it ends up working out best.
Then I need to contact my folks that I know in Glasgow, specifically the Reformed Baptist Church there, because that's where I was speaking and that would be a good base of operations. They've been very supportive of my time there.
And so I'm going to be getting in touch with them and basically with all of my folks, Pastor Brazier over there in London, my folks there in the UK that have been so supportive and helpful in the ministry that we've been doing over there, and work out travel schedules and things like that to make this all happen.
And then, of course, Shabir is talking with the Islamic community there in Glasgow, especially the University of Glasgow, and they've got to work with the university, first and foremost, to be able to have a location, a place to do that.
I know that the Reformed Baptist Church there would not be large enough to handle this, and so we need to have a meaningful facility. And so that's what's going on. So it's going to take a little while, especially since we've got to communicate across the pond.
And doing that generally takes more than one day, because they're eight hours ahead of me. And so you send an email, and they get it while you're going to bed, and then you get it while they're going to bed.
And so it's not the fastest way of doing things. But we will work that out, and hopefully within a couple months be able to give specific dates for, hopefully, two debates at the University of Glasgow, May of next year between myself and Shabir Ali, and I'm sure that those will be excellent debates.
We're going to need to make sure that they're video recorded in a proper way and made available to everybody, because that's how you do stuff. So anyhow, that's the current situation with all of that, working on the details.
I must admit, a whole lot easier getting prepared for the debate with John Shelby Spong. Real simple, you know. Here's the thesis. Here's the format. Already got that taken care of. That simple. I think we will have expended ten times more energy just trying to arrange stuff with the Canners than goes into the debate itself.
It's an odd thing, but I don't really know why that is. So those are the debates coming up next year. I know that January I'm going to be in New Jersey. We're going to try to work out a couple things there.
March, I know that I'm up in the Massachusetts area back at Bethlehem Bible Church. I'm doing a class for them in their setup there. I just realized I still somehow have to try to find some way between now and August, if you can believe that, to get back to Indianapolis.
I'm not sure how in the world that's going to work. I just don't know how. I just don't see how it's going to work, but I need to. You know, I double-booked myself this morning. That's why the dividing line is an hour behind when it's supposed to be because I'm my only secretary, and I hate when I double-book myself.
I hate when I forget something, but, you know, sometimes it just happens. I don't know what else to say about it. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number, and you probably can't kick a break this early, can you?
Probably not because I'm sitting here going, well, if I take a phone call right now, I've got two minutes before the break, and then no matter what, halfway through this thing, we're going to have to take a break.
So nothing we can do about it, and so I will go ahead and talk with Ken. Hi, Ken. We're going to have about two minutes and then take a break and then continue on from there. What's up? Okay.
Looking at Romans 7 -9, when Paul talks about, for I was once alive apart from the law, but with the coming of the commandment, then sin became alive, et cetera. Does that seem to imply, or I forget what it seems to imply, what does it mean?
Well, give me a context as to what you're referring to.
If within the context of original sin, we are dead from birth, spiritually speaking, and then it's not referring to like the age of accountability, is it? Oh, no. Where the Arminians or the Baptists have this idea that until you figure out what's going on, you're….
No, Paul is not addressing anything even slightly relevant to that. I can see why someone might try to rip it out of its context. But the whole section would be grossly misapplied to issues like that.
If you look at what he's actually discussing here, and there are people who take different viewpoints. There is a sort of a Lutheran viewpoint on this that I know at least one Reformed person that takes that view for some odd reason.
But there's fairly distinct lines upon which the interpretation of Romans chapter 7 goes. But primarily what he's talking about is relationship of the law and the issue of our relationship to the law.
And you sort of have to go back to the beginning. Do you not know, brethren, speaking to those who know the law, that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? So he's talking about life in that context.
He then gives an example for the married woman is bound by the law to her husband while he is living. But if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning her husband. And so the issue of life and death here is within the context of that.
And that is what is the relationship of the law to the individual and how does that relate to the issue of faith, the Christian life, and everything that goes on from there. So it's not talking about ages of accountability.
It's not talking about spiritual death in the sense of capacity or incapacity. It's talking about that context. So he goes on, so then if while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she should be called an adulteress.
