Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
And welcome to the dividing line we are live today at eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty one. 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 I know. Some people do I don't and I really wouldn't have time to read 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 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, is it a 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 and LDS attorney I've been on his program before and 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 if you to listen to that I'm waiting for something to show up in a screen to tell me whether that's right or wrong.
I think so. I Love 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 and I Don't know 90 93 94 somewhere around there.
I don't recall that now how long ago those programs were. But we we did a couple programs myself Martin Tanner and Van Hale were on those programs in regard in regards to deification and the doctrine of God and that's what the topic is going to be about at the University of Utah on Saturday night October 6 that's at the University of Utah Student Union ballroom.
That is October 5th, I'm sorry 7 p .m. And if any of you are up in the Utah area 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 will find your way there and I guess that's the first topic this morning 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 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 conference as I recall at least the last one was. And that's when I would rather do it. I mean, this is gonna be a long day for me.
That's got 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 the setup times and things like that and you know, that's 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 to kill me? I mean that's that's gonna be a very very long day just to stand outside and talk to people and then You know do a debate against Martin Tanner can men become gods, but then it was explained to me.
Well, it's it's really an issue of forum. Where we're gonna have this we had the last debate at a high school auditorium 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 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 in the Salt Lake area Don't go to conference regularly at all. I go to conference far more regular than they do and So, you know when it was explained to me, well, they're here, you know, here's situation.
This is why we're doing it this way. You know, 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 I when I when I found that out I just I'm like It just blew me away a couple reasons.
So first of all, dr. Peterson hasn't come to these debates. 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 the religion department or the Institute of religion at the University of Utah for many years and and These folks haven't shown up then.
So why would there be an issue now? But of course the main 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, you know, so That's no big deal.
There's a lot of folks who don't necessarily Want to 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 in an offhand comment in you know 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 recording of that statement I'm gonna 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.
And another gentleman as you'll see. And what we did is after inviting him. And he 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 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 part wasn't really a debate at all. It was just radio program where they're going back and forth and 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 and one of the chapters and 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 to the fact that this did not Cause them to cease being monotheists and 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 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 believe that men can become God. 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.
And he quotes various Orthodox 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 to go head-to-head with any of those people on this issue any day of the week.
I'd be willing. Oh hello. That's pretty. It's stopped there as immediately followed by Kenny G. Yes indeed. I'd be willing to go head-to-head any day of the week. Well, maybe he didn't include Saturdays.
Maybe that's that's a weekend instead of the 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 he really meant what he said in the sense that well look you know I don't.
I'm not. I'm not saying well That's true. Someone pointed out he rejected the Friday debate last time. That's that's true. He did there that 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.
Let's listen again what he said.
One thing that was brought up is this idea that the early Church Fathers believe that men can become God. 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.
And he quotes various Orthodox 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.
Well if dr. Peterson's listening to this and I do know that folks from shields and other places monitor this program. Let me let me point a few things out you see the problem is if you go to is the more in 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, and I would like to hear how dr. Peterson would respond to the contextual citations of The early Church Fathers that they miss cited.
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 that modern Christians don't believe.
Okay, then why do you raise these issues? I'm gonna go back to that 19. It was a 1986 article in the enzyme. Maybe 1989. I've got the you know 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 let's find out if all this bluster. That was you know you're 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 up because it's true.
Well, let's find out if it's true. As dr. Peterson knows the host 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 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 because it's a webcast.
But the only program out there where we could actually discuss the early Church Fathers. And and everybody would enjoy it because let's face it if you tune in to 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 announced beforehand what the subjects gonna be then we could do that and someone said well, you know there's some some other folks that You know have written on this subject and and 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 stuff and and I think to get folks out there.
It would be really nice If 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. 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 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 there's no desire whatsoever to not have why would we not want to have more if we didn't want to have Mormons there?
We do this in New York You know go where go where the Mormons aren't. Why the world 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.
I just well, you know when I I just I don't know what to say. I you don't want to have Mormons. That's why you're having it the night of the priesthood session. No, we just want to have woman Mormons there.
That's we that's the whole thing. Yeah, we're we're gonna have you know, 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 doesn't not make sense to me. What so ever. Yes the ladies aren't coming because they're all at the Deseret bookstore for ladies night, but we know because we frequently go there and Scan through the new publications and stuff like that and see the authors sitting outside doing their little Book signings and fight through the crowds at the at the food court at ZCMI Center there and hey, I just realized I We're gonna 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.
Hmm. Yeah before the debate might not be a good idea I want 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 Last time we were at at taco time late.
