Open Lines, Mormon call in

And welcome to The Dividing Line, we are live today at 877 -753 -3341, inviting your participation on the program today, sort of a grab bag of things, nothing in particular as far as a particular theme, in the sense of the last couple weeks we have been giving a response to Adrian Rogers, have gotten a lot of, well,

I probably, though I wouldn't have time to do it, should somehow see what comes in,

I know some people do, I don't, and I really wouldn't have time to read it anyways, but I only get to see some of the positive stuff and maybe some of the most egregiously negative stuff, and everything else gets shipped off to everybody else, and they are faithful in answering those things as best they can, but I got a lot of response to the

Adrian Rogers series, and hopefully folks were blessed by that, but this week, sort of a grab bag of things, just various articles that have come to my attention, and things that are going on.

Coming up in a week from this coming, well it's two weeks from today, let's put it that way, is the

General Conference of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City, and two weeks from this evening

I will be debating Dr. Martin Tanner, an LDS attorney,

I've been on his program before, in fact I am assuming we probably put the

MP3s of the two programs that I know we digitized this week up on the website for you to listen to that,

I'm waiting for something to show up on the screen to tell me whether that's right or wrong, I think so,

I love definite responses, I think so, yes, maybe, there's a high probability, something like that, anyways, you can hear those programs by downloading the

MP3s, these were from back in, I don't know, 93, 94, somewhere around there,

I don't recall now how long ago those programs were, but we did a couple programs, myself,

Martin Tanner, and Van Hale were on those programs in regards to deification and the doctrine of God, and that's what the topic's going to be about at the

University of Utah on Saturday night, October 6th, it's at the

University of Utah Student Union Ballroom, that is October 5th,

I'm sorry, 7pm, and if any of you are up in the

Utah area and would like more details as to how to get there and things like that, give

Christ Orthodox Presbyterian Church a call at 801 -532 -5066 and you'll find your way there, and I guess that's the first topic this morning, this afternoon now, well depending on where you're listening, we have people listening all over the place, and that is,

I've been informed that there has been some complaint on the part of some well -known and some lesser well -known members of the

Mormon Church about the timing of the debate. The past four debates that we've done have been on the

Friday night before conferences, I recall, at least the last one was, and that's when

I would rather do it, I mean this is going to be a long day for me, that's a long Saturday to be out of the temple, in fact

I obviously will not be able to be out of the temple the whole day, and maybe a number of our other people won't be able to either, depending on setup times and things like that, and that's not ideal, and when we were first contacted by the folks up in Utah about doing it on Saturday night,

I said, well, what do you want to do, kill me? I mean that's going to be a very, very long day to stand outside and talk to people and then do a debate against Martin Tanner, can men become gods?

But then it was explained to me, well, it's really an issue of forum, where we're going to have this, we had the last debate at a high school auditorium, it was a very nice auditorium, no two ways about it, but it wasn't really centrally located, and so the idea was to get into a more centrally located area, and the only time to do it, when it was financially feasible, was that evening, well, of course

I knew there is a priesthood session going on at conference at that time, but only a certain number of people can go to that, and certainly a lot of the local

LDS people don't even go to conference. I mean most of the LDS people that I know of in the

Salt Lake area don't go to conference regularly at all. I go to conference far more regularly than they do. And so when it was explained to me, well, here's the situation, this is why we're doing it this way, okay, fine, that's how it works.

So lo and behold, we find out that some people, like with the Shields website, and Dr.

Daniel Peterson are complaining that this was scheduled for this

Saturday of conference. And when I found that out, I just, I'm like, wow, it just blew me away.

A couple reasons. First of all, Dr. Peterson hasn't come to these debates, and in fact he's been invited to these debates and has consistently declined being involved with them.

We've had BYU professors involved, the debate before last, the last debate was with a graduate of BYU, a

PhD from BYU who was head of the religion department, or the Institute of Religion at the

University of Utah for many years. And these folks haven't shown up then, so why would there be an issue now?

But of course the main thing for me anyways, that absolutely amazes me about any complaints coming from Dr.

Peterson, is that he has declined our invitations to debate. And you might say, well, so, that's no big deal, there's a lot of folks who don't necessarily want to debate and things like that, and that's true.

However, the one difference is that Dr. Peterson has said that any day he would debate me specifically on the subject of theosis.

And he didn't just do it in an offhand comment over beer and pretzels someplace, that's a joke.

He did it publicly, and in fact he did it on a major radio program, and we have a recording of that statement,

I'm going to play it for you here in a moment. And he did it in such a way as to almost in an offhand way just dismiss myself and another gentleman as you'll see, and what we did is after inviting him, and he actually did not even reject the invitation himself, he had his wife call and do it, then the folks up in Utah sent him this wave file, where he himself makes reference to taking me on, and it's like, well, you've said you'd do this, now here's your opportunity, it's right in the

Salt Lake City area, it's not like you're having to take time out of your schedule and travel all over the place or anything else, it's right there in Utah, so why not do this?

And he's not willing to do so. Here is that section, he was on a radio program in California with Bill McKeever, and this is a three -hour debate radio program, it wasn't really a debate at all, it was just a radio program where they're going back and forth, and about somewhere in the second tape, early second tape of that particular situation, that particular encounter, the subject of theosis came up, the concept discussed fairly extensively in one of the chapters in Is the

Mormon My Brother, that I go into what the early church fathers who mentioned it, not everyone did, but those who mentioned theosis, the concept of divinization, what they meant, the fact that this did not cause them to cease being monotheists, and in fact if you download the

MP3s of the discussion on theosis and divinization with Martin Tanner and Van Hale, you'll get much more of a discussion of it.

But that had been presented by Dr. Peterson, and so the first voice that you'll hear will be

Bill McKeever responding to something that Dr. Peterson had said about theosis, and then you will hear

Peterson's response. One thing that was brought up is this idea that the early church fathers believed that men could become gods.

You know, Farms has been putting this information out for a long time, and it has been responded to on several occasions, probably the most recent was in Richard Ostling's book,

Mormon America, an excellent book on the subject. And he quotes various Eastern Orthodox leaders on this subject, and they all agree that the

Mormon position is not at all what the early church fathers believed. James White did an excellent expose of this in his book,

Is the Mormon My Brother? I mean, this has already been responded to, and the fact that they keep bringing this up, regardless of the fact, is just amazing to me.

Well, I would say we keep bringing it up because it's true, and I'd be willing to go head -to -head with any of those people on this issue any day of the week.

I'd be willing to go head -to -head any day of the week. Well, maybe he didn't include Saturdays. Maybe that's a weekend instead of a day of the week,

I don't know. But it sounded to me, anyways,

I don't know about the rest of you, but it sounded to me like he really meant what he said in the sense that, well, look,

I'm not saying, well, that's true, someone pointed out he rejected the

Friday debate last time, that's true, he did. I was obviously being somewhat facetious at that point, but it sounded to me, anyways, like he really did intend to say that he was willing to debate that issue because it's true.

Listen again to what he said. One thing that was brought up is this idea that the early

Church Fathers believed that men could become gods. You know, Farms has been putting this information out for a long time, and it has been responded to on several occasions.

Probably the most recent was in Richard Ossling's book, Mormon America, an excellent book on the subject.

And he quotes various Eastern Orthodox leaders on this subject, and they all agree that the

Mormon position is not at all what the early Church Fathers believed. James White did an excellent exposé of this in his book,

Is the Mormon My Brother? I mean, this has already been responded to, and the fact that they keep bringing this up, regardless of the fact, is just amazing to me.