But if her husband dies, she is free from the law. So she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
So notice even in verse 4, you've got life and death being used in two completely different contexts there. That is, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, and then you might be joined to another, to him who was raised from the dead.
Well, he's raised physically from the dead. And so there's a number of different uses here, and that's why you have to be very, very careful because, for example, a few weeks ago I was playing Dr. Davis's comments, and he just looked at the word death and started running around looking at various uses of the word death.
Well, you have to interpret any usage of a term within its immediate context first. You can't just simply do the Strong's exhaustive concordance thing where you look at a word and say, oh, it's used like this over here, or the argument that I've heard some people use, well, you look at the first way that a word is used in Scripture, and that will define it for the rest of Scripture.
No, that's just simply not the case. You can't make that work. And so in this particular context, that's what you have to be very careful of is looking at the specific use of the word die and what the immediate context is about.
And we'll continue looking at Romans chapter 7 after we take this break. We'll be right back.
The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us. James White's book, The Forgotten Trinity, is a concise, understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.
It refutes cultic distortions of God, as well as showing how a grasp of this significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a Christian. And amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the Trinity.
Dr. John MacArthur, Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church, says, James White's lucid presentation will help layperson and pastor alike. Highly recommend it. You can order The Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at aomin .org.
More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements.
And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics.
Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture, the papacy, the Mass, purgatorian indulgences, and Marian doctrine.
James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the Gospel itself that cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomin .org.
But not by the fruit of death, but now a different use of death, to that by which we were bound so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. What shall we say, then, is the law sin?
May it never be. On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the law, for I would not have known about covening if the law had not said, You shall not covet. But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment produced in me, covening of every kind.
For apart from the law, sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died. And this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me.
So you'll see that in each one of these, almost phrase by phrase, you have to follow the argument to see the myriad of different ways in which life and death are being used here. Just reading through that point, I would say we had what?
At least four different uses of death and at least three different uses of life. And so each one has to be defined within the context, in the context of 7, 8 through 10. He's talking there when it says, I was once alive apart from the law.
He's not talking about spiritually alive. He's talking about when the commandment comes and the commandment shows me my sin, even the life he's talking about there was ignorance of what the commandment was.
The commandment comes, shows me my sin, brings the penalty of death, and I die as a result. So I mean, is that what he's talking about earlier in regards to the woman, for example, being bound? No. Each section has to be taken within its own context to provide its own definition.
And that's why you can have two readings of Romans 7. You're probably aware of the fact that the big argument, especially for those who like Robert Raymond's Systematic Theology, the big argument is Romans 7, especially when you get down a little bit farther, when Paul starts talking about, for example, verse 20, verse 19 and 20.
For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. Who's saying that?
Is that a believer or an unbeliever? That's the big argument. And the majority, I would say, of Reformed interpretation has been that that is the regenerate person who is bemoaning the presence of sin in his life and still awaiting that perfect sanctification that will come later on.
Raymond and others say, no, that's the unregenerate person. And, you know, I'm not going to get into that argument today. I'm not even prepared to get into that argument. I'd have to spend a fair amount of time gathering quotations and spending time on it.
It's not something that I do. But I don't take that perspective. I can see myself saying that. I cannot see an unregenerate person looking at my life going, oh, I wish I could do good things. I don't see it as a possibility.
But you can see why there are at least two major viewpoints at that point, depending on exactly how you define certain uses of both life and death and ask the question, is this before or after the coming of regeneration?
So it's a tough text. There's no two ways about it. And it requires very close exegesis and following in a very close context. And that's why you just can't import the context that you mentioned at the beginning of the call into it and say, well, is he talking about this or is he talking about that?
Okay? Okay. That's a lot of stuff with a commercial break in between.
Two on the download several times, I'm sure. One other question, if you don't mind. Real quick, okay. If when Christ died on the cross, his payment was accomplished, then why in several places in the scripture are we admonished to either, in the Lord's Prayer, for example, ask that God forgive us as we forgive those who sinned against us, or where it's mentioned confess your sins once another and God is faithful and just to forgive you and cleanse you from all unrighteousness.