You remember that's that's right We got thrown out by some 18 year old manager who did not have any idea about how to How to keep your customers coming back. That's for sure. I Do love crisp meat burritos though that tell you they are they are really really good.
Well, anyways, I just found that to be 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 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 the crispy meat burritos are not good. They are very very good and stop saying that they're not very very good. Anyways, I I'd kick ban that person, but that would be a really dumb thing to do.
So You really need to be in the channel for stuff like this. So anyways pray for the outreach, of course many of you remember last time we had We had a real problem at the conference with with the King James only fundamentalist folks with their their their street abuse signs and I don't know what's gonna happen this time around and I I really don't know how we're gonna do all this stuff as far as getting set up and and Being out there and everything.
I just don't know but we will we will find out one way or the other and Yes, we do have some extra expenses involved this trip and You know, I I don't talk about this much. That's probably one of the reasons why We stay as small as we do but friend of mine reminded me he said, you know, I've been Been talking with folks and and whenever I mentioned funds they go they sort of look at me like well, you know James never mentions Support for the ministry.
So we just sort of assume it's 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 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 to a ministry sometime last week I think him 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 we do a lot With with what we've got but we are you know A lot of times folks will say well since they never saying about it.
Then my 10 or 15 or 20 dollars wouldn't make a 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 at 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. It's you know, we got to fly people out and we got to put them up and and they 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 through 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 Has been discussed you lost your Mormon, North Carolina support Don't have any idea what that is.
Anyways, just sort of reading what's going on in the Going on in the channel and I have no idea Sometimes you look in there and you haven't you have no idea what's going on. So keep our outreaches in mind and support in mind there as as well.
I also keep hitting the mp3 page every time I walk out of my office, I note that the The recorder is cranking away and the the digitizer is is busily well 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 didn't do 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. No, that's it. You select here. You go up here Control kick why I am NOT Bob Larson, there you go. Okay Don't do that man that that's not nice Moving on to other things. Yeah, look watch for the mp3s and There's gonna be all sorts of in fact, we're finally only six months later but we're finally gonna get the the debate from Salt Lake City the last time up there fairly soon not an MP well, I imagine we'll be up there at 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 always I actually felt a little guilty because I was concerned that maybe I was causing my 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 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 you know 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 They send that stuff out to Everybody.
I mean if you've ever ordered anything from that, I just 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 email that not 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, you know, would you like to become a priest, you know, and and oh, yeah I'm sure they just love to have me do that and Would like to become a nun, you know, that's that's that that one's totally out of the ballpark.
And then I open these things up and a lot of my just, you know, check them out. But I always read the Catholic answer stuff and man the last Catholic answers fundraising letter I 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 was very strange and then I also get inside the Vatican. This is the August September 2002 issue the cover is a horrible pitch picture of Cardinal Ratzinger just blue 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 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 the word is that there is a new encyclical being written by John Paul the second and This is sort of a preview I guess you might say of This encyclical and if it is it's gonna be really weird very strange stuff in here, but anyhow, I'm looking through it and Well, I don't know if I should give these folks free advertising but Toward the back is a page 75 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.
Okay, so anyone was wondering July 10th He called in the seven women to acknowledge that the ordinate ordination was invalid and repent publicly and so on so forth. Well, that's that's good. But shouldn't she also kick out the folks that are promoting that stuff.
I've not quite figured that but anyways right across the page Right across the page at the at the bottom is an ad and there's this smiling couple in 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.
Ave Maria singles calm Ave Maria singles calm. I love it. Oh, well They someone actually went on the site and they they actually figured out that only 2 of the people that signed up It actually got engaged.
So I was like, yeah, you've got to sign up with us. You have a 98 chance of remaining single. Oh Anyways, I was looking through it. I shouldn't be so silly, but I couldn't help it because. Because the inside front cover now folks Once in a while when when some my books come out from Bethany house, I've heard Discussions amongst people at 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. It's being put together by Stephen Ray now.
Yeah, 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 I don't know how well actually it's really easy.
If 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 Catholic convert calm, it's Catholic convert calm.
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. But 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 gonna put a picture of an apologist on The main page what kind of a picture you're gonna put there.
Well, if you go to Catholic convert calm you'll see this picture and it is right smack dab right here in the middle of this ad in full color is is the the Catholic crocodile hunter apologist Stephen Ray because you got a look at it.
Okay I mean he's wearing the Australian hat and he's got the vest thing going down. 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 you know, I've been thinking hey, you know, he's. No. Yeah. Hold on a second. I forgot about the break. He's sitting here. He's gotta be doing pretty good because I mean he's getting 25 bucks a pop.