Well, I would say we keep bringing it up because it's true, and I'd be willing to go head -to -head with any of those people on this issue any day of the week.

Well, if Dr. Peterson's listening to this, and I do know that folks from Shields and other places monitor this program, let me point a few things out.

You see, the problem is, if you go to Is the Mormon My Brother? and you go to, specifically, the appendix on Theosis, starts on page 207,

I document the misuse of early Church Fathers by such individuals as Stephen Robinson and, interestingly enough,

Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen Ricks. I would like to hear how

Dr. Peterson would respond to the contextual citations of the early

Church Fathers that they miscited. I would like to be able to present the context surrounding quotations that Dr.

Peterson has put in print as a leading LDS scholar and say, could you explain, possibly, sir, exactly how it is that you could put this in print, and yet when you read it in context, it says the exact opposite of what you seemingly want people to believe that it said.

So, Dr. Peterson, there in his own words, said, I will debate this issue any day.

So, Dr. Peterson, hey, live up to your words, man. You're the one that said it. Let's do

Theosis. Let's do, did the early Church Fathers teach Mormonism?

Did they teach the LDS doctrine of God? And if you say, well, they didn't actually teach the

LDS doctrine of God, but they taught things that modern Christians don't believe. Okay, then why do you raise these issues?

I'm going to go back to that 1986 article in The Ensign, maybe 1989.

I've got a lot of material in that particular article that you wrote, Dr. Peterson, along with,

I believe it was, Stephen Ricks on this very subject. Let's debate the issue.

Let's find out if all this bluster that was, you know, you're the one that won the program.

You didn't have to say what you said. You didn't have to say, any day, you know,

I'll take those, we keep bringing it up because it's true. Well, let's find out if it's true. As Dr.

Peterson knows, the host of that program had no interest in even discussing early

Church Fathers. In fact, after I said, well, we don't want to get into early Church Fathers, and I understand as a radio host, given his audience, that that's probably, you know, understandable.

He'd probably lose most everybody if he had people sitting there talking about early Church Fathers. This is probably the only program, and it's because it's a webcast, but the only program out there where we could actually discuss early

Church Fathers and everybody would enjoy it because, let's face it, if you tune into The Dividing Line, you're a little bit on the weird side anyways.

So, I understand why he did that. But, hey, in a debate where you announce beforehand what the subject's going to be, then we could do that.

And someone said, well, you know, there's some other folks that, you know, have written on this subject.

But see, Daniel Peterson is really high up in Farms, and Farms wants to be out there on the front line and wants to be seen as the leading

LDS apologetics organization, all the rest of this stuff. And I think to get folks out there, it would be really nice if Dr.

Peterson would basically do what he said he'd do. But so far, he won't do that.

And that's what, taking us back to the subject here, that's what makes The Dividing Line a weird people production.

Amen. Um, that's what makes complaining about having this debate on a

Saturday by Dr. Peterson absolutely amazing to me. Why? In fact, what's been said, and this is what causes me to truly take note of all this, what's being said is, we don't want to have

Mormons there. Well, why do you think we do this? The whole reason is to have

Mormons there. There's no desire whatsoever to not have them. Why would we not want to have

Mormons? If we didn't want to have Mormons there, we'd do this in New York. You know, go where the

Mormons aren't. Why in the world would we go to the University of Utah to discuss the

Mormon doctrine of divinization and deification and the eternal law of progression if we don't want

Mormons there? You know, I just, I don't know what to say.

You don't want to have Mormons there, that's why you're having it the night of the priesthood session. No, we just want to have woman Mormons there.

That's the whole thing. We're going to have lacy little things to put drinks on and things like that.

Come on. Of course we want to have Mormons there. We've wanted to have Mormons at every single one of them.

It just does not make sense to me whatsoever. Yes, the ladies aren't coming because they're all at the

Deseret Bookstore for Ladies' Night. We know because we frequently go there and scan through the new publications and stuff like that.

See the authors sitting outside doing their little book signings and fight through the crowds at the food court at the

ZCMI Center there. Hey, I just realized, we're going to have to make a special arrangement to make sure that I can still get my crisp meat burritos before the debate.

Maybe after the debate. Before the debate might not be a good idea. I want to be able to stay through the entire debate is what you want to be able to do.

Late night taco time. That's right. There you go. Open 24 hours. Crisp meat burrito.

I don't know. The last time we were at taco time late, you remember?

That's right. We got thrown out by some 18 -year -old manager who did not have any idea about how to keep your customers coming back.

That's for sure. I do love crisp meat burritos though. That tell you they are really, really good.

Well, anyways, I just found that really strange. So those of you in the Utah area, please feel free to make arrangements to make the pilgrimage to the

University of Utah and be with us for the debate. If you are LDS, yes, we do want you to come to the debate.

That is the whole reason that we're doing the whole thing. And I have absolutely positively no idea why anyone would say otherwise.

But hey, hey. Oh, gross. Crispy meat burritos? No. Crispy meat burritos are good.

They are very good. I don't like when people say that crispy meat burritos are not good. They are very, very good.

And stop saying that they're not very, very good. Anyways, I'd kick ban that person, but that would be a really dumb thing to do.

See, you really need to be in the channel for stuff like this. So anyways, praying for the outreach.

Of course, many of you will remember last time we had a real problem at the conference with the

King James -only fundamentalist folks with their street abuse signs.

And I don't know what's going to happen this time around. And I really don't know how we're going to do all this stuff as far as getting set up and being out there and everything.

I just don't know. But we will find out one way or the other. And yes, we do have some extra expenses involved this trip.

And I don't talk about this much. That's probably one of the reasons why we stay as small as we do.

But a friend of mine reminded me, he said, you know, I've been talking with folks and whenever I mention funds, they sort of look at me like, well,

James never mentions support for the ministry. So we just sort of assume everything's always taken care of.

Well, it's not. I just don't like talking about things like that. But just a reminder, we do not have some rich person who has opened up a bank account for us and just pours some unending stream of money in there.

We were, Rich was talking to a ministry sometime last week,

I think. And they made the statement, well, you know, we're really not a big ministry. We only have one floor and 40 employees.

And we just have to laugh at that. We have one floor too. It's called the floor of the garage and two employees.

And we do a lot with what we've got. But we are, you know, a lot of times folks will say, well, since they're never saying about it, then my 10 or 15 or 20 dollars wouldn't make any difference.

Actually, it does a great deal of difference. We have a very small supporter base because we've basically offended every religious group in the world.

And so just a reminder that, yes, we do make pennies scream before we let them go.

But those pennies have to come in before we can torture them. And so we do have expenses coming up with Utah.

And then only a month later, I'm doing two debates in Orlando against Dr.

John Sanders on inclusivism and open theism. And we very much want to have those videotaped. And it takes money to do that.

We've got to fly people out and we've got to put them up and they've got to eat stuff and so on and so forth.

So keep us in your prayers. And if you do have a budget for supporting ministries, we would very much appreciate to being a part of that.

We don't talk a lot about it. You can go back to the archives, the dividing line, and you'll find a very, very, very, very, very small number of programs in which this particular subject has been discussed.

You lost your Mormon North Carolina support. I don't have any idea what that is.

Anyways, just sort of reading what's going on in the channel. And I have no idea. Sometimes you look in there and you have no idea what's going on.

So keep our outreaches in mind and support in mind there as well.

Also keep hitting the MP3 page. Every time I walk out of my office, I note that the recorder is cranking away.

And the digitizer is busily digitizing.