It seems as if the theology would say, well, your sins are paid for, so you don't have to ask for God's forgiveness because it's been granted, but perhaps thank God for forgiveness, etc. Why are we do you see sort of a difficulty?
No.
The only difficulty that exists there is when we continue to insist to try to confuse the eternal and the accomplished with the temporal and the experiential. We are time-bound creatures. We experience life as past, present, and future.
The Bible does reveal to us certain aspects of God's completed work. We know, for example, the Bible says we have been seated in heavenly places. Well, that means from God's perspective it's a done deal.
There are certain aspects in which that's true, but I'm not in heaven yet. I'm still experiencing sin. I'm still experiencing struggles. I still experience disruptions in my relationship with God. And so it's only when we try to pretend that we can live our life atemporally and grab hold of all these eternal realities that are already finished and import them into time as if they're already accomplished and eternity is finished and so on and so forth that we come up with these problems.
That's what a guy named Bob George does. Bob George runs around teaching that you've already been forgiven, so stop asking for forgiveness because it's already an accomplished reality. Well, there's a sense in which that's true, but it's a sense that ignores the reality of the New Testament itself.
The New Testament does tell us to ask for forgiveness. It tells us to continue to seek that relationship with God because just as in the marriage relationship I know that if I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing and if my wife and I are committed to the covenants that we've made to one another that she'll forgive me and I will forgive her.
But you'd be really, really, really stupid not to ask for forgiveness. Even if you knew that your wife was going to forgive you, you'd still be really stupid not to do that. So in the same way, sin disrupts my relationship with God, and I need to confess that sin.
One of the problems that we need to recognize is the term confess, hamalageo, which means to say the same thing, to speak the same thing. Confession is not just simply seeking something. It is a recognition that, you know what, that was sin.
We're not making excuses as to what our sin was. It involves a recognition of it. That's part of sanctification and so on and so forth. So I understand the tension that people see there and the fact that some have gone off the deep end.
Same thing with, for example, when we see that we've been united with Christ in his death, that resulted in some people developing a concept of eternal justification, that we've been eternally justified because since we've been united with Christ there can't be anything to add to that, and therefore we've been eternally justified.
Well, the problem is the New Testament says that until regeneration, until faith, we are the enemies of God, that we were just like everybody else. We were enemies with God, but then he made us alive in Christ, Ephesians chapter 2.
So it's just a matter of taking all the New Testament teaches and recognizing that in some cases, yes, God has seen fit to show us what the eternal reality is, but at the same time we are to remain balanced in recognizing that there are certain experiential aspects of our relationship with God, and we can't function on the basis of the eternal.
We function until eternity itself on the basis of time, and therefore we have a relationship, that relationship needs to be maintained, that relationship involves our asking for forgiveness and our experiencing that forgiveness based upon the promises of God.
So I understand exactly where it's coming from, but I think if we allow the New Testament to speak for itself, all of it, not just part of it, we see that the reason why we have the both and the and. It's similar to the, you've been adopted, you are a son of God, but we are awaiting the adoption.
How do you work all that out? That's something that comes with experience and with growth as well. So thank you very much for your phone call today, and we continue on with the phone calls with Mark in San Antonio.
Hi, Mark. How are you doing, doctor?
How are you today? Doing good. Good. Well, I'm a long-time listener, first-time caller, and a friend of mine told me to say hi to you. You'd remember him, Henry Paul, the security guard back on Long Island.
Oh, sure, yeah. I reside in San Antonio, Texas now.
Oh, you were back on Long Island at that time? I'm originally from Long Island, yeah. Did you go to Hope?
I'm sorry? Did you go to Hope Reformed Baptist? No, no, no. I was a member of the Christian Reformed Church back then. Oh, okay. All right, okay. But my question basically is, and I know that you're familiar with Pal Talk.
Pal Talk, the black hole of intelligence of the Internet. If you want to find out everything stupid about theology, there is a place to go. It's called Pal Talk. Yes, indeed. Anyway, sorry, just had to say that.
I'm normally much more animated about Pal Talk in my chat channel.
Well, anyway, I'm new to Pal Talk, so this is like my second week there. And I found some good Reformed brothers there.
Brother, let me stop right now and pray for your deliverance. Lord, we know. Pal Talk is sort of like a disease. It will eat your brain out. All I can say is after about the third week of hearing the crazy guy with the bird in the background, you will eventually be delivered from the demon of Pal Talk.
Now, I know that there are a few decent Reformed folks there, but I actually at one point also succumbed to the Pal Talk disease. I actually got slightly involved for a couple of weeks. But the fact of the matter was what would scroll in the text, even if you had decent stuff being said, what would scroll in the text was so absolutely inane that eventually it was just like, you know what, this just ain't worth it.
And so we have a number of Pal Talk refugees who have come into the channel and have discovered what meaningful discussion can be like. And so anyways, we will pray for your recovery and your eventual deliverance.
But what's going on in Pal Talk?
Well, the thing is, and I know that you've debated Lou Agirio. In fact, I have.
No, we had a discussion sort of. And Lou, my understanding is Lou actually sells an edited version of that. That is correct. And it's sort of like, you know, if you've got to edit it and then put a bunch of stuff in, that might say something, but people who listen to Lou don't really think along those lines.
So it doesn't really matter.
Exactly. Well, the thing is, and they get pretty graphic on it, and I would like if you can tell me what scripture I can go to to defend this position. Proverbs 129.
Proverbs 129 says you choose. There it is. All Calvinism has been refuted right there.
I'm sorry. Well, the thing is, they get very graphic, and they say, well, did God ordain rape? Does God ordain murder? How do I, as a Reformed believer, counter that? Because I believe that in God's providence things happen because God allows them.
But does God ordain sinful men's acts?
Well, here's how I respond to that. And to be perfectly honest with you, I don't know that it can work in Pal Talk. Because with folks like that, people that I've encountered in that context, trying to actually get into the text of scripture and allow the text of scripture to speak, especially on issues.
Have you read Calvin's discussion of predestination and election in the Institutes of the Christian Religion? In his Institutes, yes. Yes, okay. Then you'll remember that, first of all, he addresses this right after the longest chapter in the entire Institutes, which was on prayer.
And he says right at the beginning, and Luther said the same thing, this is a very weighty subject that needs to be addressed with a tremendous amount of concern for God's truth, concern for God's glory.
And unfortunately, very frequently, Pal Talk is not the context in which that can be done. So maybe within a reformed chat area where all those people are red-dotted, you might actually be able to do something.
But other than that, quite honestly, what I'm saying is, I don't know this is a subject that you can actually address with mockers. Because mockers are not interested in what the Word of God has to say.
And a lot of those people, they just mock the Word of God. They don't love the Word of God. They don't handle the Word of God correctly. They mock it. And so when I try to, you know, I do in that context what I did on the Bible Answer Man broadcast in December of 2003.
I went to three texts and attempted to get a biblical discussion going. And I didn't get a biblical discussion going in that context. So that's a whole lot better context than Pal Talk is. So you can sort of have an idea.
I went to Genesis 50 -20. And I went to Joseph speaking to his brothers. And in that context... Genesis? Genesis 50 -20. 50 -20, okay. Where after the death of their father, Joseph's brothers now come to Joseph.
He's the second most powerful man in all of Egypt. He's the one they sold into slavery. They figure, okay, now the dad's gone. Joseph is going to have us tied to an ant mound and covered with honey. And eaten very slowly over the course of a long period of time.
And Joseph's response to them, even though they had done terrible things. They had convinced their father that his favorite son had been murdered. They lied to their father. They let their father weep and mourn for years and years.
They had sold their brother into slavery in Egypt. They had sinned in about every way you could possibly sin. You go down the Ten Commandments, there are only a couple that didn't break. And so they had done evil things.
And they did things with wrong motives. But Joseph, after all that time, looks at his brothers and he says, You meant it for evil. He knew what their hearts was. He didn't soft-pedal their sin. But he said God intended it for good and to save many people alive today.
If you look at the Hebrew, if you look at the Greek Septuagint, they are absolutely parallel constructions. One action, which was a sinful action. The intentions of the sinner, evil. The intentions of God, good and holy.