And we're putting those MP3s up there. And I am told that there's going to be some rearranging of the shopping cart on the

MP3s and stuff like that. And so keep hitting it because a lot of stuff that maybe you just didn't want to buy a tape and then pay for shipping and stuff like that.

And oh, oh, oh, excuse me. Let's see. You select here.

You go up here. Control. Kick. Y. I am not Bob Larson.

There you go. Okay. Don't do that, man.

That's not nice. Moving on to other things.

Watch for the MP3s. And there's going to be all sorts of... In fact, we're finally...

Only six months later. But we're finally going to get the debate from Salt Lake City the last time up there fairly soon.

Not an MP... Well, I imagine it will be up there in MP3 format too. But also the videotape and stuff like that.

I have the... Moving on from there. I get lots of weird stuff in the mail. I used to get lots of weirder stuff in the mail.

I remember back when we lived in an apartment, I actually felt a little guilty because I was concerned that maybe

I was causing my postman to stumble.

Because I had a lot of really weird stuff coming in the mail. I mean, really, really, really weird stuff.

I was taking stuff from the Ambassador College. You know, the old Armstrong folks before they switched their views.

And I would get the Watchtower and Mormon stuff. And stuff from the Moonies. And I was just getting all this stuff because I was doing a lot of study.

And I still get some weird stuff, but not quite as much. And I am on the

Catholic Answers mailing list. And of course, they send that stuff out to everybody.

I mean, if you've ever ordered anything from them, I just tried to order something from them.

And a few weeks later, I get an email. Some of you may have experienced difficulties with our shopping cart.

If so, please call and reorder whatever it was you ordered. And I'm like, well, we'll see. But anyways, they send out their emails.

Actually, they send out emails. One of which didn't even work. And they also send out these fundraising letters.

And then they sell their stuff to other people. And so I get stuff from, you know, would you like to become a priest?

And oh yeah, I'm sure they'd just love to have me do that. And would you like to become a nun?

That one's totally out of the ballpark. And then I open these things up.

And a lot of them, I just, you know, check them out. But I always read the Catholic Answers stuff. And man, the last Catholic Answers fundraising letter.

You know, it was pretty hard not to pick up the pen and write out the check. It really was. Because here's this thing from Carl Keating and James Aiken.

And I did not know that by supporting Catholic Answers, I would be fighting

Muslim terrorists. And I want to fight Muslim terrorists. So, you know, maybe that's what we should do.

And I started thinking about it. And I realized, no, that doesn't really make much sense, does it?

Fight Muslim terrorists. Support Catholic Answers. Yeah, okay. Yeah, all right.

Well, I found that one very strange. And then I also get Inside the Vatican. This is the

August -September 2002 issue. The cover is a horrible picture of Cardinal Ratzinger.

Just, bleh. I mean, sort of a Bela Lugosi -Vincent Price cross -type picture of Cardinal Ratzinger.

It's just horrible. If I were him, I'd sue. But anyways, the title on the main page is

The Eucharist, Heart of the Faith, Ratzinger, Why the Eucharist is the Source of Christian Life, and of the

Struggle for Justice. It's basically, there's a, the word is that there is a new encyclical being written by John Paul II.

And this is sort of a preview, I guess you might say, of this encyclical.

And if it is, it's going to be really weird. Very strange stuff in here.

But anyhow, I'm looking through it. And I don't know if I should give these folks free advertising, but toward the back, it's on page 75, down at the bottom,

I was just thumbing through, looking at articles. And, you know, there was, you know, this person died, woman excommunicated for such and such things.

And seven women who took part June 29th in Austria in a simulated priestly ordination were officially excommunicated at midnight

Monday, the deadline set by the Vatican for them to renounce their ordination. The deadline came in a monotone or canonical warning issued by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the

Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. That is, by the way, the modern version of the Inquisition, in case anyone was wondering.

July 10th, he called on the seven women to acknowledge that the ordination was invalid and repent publicly, and so on and so forth.

Well, that's good. But shouldn't she also kick out the folks that are promoting that stuff?

But anyways, right across the page, right across the page at the bottom is an ad.

And there's this smiling couple in, you know, he's wearing a tux and she's wearing a wedding gown.

And it says, single and Catholic? 102 marriages, 37 engagements.

AveMariaSingles .com. AveMariaSingles .com.

I love it. Oh, well. Someone actually went on the site and they actually figured out that only 2 % of the people that signed up had actually gotten engaged.

So I was like, nah, you've got to sign up with us and you have a 98 % chance of remaining single. Anyways, I was looking through it.

I shouldn't be so silly. But I couldn't help it because the inside front cover.

Now folks, once in a while, when some of my books come out from Bethany House, I've heard discussions amongst people at Bethany House about what advertising costs.

You know, they'll buy an ad for a book in Christianity Today or something like that.

And man, you're talking huge amounts of money. I mean, a lot of money. And so the inside front cover, full color of the

August -September 2002 Inside the Vatican, Meet the Real Mary. Don't miss the newest release in the

Footprints of God video series. And here you have just $24 .95

each, $25 per videotape for 70 minutes. You have this series that's being put together by Stephen Ray.

Now, you've heard about Stephen Ray before. You can read about Stephen Ray on our website.

We have some interesting emails from Stephen Ray. Stephen Ray does not like me very well. And he's doing something for Ignatius Press.

And I don't know how... Well, actually, it's really easy for you to see this exact same picture that I'm looking at right here.

Because I'm trying to figure out if maybe this is the direction that we should go. Okay, y 'all tell me if this ain't the direction we should go.

Because if you look, if you go over, we could crash a server here, but if you go over to catholicconvert .com,

it's catholic -convert .com, you will find Stephen Ray's website. And when you go over there, up at the top on the main page, we're not talking, you know,

I've got some personal pictures of me on our website. But they're down, you know, you go to James White, you go to the bio, you go down to the bottom of the bio, you follow some links around, things like that.

And if someone wants to find out some personal stuff about me, you know, there's a few things up there about what I like to do and riding bike and lifting weights and playing tennis and playing chess and stuff like that.

Fine. But on the main page, now if you're going to put a picture of an apologist on the main page, what kind of a picture are you going to put there?

Well, if you go to catholicconvert .com, you'll see this picture and it is right smack dab right here in the middle of this ad in full color is the

Catholic crocodile hunter apologist Stephen Ray. Because you got to look at it, okay?

I mean, he's wearing the Australian hat and he's got the vest thing going down, he's

What does an apologist need with a pair of glasses? And I'm not talking eyeglasses here.

I'm talking binoculars around his neck. Is that to find the truth? Possibly? I don't know, but it's just, it's just, it's, you know,

I've been thinking, hey, you know, he's, oh yeah, hold on a second.

I forgot about the break. He's sitting here. He's got to be doing pretty good because I mean, he's getting 25 bucks a pop.

I don't even have a book that costs 25 bucks a pop. I mean, my 400 page book on justification hardback doesn't cost 25 bucks.

He's getting 25 bucks a pop from Ignatius Press. He must be doing okay. So evidently when we come back from this break, maybe we should discuss what kind of picture

I should put on our front page. Yeah, we got to take the break.

So hey, 877 -753 -3341, maybe you'd like to call with a suggestion or something else here on The Dividing Line.

We'll be right back. And welcome.

We need to lengthen that one. It just goes right out of there and we need to lengthen this. Lengthen the music out on that one.

Welcome back to The Dividing Line. Took our break a little bit late there and sitting here just waiting for all of the insightful phone calls at 877 -753 -3341.