You have there what is called compatibilism. That is that the Bible teaches that God's sovereign decrees over the actions of man is compatible with the actions of man in their free choices. God was not standing behind Joseph's brothers, the big gun, and they didn't want to do this.
They were good men. No, in fact, they wanted to kill Joseph. He had to restrain their hatred so they wouldn't kill Joseph. And yet still, even in the midst of that, he is working so that his plan is accomplished.
They are held accountable. He doesn't say you didn't sin. But he is pointing out to them that God had a purpose in all of this, and Joseph had come to see that purpose. Now, did Joseph see that purpose when he was sitting at the bottom of the pit?
No, he did not. Did he see it when he was sitting in prison after Potiphar's wife had lied about him? No, he did not. But the purpose was there. Then I went from Genesis 50 -20 to Isaiah 10 -5 -17. You can go down to verse 21 if you want to.
There you have one of the clearest presentations of compatibilism I've ever seen. God says that he's going to bring Assyria down. He's going to punish Israel. And then he's going to punish Assyria for the attitude they had in going after Israel.
So one action, he brings Assyria down against Israel. There's going to be rape and murder and plunder right in that exact event. And yet that is God's judgment upon Israel. But then, read the rest of the chapter, because Assyria was haughty in their heart and their spirit and they did not recognize God, then they are judged for what they did.
One action, their desires are evil, God's desires are good. And then I clinch it, after all of that, with Acts 4 -27 -28. And I say, look, here you have the... Doctor, I'm sorry, Acts chapter... Acts chapter 4, verses 27 -28.
Okay, go ahead. And specifically you have the early church praying after they have been threatened. And they say, for truly in this city they were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur.
So here you've got all these different people. You've got Herod, and Herod had his reasons. His reasons were not the same as Pontius Pilate's reasons. And Pontius Pilate's reasons were not the same as the Romans' reasons.
And the Gentiles there. And obviously the Jewish leadership, completely different perspective as to why they're involved. They're all involved in the death of Christ. Each one of them, sinful reason. Each one of them, different reasons.
But, despite all that, what does verse 28 say? To do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur. Now here you have the greatest event in all of human history. The death of Christ, by which God is going to glorify himself in the greatest way.
And yet you have human beings involved. You have human beings involved in a sinful fashion. And yet, what do you have? Exactly what we saw in Isaiah. Exactly what we saw in Genesis. One action on the human's part.
Evil intentions on God's actions. Holy intentions. And in each one of these situations, you have what we call the concept of compatibilism. And so, when someone wants to try to get, shall we say, emotional.
And say, oh, well you're saying every rape is ordained by God. I turn around and say, so what you're saying is, your God created this world. And he knew, unless you're an open theist. He knew that rape was going to happen.
And in fact, he knew that every single instant of rape was going to happen. And you're telling me your God created this world in such a way that they were going to happen. And he has no purpose in it.
No redemptive purpose. He's not glorified in it. And you're saying that somehow better than my saying. That even if in this life we may not see what the purpose is. We have God's promise that there is a purpose.
He's going to be glorified. And we can hold on to that knowing that all things work together for the good. For them that love God. For them that are called according to his purpose. How is that better?
How is that better than what I believe? Right.
That's very good. Absolutely. Because on PalTalk, you know, they misrepresent our position so much. I mean, if Calvinism was really the way they explain it, I wouldn't be a Calvinist, you know. Of course not.
No, they can't accurately represent it. They can't represent it in a proper fashion because they can't argue against the reality. Their arguments are only good against straw men. So that's just how it works.
Hey, brother, I've got one more caller to sneak in real quick. Thanks, doctor.
Thank you very much. You've got to come to San Antonio sometime, okay?
I actually love San Antonio. I'd love to get there sometime where I could bring my wife and we'd go on the river walk because it's just gorgeous at Christmas time. You bet. All right. Thanks, brother.
Take care, sir. All right. God bless. Bye-bye. Let's talk to, real quick, to John in Detroit. John, make it quick. Hello, John. Hi, Dr. White.
How are you, sir? Can you hear me? Real great. Real quick. Maybe not going to work, but I'll try. I'll try anyway. All right. I'm calling about inerrancy. I just recently bought your atheist series, the MP3 series, and I listened to all that.
I listened to McKinsey, and I was awfully surprised at how poorly he did. I happen to be an unbeliever as well, and I thought maybe I could give you a couple of examples that I thought were better than his examples.
Oh, but he's been at it for a long, long time.
I know. Now, when was that recorded? Middle to late 1980s. Yeah. Everything that came out of his mouth, I was thinking, before you even said anything, I was agreeing with you it wasn't very substantive.
Well, but he was, at the time, putting out biblical inerrancy, and unless I'm mistaken, I think he's still active, isn't he? Oh, yeah. I believe he is. Yeah.
Okay. A little background, if I have time. I don't know. I was a believer up until about a year ago. I used to spend a lot of time debating Roman Catholics in some of the same circles you did on discussion boards, and often you may experience this.
When you pin a Catholic, what they often do, rather than defend their own doctrines, what they'll do is they'll attack the Bible, and they'll say, look, you think my reasoning is absurd. Well, look at your reasoning.
They seem to think that we dance and spin when it comes to inerrancy, just like they dance and spin when it comes to something like Galileo or the fourth letter in counsel, whatever the case may be. And as I went through that, that kind of helped me realize that they were right, even though that was such an annoying response because they should defend what they believe.
But anyway, I did conclude that was right. I probably have time to give you maybe one example. I'm a little bit confused. They were right about what? They were right about your reasoning. I concluded, yeah, I concluded they were right when they said the Bible, you dance and spin and give ad hoc reasoning when you defend inerrancy.
So why are you critical of me when I do the same thing with regards to Galileo?
Well, that wouldn't be consistent for a Roman Catholic to say historically.
But they do it, and you've probably seen it before. I don't know if you have.
All right. So let me ask you a question, John, before your example. When you say you were a believer, you were active in a sound church? Yes, I was.
I was. It was kind of a Baptist church, but the doctrines were pretty much identical. Okay. All right. So go ahead. Well, I'll give you one example of inerrancy that I think is better than McKenzie's.
Okay. It relates to the resurrection narratives. You've heard probably a lot of the various issues associated with that. I'm going to focus on just one, and that is Mary Magdalene and what did she know and when did she know it kind of thing.
As you proceed through the narratives, let's start with Luke. And Luke tells us that Mary Magdalene and other women went to the tomb, and they found it empty. And they met a man or two men or an angel or something like that, and the angel, they said, Where's Jesus?
And the angel says, Don't you recall how he said he would die and be raised on the third day? And the women recalled. And they said, Oh, that's right. That is what he did. And so the angel says, They go to tell the disciples.
And if you turn to the book of Matthew, you find that on the way to tell the disciples, they actually meet Jesus. And they clasp his feet and worship him. And he says, Go tell the disciples, come to meet me in Galilee.
Okay, now you turn to the book of John, and the women arrive to tell the disciples. And Mary Magdalene says, They've taken my Lord, and I don't know where they've put him. They've stolen the body. And then they proceed back to the tomb with John and Mary Magdalene does, and she sees someone who she thinks is the gardener.
She says, Did you know where they've placed my Lord? And he says, And, of course, it's Jesus. And they act like they haven't met yet. And Jesus says, Mary, and Mary says, Rabbi. And he says, Don't touch me because I haven't yet gone to the Father.
So the question, obviously, is why is it that Mary seems to think that the body is stolen when she's just met him and worshipped him at his feet?
A couple of things, a number of things. First of all, I didn't get any references, so it would be impossible to follow exactly what you were saying. And there were a couple of things you said that did not even ring a bell of familiarity with me.
And so I had a feeling you were conflating a couple of things. You've got Mary Magdalene in Luke 24 with Joanna and Mary, the mother of James, and also other women who come at that particular point in time.
Now, then you were jumping around a whole lot. And so I'm afraid I can't follow exactly what you were saying. However, the issue of the resurrection narratives between the synoptics, well, actually, not the synoptics, between Mark and Matthew and John has been addressed a number of times in regards to what you can and cannot say about the order in which the material is presented to you.