Do not. Do not be one of those people who procrastinates and waits another 45 minutes and then calls in with some in -depth question and has to get a rushed answer and then the music starts and it's all done.

877 -753 -3341. So what do you think? I do not.

I am not into the Australian Outback look and so my thought was

I do ride a motorcycle. I've ridden a motorcycle for many, many years. I haven't had one all that time, but I have one again right now.

I have a Yamaha Virago 1100. It's not a new one. It's low mileage, but it's not a new one, but it is an 1100cc motorcycle.

It rumbles pretty nice and I was thinking of sort of a leather jacket and the black leather helmet and the boots and that type of thing on the

Virago and something along the lines of theology ain't for wimps.

How does that sound? Does that sound like something we should do? Should we go with this or should we just actually sort of figure that, nah, probably not a good idea?

I still don't know what the field glasses are for. What are the field glasses for? I mean, I'm sort of looking at some of the topics here.

We've got, let's see, the first one was on Peter. Peter, keeper of the keys.

That's his big thing is the thing about, oh, Georgia Tech's beating BYU. That's good to know.

Anyways, Peter, keeper of the keys. That's his big thing. Steve Ray likes to talk about the papacy and stuff like that and we, of course, have invited

Mr. Ray to debate publicly on the issue of the papacy and Mary and things like that, but he's not interested in doing so.

So people ask, how do you respond to his stuff? Well, we'd love to respond to his stuff in public and in a formal way where he has the opportunity of responding to it, but so far he has not been willing to do that.

So I found that ad very, very interesting. Maybe we'll have to track down these tapes and then put out our own tape responding to them.

Maybe that's the only way we could do that. And yeah, it's going to be fun describing the topics of this particular dividing line, isn't it?

Outreaches, pictures of Roman Catholic apologists, the motorcycles. The only thing

I'm not going to do is I'm not going to discuss PDAs today. We are not going to discuss handspring visors because handspring isn't making them anymore, which is a very sad thing.

Very, very sad thing indeed. And we're not going to be discussing Palm Pilots or Sony Clios or anything like that because we've done that before and we exhaust that topic very, very, very quickly.

877 -753 -3341. Now, I do need to, in fairness to the audience, let you know that if we do not fill all of our time, that Warren is with us today.

And I heard, he isn't aware of this, but I heard him humming some

Elvis tunes just recently. Yeah, he knew that was coming.

And you do not want... Hey, I got it.

I think that the Doc needs to sit on the shoe chair and Mrs. Doc needs to sit on the Momo. There you go. Yeah, okay.

Yeah, we have a shoe chair at my house and it's amazing I'm even admitting this, but I will not sit in the shoe chair at all and it's just not a manly thing to do.

But I am going to get Mrs. Doc on the motorcycle and that'll be a great picture as we go running down the street.

She actually, gotta admit, back, I don't remember where it was, we rode all the way up through Sedona to Flagstaff on my old, that was in Yamaha, Suzuki GS750L.

And anyone who's ever been up Route 89 through Sedona, the switchbacks, it's a beautiful ride.

It's wonderful. Well, it was back then. Now, Sedona is this new age, wackoid center. And you gotta be very careful driving through town.

You don't run over some wacky new ager who's looking up for the mother ship while crossing the road. And it's really congested there now.

And it used to be really beautiful even in, I know, I see that, even in the city.

But now it's just really, really crowded. And it's sort of like climbing

Squaw Peak this morning. I could not believe, I mean, we're talking traffic jams, not only trying to find a parking place, but going up that trail,

Phoenix is growing and it's growing way too fast. And that I sound like an old man anymore. But anyways, 877 -753 -3341 is the number.

And we have had someone take advantage of that toll -free number, which

I keep forgetting to mention. It is toll -free. And his name is

Pierre in Centerville, Virginia. Hello, Pierre. Hello. Hi. Yes, sir.

You're on the air. Okay. What can I do for you? I was calling to, looks like your program that you're broadcasting is different from what you're saying on the phone.

Well, I'm not sure if you're probably, are you possibly listening to an archived broadcast?

I thought I was listening to a live broadcast. Well, hey, what's the discussion on what you're listening to?

Anyway, what I was calling about was, I've been listening to your discussion about Adrian Rogers' viewpoints about salvation and free will.

And I guess the question that always comes to my mind that bothers me about the

Calvinistic view is that there seems to be no regard to the moral issues, they seem to push these aside, about God choosing people for hell.

He seems to create them, and the whole concept of the potter and the clay seems to be that God creates people with the sole intent of having them suffer in hell for an eternity.

And that seems to be, for me, a real disconnect with what

I read in the scriptures about the compassionate nature of Christ and God's seeming, at least anyway, desire to be compassionate towards people.

Yeah, Pierre, that's exactly the objection that was raised to Apostolic Doctrine by Paul himself, his imaginary objector, pretty much used those very same words in Romans 9 to say pretty much the exact same thing.

Well, so what is your answer? Well, the same answer that Paul gave, Romans 9 .19,

you will say, then, why does he still find fault for who resists his will? And first of all, and I don't know what program you were listening to, but one of the things that I emphasized in response to Adrian Rogers is when you focus upon the just punishment of sinners who are rebels, who hate

God, and who spit in his face, spit at his truth, when you emphasize that as the central aspect of God's predestination, you've missed the biblical truth.

The amazing statement of Jacob I loved and Esau I hated is not

Esau I hated. The amazing thing of that statement is that Jacob I loved. And most people don't understand that, especially if they have not been convicted of their own sin and a recognition of the depth of their own depravity.

And of course, there are entire religions that by their very teaching do not understand the depth of our depravity and the fact of God's abiding wrath upon all the sons of Adam.

I think of Mormonism especially at that point with its doctrine of sin that cannot even begin to understand that.

To your very criticism and to your very issue is on the contrary, who are you, a man who answers back to God, the thing molded will not say the molder, why did you make me like this, will it?

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

His answer, I think, is very full and that is it goes to the fact that there is a vast difference between you, oh man, and God who is not a man.

That is, we do not have a basis upon which to bring God into judgment for what he does and hence we have to follow his emphasis and his emphasis is always upon the positive graciousness of the decree of election, not the fact that he has passed over sinners and that they receive his just wrath because you said nothing in what you said about the fact that every single person who goes to hell does so out of a desire to rebel against God.

You did not even raise that issue. Well, I am not so sure that that is the case, but first of all, the problem with these traditional

Protestant Christianity is the idea that, well, within Calvinism, is that we really do not have any choice but to be evil or to be rebellious against God.

But according to traditional belief is that we were born that way. I mean, we had the sin of Adam, a doctrine which

I do not really believe in, but... What do you do with Romans chapter 4, or 5? In which... Well, Romans 5, by one man's transgression, we are all constituted sinners.

I mean, we are all in Adam. You are either in Adam and the result of that is death, or you are in Christ, the result of that is life.

I mean, federal headship is a plain biblical teaching. I do not argue that men are all sinners.

That is not my point. My point is that it seems from traditional teachings is that man is that way, and this is particularly true of Calvinism, is that way because that is his basic underlying nature.

He is spiritually dead. He cannot respond to God. That is not a traditional teaching. That is Ephesians chapter 2, Colossians chapter 2,

Jeremiah chapter 17. I mean, that is just the Bible. Well, okay, now I have a different view on those.

Oh, you deny those passages are Scripture, or are you just saying that they don't say that they're Scripture? I don't think you're understanding it correctly.

Okay, Ephesians chapter 2, we are spiritually dead. What am I missing? That we are separated from God.