It seems that you've come up with a way of knowing exactly what the order is, when I don't know that that's necessarily something that you can do. But I just have to ask, I suppose, the real question that most people have, when you talk to someone who says, I once believed like you believe, but now I'm an unbeliever and this was why, what did you look at when this particular question was presented to you?
Well, I looked at, there are a couple on the web, harmonies of the resurrection narratives. I looked at those, and it wasn't really, this wasn't an issue. This was something that I discovered after I decided.
Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
For some reason, I had some feeling that this would have been one of the big issues that you would have raised.
I think it's at least easy enough, sort of easy to explain. I think a little more substantive than what you got from McKenzie.
Well, synoptic issues, maybe. I mean, he likes basic, simplistic self-contradiction. But if I could ask, we're going a little bit long in the program today, just so I can. But if I could ask, what was it?
It was inerrancy, and it wasn't just this one issue. Catholics, I thought, let me tell you a little anecdote. As I was going through this, here's a big issue. As I was going through this process, I had an acquaintance who just happened to be talking about how Lindsay's followers, and how he says how Lindsay predicted the coming of Christ at a certain time.
And he's laughing about these people, saying they're just so ridiculous, and he can't believe it. And of course, I'm thinking, you're a Seventh-day Adventist. You guys are in the exact same boat. But at the time, I'm considering, what did Jesus say about when would he return?
In Matthew 15, he says, the Son of Man is coming with glory and power. And truly, I say, some standing here will not taste death before the Son of Man comes in his kingdom. He's talking about judgment and everything else.
That was Matthew 16, actually. I'm sorry, Matthew 16. And then Matthew 24, he says, this generation will not pass away. Elsewhere, he says, if you're persecuted in one town, go to another. You will not be in all the towns before the Son of Man comes.
You look at 2 Peter 3, it seems that Peter is offering the excuse. He says, this is what he says, he says, in the last days, scoffers will come, following their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of Christ's return?
Everyone has died, yet things continue as they have been. And I have to say, where are these scoffers getting this impression? Well, if I look at Matthew 16, that seems to be exactly what it says.
So here's the Seventh Day Adventist. Let me back up the truck just a moment here and ask you a question. Haven't you noticed that that's at the end of Chapter 16, and of course there weren't chapters in the original, and the very next verse is a transfiguration account?
Right, and Matthew says it's eight days later. I think Luke says it's six. And I understand that, but it's not just in that place.
It's also Matthew 24. But wait, but you raised that issue, so is that an unfair reading of the point of why?
Because he talks about coming in judgment with glory and angels, and the transfiguration doesn't have any of those events.
Well, you mean in Matthew 16, he says that I'm talking about the coming in judgment with angels?
Yeah, he says, the Son of Man is coming with glory and power, and he's going to judge each person according to his deeds. He talks about the judgment. So he says, truly I say to you, if I'm standing here when I taste death, the Lord has seen the Son of Man come in his kingdom.
So it looks to me like he's talking about the judgment and so forth, and it wasn't just that, and I knew the transfiguration explanation.
Okay, but John, I just want to make sure everybody understands this. Because I'm watching people on the channel, and they're all going, why would someone lose their faith over this? Because you've just, Jesus says, whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
Now that is in perfect line with what has come before it in regards to the riches of the world and choosing the world over Christ, and he's going to be the final judge, so on and so forth. And then verse 28 says, truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
Now, it does not say until they see the final judgment. And so you're assuming, well, okay, I'm going to conflate these, I'm going to force these together to create a contradiction rather than the six days later, which of course would have been the very next sentence in the original writing, no chapter breaks, no verse divisions.
And so I'm going to force this into a contradictory reading that isn't even natural, and that's why I'm going to lose my faith?
Well, here's, and of course it's not just one issue. This was a major one. But the question is, why is it now, you know, from dealing with Catholics, our canon is a fallible belief in an infallible collection of books.
It could be.
That's not my presentation. I present the canon as having just as much certainty as God's purpose in giving Scripture in my book, Scripture Alone. Okay. When I say, when I deny infallibility of the canon, I'm only denying infallibility of the church, but be that as it may.
Okay. My point is, I decided I would look at the Bible and I would say, let's adopt the skeptic, if 2 Peter is a late document, and it's probably the single book that is most disputed by modern scholarship.
And I would say, if it turned out 2 Peter was written in the 2nd century, that wouldn't destroy my faith. I mean, it's not based upon that. But I said, let's put on that framework and let's read 2 Peter.
And when he says, you know, when he says, scoffers are saying, you know, of course, a pseudonymous writer often will present his cases if he's talking about the future, but in fact, he's talking about the present.
So we're looking at him and saying, it looks like he's saying, scoffers are here. They're making fun of us because we said Christ would come again before the disciples died, yet it didn't happen. And then he offers his excuse, and it's not what you say.
It's not, oh, he was talking about the Transfiguration. What he says is, well, God is slow, and he wants everyone, he's waiting, because a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day.
That's his reasoning. And when I look at that, and I say, when Jehovah's Witnesses tell me, when I talk to Jehovah's Witnesses, I say, look, you said Christ was going to come again in 1914. It didn't happen.
You have to be honest and say, we're wrong here. You're not being honest when you don't admit that. And here's this, for instance, my Seventh-day Adventist friend, does the exact same thing. And what I realized is I'm doing the exact same thing.
The words are very plain.
They say this, you know. Well, John, that's where you're wrong. And consistency is a central key of apologetics. And I'm sorry, but that's where you're wrong when you say the words are very plain. First of all, Peter makes no reference to the words of Jesus in Matthew 16.
That's an inappropriate connection that you just made. Everybody who would preach the imminent return of Christ, that is, that Christ could come at any point in time and that, as Jesus in his own parables said, you must always be prepared for when the homeowner is going to be returning, when that would be heard by especially people outside of the Christian faith, it would be very easy for them to understand and to attempt to proclaim the idea that, oh, you're saying he's coming in your lifetime.
No, but I need to live that way. I need to always live in that way. And, yes, he could. Oh, that means he's coming in your lifetime. No, I didn't say that. They're mockers who are going to come. I just don't understand why in the context of these particular documents you can't allow them to have a context that makes perfect, consistent sense with themselves without engaging in this kind of, well, they must have read Matthew and they must have had that context in mind and they must have had this context in mind.
Why do that? I'm not saying that they must have read Matthew. But you just did. No, no, no. I'm just saying the sense that we get from Matthew, if you read it, it's very easy to come away with the sense that he's saying things will happen before that.
Like I said, there's several verses.
I'm not saying he's Matthew. No, no, no. But I'm sorry. You keep saying that, and then I come back and say, wait a minute. Here's what it actually says, and it actually says, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
In the context, the next sentence is the transfiguration. I'm sorry. If you want to try to read something else into that, don't blame Matthew for that. Wait a second.
You can't just say, well, because that's a possible explanation of it, therefore it necessarily is, just because it's there. Wait a minute.
So Matthew is guilty until proven innocent. No, I'm just saying. You can put entire apostasy between two sentences.
Look, there's always some kind of an explanation to come up with. Jehovah's Witnesses have explanations. No, no, John. That is not true. No, John, that is not true.
No, it is not. You cannot. That's not true. John, listen. You just blew your case, because I can document the specific date from 1874 to 1914 with Jehovah's Witnesses. I can document in multiple sources.
Every single time we've gone to a text, and I've pointed out to you that you're abusing the text, you say, well, that's not the only passage. So you've just demonstrated that you're using a completely different standard.
That's not the only passage. That's a legitimate point. I'm right that's not the only passage. But every time we go to a passage, John, every time we go to a passage, you have to run from it to another.
It's sort of like Dave Hudson. I'm not. You haven't proved that I'm. No, no, no. John, I've only proved that your reasons for apostasy had nothing to do with the Bible. That's what I've proven. Hey, we've gone way, way, way over time, and I need to fit this on to one period of time here.
John, I'm awful sorry, but that's just sad, sad, sad, sad. Very, very sad. We will continue with The Dividing Line on Tuesday. Don't forget, Tuesday morning, Tom Askell will be joining us on The Dividing Line.
Continue with your calls. Thanks for listening. 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 dot O-R-G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks. Join us again next Tuesday morning at 11 a .m. for The Dividing Line.