You know, it doesn't mean that we can't respond to Him. Oh. That we are carnal because we have chosen to be carnal, and as such we are not sensitive to the promptings of the

Spirit. Now, if something happens in our lives to jolt us into paying attention to what

God has to say, then we can perhaps respond, and I submit to you that is what, for instance, happened to Paul on the road to Damascus.

In essence, the Lord hit him over the head with a two -by -four and said, hey, pay attention, and He brought him face -to -face with the reality that Jesus Christ was, you know, the

Christ. So Jesus was the Christ, and so Paul was now faced with either blatantly denying what's in front of him or making a choice which was right, and he made the right choice.

So that very same apostle Paul, then, when he said, "...the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please

God," was contradicting himself? No. Again, if an individual, the whole chapter 8,

I think, of Romans deals with that issue that a man who gives himself over to the flesh is subject to the flesh, because that's the path that he has chosen, whereas the individual who has yielded himself to the enticings of the

Spirit of God is going to be spiritual by, you know, in his behavior, and in a sense, to some extent, by nature.

Well, then what does Paul mean when he says, "...for it is not even able to do so"? You just are talking about enticings,

I'm not sure where you're coming up with that from the Bible, but because the work of God in drawing someone to Christ is not an enticing, it's a powerful thing that actually brings a person to Christ.

But what does Paul mean when he says that the mind set on the flesh is not even able to be subject to the law of God, and those who are in the flesh cannot please

God? I mean, it sounds like what you're saying is, well, you can be in the flesh, but then you can yield to these enticements, and you can do something that's pleasing to God.

How does that work? Well, not while you're in the flesh. Obviously, a person who has given himself over to doing worldly things is not going to be interested in things of God, but things can happen in an individual's life.

For instance, I guess the example would be the prodigal son who had given himself over to the flesh, but then when things changed in his life, and he suddenly came to his senses, he said, you know, this is really crazy, why am

I doing this? And he goes, and he has a change of heart. This is not because God zapped him and changed his willer.

It's because he made a decision. He sort of recognized what was going on, and he said, you know, this is not really making me happy.

God didn't zap him? Is that what you understand a work of regeneration by the Spirit of God is?

Well, I mean, I'm using perhaps not a biblical term, but the idea is...

No, it's not a biblical term, yeah. You know, it's that God does not, if you will, magically wave his wand and a bad person becomes good.

I think he works with an individual. In fact, he works with all of us, I submit to you. And some of us respond, and some of us do not.

Why did Jesus say that no man is able to come unto me unless the Father who sent me draws him? Because ultimately, we're all drawn by the

Father, but not all of us respond to that drawing. That was God reaches out. But the problem is, that's not what

Jesus said. He said, no man can come to the Father, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me is drawn, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Will all men be raised up on the last day? Well, yes. To eternal life? Everyone will be resurrected, right?

To eternal life? Not to eternal life. That's what being raised up on the last day is in John chapter 6. So if you say that all men are drawn in the context of John 6, verse 44, you're saying that all men are going to be raised up to eternal life.

No, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that not all will necessarily, uh, all... I'm trying to find out how to word that right so that I don't confuse you, but...

Well, I'm not worried about being... You're not confusing me. I'm trying to deal with the text itself, and I think one of the differences is that it sounds to me like you have, uh, continue to have an external authority outside of Scripture that is determining your interpretation of Scripture.

Do you hold to sola scriptura? Not in the, uh, way that you usually define it, no.

Uh, what other sources... I'm a Latter -day Saint, and I hold to the, uh, view that God has revealed more things than just the

Bible. And so obviously, uh, exegesis of the biblical text, especially in light of the

Book of Mormon saying that many plain and precious truths have been removed from the Bible, and that it is the Word of God only as far as it's translated correctly,

I don't know how you interpret that, but, uh, that would become the, the, uh, the least reliable of the four standard works, and hence, uh, as I would point out to you, when

I look at John 6, 44, I determine the meaning of, I will raise him up on the last day, in the context of John chapter 6.

Uh, you determine that on the context of LDS theology. That's, uh, that's the difference between us. No, I, I, I would interpret that verse in the light of other scriptures within the

Bible. Even if you confine yourself to the Bible, there are obviously very many verses that, uh, talk about the fact that God is interested in saving all, all individuals.

Uh, such as? Well, well, John, I think it's 316, you know, God so loved the world that He gave

His only begotten Son that, you know, whosoever should believe on Him should not perish but have eternal life. There's nothing about the extent, uh, there, especially because he himself limits the statement to the, to everyone believing.

It's everyone believing will have eternal life. Yes, but God, who, who did God love? Was it just the, the, the elect?

Well, remember, so you're assuming something, and again, this is where the difference between a historic Christian interpretation of the

Bible and Mormon interpretation of the Bible is that is, I recognize that John uses kosmos, the word world, in at least 14 different ways.

That same Lord Jesus in John chapter 17 says, I do not pray for the world but for those that you gave me out of the world.

So you can't just simply assume that world means every single individual. That's not the point of John 17. The point of John 17 is that the only people, or John 316, is the only people who receive eternal life are those who believe.

And who are those who believe? Well, John 17 is, it says, those that the Father gives him out of the world. And so when

I determine the meaning of a passage, I don't determine that based upon a, a, a pre -existing theology determined.

In this case, I would submit to you, if you're a consistent Latter -day Saint, you have to believe the teachings of the current, uh, leadership of the

Church above anything, even the interpretations that have been given by previous leaders of the Church. Uh, that, that, that,

I think, in essence, undermines any capacity you would have to interact with John 644, for example, in a fair way.

You cannot get a universal drawing out of John 644 from the context of John chapter 6.

You just can't do it. If you allow it to determine the meaning of words. Well, I, all

I'm saying is that the, the, uh, invitation is extended to everyone, but not everyone receives the invitation.

We, we agree on that. The, the, the calling in the sense of the general call of the Gospel is universal, but the reason that one person accepts and one person denies is not because one person is more spiritually sensitive, better, more intelligent, or anything else.

It is because no person has the capacity unless God graciously releases them from the slavery of sin.

John 8 says that he who commits sin is the slave of sin. Now, God is the one who has to free us from that slavery before we can then respond in a positive way.

And that's, that's the whole issue in regards to election. That's the whole issue in regards to God's freedom. Uh, it's not that he just throws it out there like Amway and we have to somehow work the system to somehow gain the result, which, in essence, is what

Mormon theology teaches. Moroni 1032 is very clear on that. I would submit to you that's what biblical theology teaches.

Uh, certainly not what Jesus taught in John 6. It's not what Paul taught in Romans 8 and 9, Ephesians chapter 1, or any other place like that.

So it's certainly not a biblical theology. Uh, it is certainly a humanistically oriented theology, but that's one of the main differences between Christianity and Mormonism is that yours is an anthropocentric religion and the

Bible is a theocentric religion. The Bible presents the theocentric religion. That's one of the big differences. I think that, um, anyway, um,

I still, I still would like to, um... Oh, come on, Pierre. You've got to admit, when the Doctrine and Covenants says it's God's glory to bring about the exaltation of his offspring, of his children, when

God's very glory is defined within the parameters of human beings, you can hardly argue that that's not an anthropocentric religion.

No, I think it's still theocentric. But certainly God is interested in bringing about his, the glorification of his children.

I mean, it's, uh, I mean, if you think about it, the view, as I listen to you preach your gospel,

I often get the impression that, gosh, God must be a very egotistic individual. He's only interested in glorifying himself and he cares nothing about anybody else to the point where he is willing to send people to suffer in hell for eternity just because he wants to glorify himself.

I mean, to me that sounds like what earthly potentates do. Well, you know, and I've heard that from many

Mormons, and it's because you don't know who God is. I mean, I would understand if I, if I believed God was an exalted man,

I could never believe most of what the Bible says. Every time that I go into these passages like Romans 9 and passages in Isaiah where the true

God speaks, your view of God as an exalted man, being of the same species as God, that I, I fully understand why you just look at that and go, oh, that's disgusting, because you don't have the foggiest idea who the biblical

God is. You don't, you don't know what it is to worship a God who is your creator. You have a God who only organizes.

He cannot bring the universe into existence by speaking, uh, the, the word and it comes into existence.

He, he himself was once a man who lived on another planet. He was, he was dependent upon the God before him.

You've got this massive polytheism. I fully understand how a person who embraces that God could not even begin to make heads or tails out of the, out of the biblical text.

That's fully understandable. And I can't, aside from, from directing you, Pierre, to, to the biblical teaching where God himself warns you against ever thinking that he is like you, uh,

I cannot change that. As long as you continue to believe the God of Joseph Smith, the Bible will remain a very, very, very strange document to you.

Well, anyway, I'm not interested in, in, you know, specifically defending Mormon doctrine per se, but to argue the point strictly from the

Bible. Well, Pierre, but you're... Many verses that you're kind of glossing over. Believe me,

Pierre, I, I know every single verse you could raise, I'm not glossing over anything. What I'm saying to you is, since you've admitted that you're

LDS, uh, you do not, we do not come to the biblical text on the same basis.

I come to the biblical text as the ultimate authority. You do not. You come to it as, at best, one of four ultimate authorities, and, as you well know, you come to it as a document that your leaders themselves, your other documents say many plain and precious truths have been removed from it.

Your, your document itself, your own documents say that it is the Word of God only as far as translated correctly, and you know that that caveat is not uttered of the

Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants of the Pearl of Great Price, and so it is obviously subjugated even within the four standard works in that way.

Then you have priesthood issues, you have the issue of the living prophet, you have all these other things, and what I'm saying to you is that, uh, any passage you could raise,

I mean, I could throw much better ones than you've thrown out, Matthew 23, 37, 2 Peter 3, 9, 1 Timothy 2, 4, we could look at all of those passages, and we could exegete them, but when

I do that, when I said to you, for example, in John 6, 44, wait a minute, but it says, and I will raise them up at the last day, you immediately left there, why?

Because you have a pre -existing authority structure that you are bringing into the text which results in eisegesis rather than exegesis.

See, we all have our prejudices, Matthew, as I listen to your so -called exegesis of Scripture, I see it as just, you know, overt eisegesis.

You are inserting your preconceived Calvinistic traditions into a clear verse about God's purpose towards man.

Okay, let's find out if that's true. Let's find out if that's true. It's very easy to say, we can both say you're engaging in eisegesis.

Alright, explain to me then, this'll, and there's lots of people listening to this right now, let's see if this works.

In John 6, 44, it says, the one who sent me draws him, and I will raise him on the last day.

Now, auton is the direct object of helkusei in John 6, 44, and then there's two words, kago anastaso, and I will raise, and then you have auton.

Now, you have two autons, they're both direct objects, they are within two words, there's two words separating them.

Upon what basis within the text of John 6, 44 or the surrounding context do you assert that the first auton is a different group than the second?

That the him who is drawn is not the same as the him who is raised up? Or, if you're going to say, well, it is, then please explain how anastaso,

I will raise up, means anything other than to eternal life in the context of John 6, because we can start back at verse 35 and follow that directly through and prove that it's resurrection to eternal life rather than resurrection to eternal damnation.

Well, I'm not disagreeing with what you have said. I don't disagree that the one who is drawn, meaning, and who ultimately comes to the

Father, to Christ, is the one who is raised up unto eternal life. I don't think any Latter -day

Saints who understands his theology will disagree with that. My disagreement is that you seem to have the notion that the only people who will come to Christ are the ones whom

God has preselected. Yes. And I think that's not what the Father is saying here. I don't think that's what the

Lord is saying. Because you have to answer the question, who did

God give to Christ? It's not the preselected individuals. The answer to the question is those who hearken unto your voice and follow all your commandments, these are the ones that I will give unto you, and you'll lose none of them.

That's not what he said in John 6, 36. No, no, no, no, no.

You just, you just, now, there's, there's eisegesis here. That, that's the biggest example of eisegesis

I've seen so far today. Let's let Jesus speak. John 6, 37. All that the Father gives me will come to me.

Now, you just turned that around and said, well, if you'll do these things, then you're given. No, the order in the language is, all that the

Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me, I will certainly not cast out.

Now, see, you turned that around and said, well, if you'll do the Father's will, if you'll do these things, then you're given to the

Father. That's not what Jesus said. That's eisegesis. There's a perfect example.

Show me where, from the text, you get the idea that the coming to me precedes or is the basis of the being given to the

Father, because that's what you just said, and here's a perfect example of where your external theology, derived from other sources, drives your reading of the text and makes you do eisegesis.

And if you said that I'm doing eisegesis, show me from the text. Let me ask you this, then, to clarify the issue is, who do you think the

Father gave him? Who are the ones that he gave him? They're called the elect. Okay, on what basis does

God elect his elect? Ephesians chapter 1, the basis of his mercy and grace. Solely, and not anything...

By the way, let me expand on that to make sure that everyone understands. Positively, it is based solely upon the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, and negatively,

Romans chapter 9, his calling is not on the basis of human action. It is not the one who runs, it is not the one who wills, but God who has mercy.

So, I want to make sure it's very, very plain. The basis is solely in God, not in the creature.

So, on what basis... I mean, still, you haven't really specifically answered the question.

What does he... How does he decide that person A is going to be saved and person

B is going to be damned? What decision process does he make? Does he... Well, first of all... Is it how good -looking they are?

No, no, I just said, I just said, unconditional election. There is nothing in the creature that determines this.

It is absolutely free on God's part. It is not a matter of looks, it is not a matter of genealogy, it is not a matter of intelligence, it is not a matter of works, it's not a matter of anything like that.

So, what is it, then? It is solely His mercy. So, it sounds like the flip of a celestial coin.

No, see, one of the things you've missed, and again, it's because of, it's because of the theology you're dragging into the

Bible, is that what you missed here was, in making this choice, again, the point is, out of this entire group that falls in Adam and is deserving and desirous of, deserving of His wrath and desirous of being

His enemy, upon which of these undeserving sinners does this grace come?

We need to keep that part in mind. And I realize that's not a part of Mormonism. Moroni 10 .32 rips that out. The Book of Mormon is clearly 108 degrees opposite of the

Bible. Never mind Mormonism for a time. Well, I'm not going to never mind Mormonism, because you're bringing it in, whether you know it or not.

No, I'm not, I'm not bringing it in. Yes, you are. I've got August 50 from the text. Yes, yes, you are. Pierre, come on, don't, that'd be like telling, me telling somebody, don't raise

Christianity when discussing something. Come on, you, that's part and parcel of your context.

When it comes to soteriology, the Catholics are not a whole lot different than we are, you know? I'm sure that,

I'm sure the Catholics are not happy to hear that.

Catholics also hold to the notion that good works play a role in their salvation. I'm well aware of that. That's why I debate them, too.

And so, in that sense, that's what I'm talking about. So this is not exactly a Mormon issue. It's a long -standing

Christian issue. Well, when, well, see, that, you're, if you're using the term

Christian in a very, very, very wide sense there, okay, fine. Of course, I would say that this goes back to Galatians, and those who attempted to add the meritorious works of man were placed on the anathema of God by the

Apostle Paul, so it's not a Christian issue. It is, in fact, definitional of what is Christian and what is not

Christian, and that's one of the main reasons that we've done all the debates we've done with Roman Catholic apologists is because this does come to the issue of the

Gospel itself. So, you're quite right in that you stand with Roman Catholics as a synergist.

The Roman Catholics at least have a little more developed doctrine of sin than you have in the

Book of Mormon. They're not quite as crass as to have Moroni 10 .32, where you rid yourself of all ungodliness and love

God with all your heart, soul, and mind, then the grace of Christ is sufficient for you. They at least aren't that Pelagian, fully

Pelagian, in their view. But still, on the issue of whether God is totally free in salvation or whether it is a cooperative effort, you are quite right.

They do side with you on that issue. But let me finish my thought here on John 6 .37

and the question that I was asking, and then I'll come back to this other point that I find very interesting. And that is that I would challenge you to find one reason why

God should choose Person A over B for salvation versus damnation, other than the flip of a celestial coin.

I didn't say the flip of a celestial coin. God as a universe, God as the ruler and creator of the universe, does not engage in arbitrary actions.

If you're asking me to give you a reason... Well, then, if it's arbitrary, what's the answer, then? Pierre, your

God is too small. You worship a man. I'm talking about Christian God. I know, but you're not hearing me because you've got an idol for a

God, Pierre. You don't understand. You're trying to force

God to make a decision based upon external circumstances because you don't know who this

God is. The God of the Bible is free to have mercy and grace upon any that He desires, and the whole point is that because the basis is solely in His will, that it's not based upon anything in the creature.

And you're saying, well, I won't accept that. Well, then... I'm not saying I won't accept that. I'm saying, show me how.

I'm trying to tell you. Explain to me how this is possible. If you want something more than what Scripture gives you,

I can't give it to you, nor would I want to. If you're not satisfied with Ephesians 1, 5, and 6, if you're not satisfied with Romans chapter 9, verses 14 and following, if that isn't enough for you,

I'm not going to make something up just simply to try to satisfy you. Well, the reason

I raise the issue is because, actually, God Himself has answered that question for us. Yes, He's given to us in Genesis.

Do you recall when Cain and Abel offered their offerings and Cain was rejected?

Mm -hmm. You know, he was wroth, and what did God tell him? You know, if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted.

And if thou doest not well, then sin lies at your door. Okay. And so, you know, the challenge is, you know, if you do well, you're going to be saved.

If you don't do well, you won't be. And when the Bible says, there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

There is none that seeks after God. Do you put that together with Genesis? And do you read Genesis in its context and actually come up with the idea that God is here saying that He could be sinless in accomplishing these things by offering

His offering? And isn't it interesting that, well, I'm not going to go into the issue of the offering that Cain made in Mormonism, but the point is, you're not interpreting the

Bible properly at all. Well, that's not the only verse, of course. There are many others. For instance, when the rich young ruler came to Christ and asked him specifically, what must

I do be saved? What was our Lord's answer? And what did he say to him? He said, keep the commandments.

And then the young man asked him, well, you know, I've been doing that. What else do I need to do? And then the

Lord says, interestingly enough, he didn't say, well, you know, come on, you can't keep all the commandments. He didn't say that. He accepted his answer as being a truthful answer, as suggested in Mark, where the comment is made, and the

Lord loved him. So that seems to suggest that he accepted his answer as being a truthful one. And then he goes on to say, if thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that you have, give it to the poor, and then come and follow me.

And did he do it? No. Why not? Why not? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. So you've completely missed the point again.

You have completely missed the point of this text, and you're turning the Bible on its head, because again, you're engaging in eisegesis because you come at it with the wrong

God and the wrong scriptures. Jesus is not saying, oh, hey, just keep the commandments.

What does the Bible say? Righteousness has never come through the law. The law was never designed to give us righteousness.

Evidently, you're seemingly thinking that it is. You think that Jesus is saying, well, you know, hey, you know, keep the law. Wait a minute, this man's already a sinner.

He's already under the wrath of God, and what is he pointing out to this young man?

This man says, oh, I've kept the commandments. Oh, yeah? Let me show you that you haven't. Go and sell your possessions.

Now, what commandment did he violate immediately when he was unwilling to do so?

It's called idolatry. This man thought he had kept the commandments. Jesus knows his heart.

He knows his true need, and he demonstrates the fact that he has not kept the commandments by going to the heart of the issues.

Many of the Jews thought that they kept the commandments because of external observation. What does the Sermon on the

Mount show us? That external observation isn't the issue, that God is concerned about matters of the heart, and he always has been.

And the law shows us. What is the purpose of the law according to Galatians chapter 3? It is a schoolmaster, a tutor, to lead us unto

Christ that we may be justified by faith. Why would we seek to be justified? Because we realize that we cannot, in and of ourselves, in any way, shape, or form, do the very things that you are saying we are capable of doing.

And you are saying that not because you've studied the Bible, but because Moroni 10 .32 says that you can. That's the whole point,

Pierre. There's your eisegesis. See, you miss what's said there, you miss what's said in Genesis 3, because you're not reading the

Bible in its context. You're reading the Bible in a context created by a man between 1830 and 1844 in New York and the

Midwest. And that's the problem. Well, the story goes on. The reason why the young man didn't go is because, you're right, he was stuck on his wealth.

And what is that? Is that not a violation of the very first commandment? I don't disagree with you on one iota. Okay, so he thought he had kept all ten, and what's in reality?

He had stumbled at the very first one. Is there anyone who doesn't, Pierre? Have you fulfilled

Moroni 10 .32 today? Have you loved God perfectly today? Have you rid yourself of all ungodliness?

Because if you've got to do that, Pierre, then is the grace of Christ sufficient for you.

Pierre, may I suggest to you that if the grace of Christ is not sufficient to you to help you at the beginning, it will certainly not be sufficient if it requires you to do the things

Moroni 10 .32 says. To go back to that rich young man. Now, no, wait a minute,

Pierre. I asked you a personal question here. I will confess, I have not loved, Pierre, I haven't loved

God perfectly today, have you? The answer to your question is no. I have not yet accomplished that yet. Okay, well then

Moroni 10 .32 says... But that doesn't mean that eventually I won't get there. But the Moroni 10 .32, so God grades on a curve? No, it's not a curve.

You know, we are saved by grace after all that which we can do. We are saved in spite of all we've done,

Pierre. No, that's not true at all. I know Moroni 25, I know 2 Nephi 25, 23 too.

There is one of the biggest contradictions between biblical Christianity and the Book of Mormon is that there, if you add

Romans 11 .6, if it is on the basis of grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

If you try to add those 2 Nephi 25, 23 works to the grace of God, you no longer have the grace of God.

I submit to you, you have misunderstood Mormon doctrine then, if that's what you really believe, and you have misunderstood what

Nephi was teaching. What was Nephi teaching? Because if after all we can do, and all of us fall short of the glory of God, therefore all of us would be damned to hell were it not for grace.

Now, grace is that part that we ourselves cannot do. All of us are ultimately saved by Jesus Christ, and that grace is in fact just that, grace free, because it's after all our efforts.

Now, if we can do only 50%, then God adds the other 50%, and that is totally free.

And so grace is still very much grace, and all of us ultimately require some grace to obtain salvation.

So grace plays a portion, but it is not the entirety. No, it's not the entire thing.

I think that's very clear from Scripture. So you're saying that what is said in 2

Nephi 25, 23 is that grace is a helping aid.

In fact, if you don't mind here, I'd like to read something to you. Do you have your quad there?

I can get it. But go ahead. Could you look up... I'm looking in the...

I'm trying to find it in the dictionary here. There it is.

Okay, could you look up grace for a moment? In the dictionary? It's on page 697.

And would you agree that if this passage utilizes 2

Nephi 25, 23, it would give us the LDS understanding, or at least an official understanding? Because it says on page 697 of the

Bible dictionary, It is through the grace of the Lord Jesus... This is under the very first paragraph. It is through the grace of the

Lord Jesus, made possible by his atoning sacrifice, that mankind will be raised in immortality, every person receiving his body from the grave in a condition of everlasting life.

It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ, repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means.

This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts.

Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of man's weakness and shortcomings.

However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient.

Hence the explanation, it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do, 2

Nephi 25, 23. I don't think I am misunderstanding it, unless the

LDS Church allows heretical concepts of grace to be published in its Bible dictionary and distributed to its own people, because that is the position that I was saying is 108 degrees opposite of the teaching of the

Scriptures in Romans 11, 6 and everywhere where God's grace is discussed. Well, again,

I think this states exactly basically what I was saying, that grace is the enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold of eternal life, actually before that, yeah, after they have expended their own best efforts.

Well, see, there's my point, Pierre, is Romans 11, 6. It is on the basis of grace. It's no longer on the basis of works.

Otherwise, grace is no longer grace. Try to mix works and grace together, and you no longer have grace.

Again, I think you're confusing the whole issue of what the Scriptures are teaching, including the

Bible, and that is that somehow, because it works synergistically, that somehow grace cannot be grace.

Grace, again, is that power from God that enables us to do things beyond our own ability.

That's not the Bible's definition. That's Mormonism's definition. That's not the Bible's. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

That's not the Bible's definition. Do you remember Paul's discussion in Galatians 2, 21? Absolutely. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through law, then

Christ died needlessly. Christ died needlessly. What law? Well, and that is

God's law. No, it's referring to the law of Moses. That's not God's law? Well, that's

God's law, too. But he specifically is talking about God's, you know, the law of Moses, and we as Latter -day

Saints would certainly agree that salvation does not come through the law of Moses. God has not given any higher law than he gave on Mount Sinai.

Well, I would disagree with you on that. Well, you disagree with the Bible on that. But Paul also said in Romans chapter 4, Now to the one who works his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due, but to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.

There is the contrast. As long as you are doing works with the idea that somehow those works, even if prompted by grace, receive something from God, you are violating

Romans 4, 4 through 5. That is not what grace means. That's not what justification means in any way, shape, or form.

And I can guarantee you the system of theology that is determining your reading of the text of Scripture did not come from the

Bible. I mean, you know what is said in a marvelous work in a wonder by LeGrand Richards over and over and over again.

I'm sure you've read the book. What does he keep saying in almost every single chapter? Joseph Smith did not come to this insight through reading the

Bible, but through divine revelation over and over. Is that not one of the main themes of what he says?

Absolutely. Okay, so my point is this is why we can look at these passages and instead of following the text and instead of listening to Paul, all of a sudden, well, no, actually we need to define this word to mean this and this word to mean that.

And instead of deriving that from the text itself, that's why, as I say,

I think I can demonstrate that you're the one engaging in eisegesis, not me. Now, Pierre, we've gone a long time, haven't we?

Yeah. And I don't even know what program you were listening to. You're going to be surprised if you go back and listen to the archives at what we were actually talking about, what you called, we were actually being downright silly today in some ways.

We were talking about strange pictures of Roman Catholic apologists in magazines and all sorts of weird stuff.

You're going to go back, you're going to listen to the archives, and I think you're probably going to get a chuckle out of it. But I wish you would go back and listen to the archives and look at these passages and look at them in their context.

I simply have to try to say to you, you keep importing these things. That definition of grace on page 697 of the

Bible Dictionary is not a biblical definition of grace. It violates the very definitions provided to us in Galatians, in Romans, of the freedom of God.

And we've gone around a lot of different hills today, but hopefully it's been useful to you and useful to others as well.

Thanks for calling the program today, Pierre. Okay. Keep listening. All righty. Thanks a lot. Bye -bye. Oh, I don't know.

Do we still have that other call online? Because we had one other call I wanted to, okay, real quickly.

I've gone through so many things here. Steve in New Jersey. Steve, real quick. How are you, Dr. White? Hey, doing pretty good.

Okay, a couple of things. And it was well worth listening to that and having taken the time for that gentleman. Indeed.

I was at the debate on Long Island, and one of the things that was clear in your presentation was not only a gospel presentation, but your heart for the lost.

Well, thank you. And question on the debate. This is the most recent one?

Yes, on Long Island with Patrick Madrid. Yes. One of the issues that nobody brought up, and this was on icons, is that in the

Old Testament, and I believe the Ark of the Covenant had figures on it, if I remember correctly. Weren't there some figures that were—

Well, there were cherubim on the top of the—their wings covered over the mercy seat, yes.

So there were figures in the—would actually be in the temple in the Holy of Holies as well. There were. There were.

Just as—I don't know if you've seen the main page article on our website right now, but— I have.

I mentioned there Nehushtan, the bronze serpent that God commanded to be made.

And the key issue in both those situations is while God commanded that those images be made,

He never commanded or allowed the bowing down before them and the giving to them of Latria or Dulia.

And that's really the issue. That issue is frequently brought up. I think Mr. Madrid did mention in passing the fact that God has commanded the creation of certain things in regards to the temple and things like that.

But what was strictly observed, and I think you would see by looking at early Jewish sources, look at the

Mishnah, for example, that the Jews were extremely careful to make sure that they did not bow down before those particular items and engage in worship of them.

In fact, when you think about their tradition, they would not even go so far as to pronounce the divine name, let alone—so concerned were they of engaging in the sin of idolatry that they would even change the pronunciation, the reading of the text itself.

So, yeah, it didn't come up, at least as far as a main point, because I don't think

Mr. Madrid wanted to try to make the case that he could give any example of anyone giving

Latria or Dulia to that. Now, I have seen other Catholics try to do that. I was prepared for that if he brought it up, but since he didn't try to make that case, then the issue didn't get raised.

Okay. Another question, not related to the debate. And by the way, I understand you got introduced to the

New Jersey Shore traffic. You mean the New Jersey Shore parking lot? What are you talking about?

Well, Memorial Day to Labor Day on the Garden State Parkway. Make sure you reach the parkway the next time you do that by about seven in the morning.

Oh, well, I tried to, but the Belt Parkway was down to one lane on the island.

I mean, I did leave very, very early, and it took four and a half hours to get there. That's not uncommon.

Memorial Day to Labor Day. Anyway, the question—this was something on the

Bible Antidote Program. Somebody brought up particular comments. Oh, yes. And Hank Hanegraaff does not accept particular comments.

And he used Romans 5, I guess, trying to get to a parallel of comparing the one man sin.

Right. This type of thing. And to me, that—the overriding context there is what

Paul was saying, is that this is all men being all types of men. Right. Well, unfortunately, the music's underneath me, and so I'll be very, very quick and basically saying, yeah, that's not really relevant to the presentation on the subject of particular redemption.

But why don't you give us a call back on that? We can talk about it a little bit more next time around here on The Dividing Line. Thanks for listening today.

We'll see you next week. ♪♪♪

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