I don't even have a book that cost 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 eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty one. Maybe you'd like to call with a suggestion or something else here on the dividing line. And welcome we need to lengthen that one.
It just goes boom right out of there and we need to lengthen this lengthen the music out on that one. Welcome back to dividing line took our break a little bit late there and sitting here just waiting.
For all of the insightful phone calls that eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty one 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.
Hey, it's seven seven seven five three three three four one. So what do you think? I I do not. I am NOT into the Australian outback look and so my thought was I do 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 1100 CC motorcycle it's a it rumbles pretty nice and I was thinking of sort of you know, a leather jacket and the black leather helmet and the boots and you know that type of thing on on the 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 should we go with this or should we just you know, actually sort of figure that? Yeah, 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 look at some of the topics here. Mm-hmm. We've got Let's see, the first one was on I was on Peter Peter keeper of the keys. That's his big thing is the is the thing about Oh George text beating BYU.
That's good to know anyways, Peter keeper 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 not interested in doing so so People ask How do you respond to his stuff?
Well, we'd love to respond to his stuff and 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 you know, track down these tapes and Then put out our own tape responding to him.
Maybe that's the only way we could do that and Yeah, it's gonna 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 Cleo's or Anything's like that because we've 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 if we do not fill all of our time that Warren is with us today and I heard He does he isn't aware of this, but I heard him humming some Elvis tunes just recently and 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 I don't I don't know it's amazing even admitting this but I will not sit in in the shoe chair at all and that's just it's it's just not a manly thing to do and But I am gonna get mrs. Doc on on the motorcycle and that'll be that'll be a great picture as we go Running down the running down the street.
She actually got met back I don't remember it was we rode all the way up through through Sedona to Flagstaff on my old yeah, that was in Yamaha Suzuki GS 750 L 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? Wacko aid Center you got a you got to be very careful driving through town you don't run over some wacky new ager who's looking up for the mothership 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 even in the city, but You know 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 ah 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 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 41 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. Like your program that you're broadcasting a 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, we'll. What's what's the 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, right? Free will. And I guess the 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 soul intent of having him 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 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 the exact same thing and.
Well, what is your answer? Oh, well the same answer that that Paul gave Romans 919 you will say them in why does he still find fault for who resists his will and first of all in 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 and 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 Abraham are of Jacob. I loved the Esau. I hated is not Esau. I hated the amazing thing of that statement. Is it 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 their entire religions that by their very teaching Do not understand that the depth of our depravity and the fact of God's abiding wrath upon all the sons of Adam. I think of a Mormonism.
Especially at that point with its doctrine of sin that cannot even begin to understand that those 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 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 didn't you didn't even raise that issue.
Yeah, I'm not so sure that that's the case, but I first of all the problem with with these traditional Protestant Christianity is the idea that It well within Calvinism is that they don't have any choice, but to be evil.
Or to be rebellious against God. We were according to traditional belief is that we were born that way. I mean we had the sin of Adam a doctrine which I don't really believe in. But what do you do with Romans chapter 4 or 5?
Which which. Well Romans 5 by by one man's transgression. We were all constituted sinners. I mean we were all in Adam. You're either you're either in Adam and the result of that is death or you're in Christ the result.
Of that is life. I mean federal federal headship is a plain biblical teaching. I don't argue that men are all sinners. That's not my point. My point is is that? Is that it seems from traditional teachings?
Is that man is that way and this is particularly true of Calvinism is that way because? You know that's his basic underlying nature. He is spiritually dead. He can't respond to God. That's not a traditional teaching.
That's Ephesians chapter 2 Colossians chapter 2 Jeremiah chapter 17. I mean, that's just the Bible. Well, okay. Have a different view on those. You denied those passages of Scripture. Are you just saying that.
They don't say. I don't think you're understanding it correctly. Okay, Ephesians chapter 2 we were 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. That we are. We are carnal because we have chosen to be carnal. As such we're not sensitive to the promptings of the spirit.
Now if we if something happens in our lives to jolt us into a paying attention to what God has to say Then we can perhaps respond and I submit to you. That's what for instance happened to. To Paul on the road to Damascus in essence the Lord him over the head with a two-by-four and say hey pay attention.
And he brought him face to face with reality that Jesus Christ was you know the Christ. 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 mindset on the flesh is hostile toward God. For it does not subject itself the law of God for it is not even able to do so and those from the flesh Cannot please God was contradicting himself.
Now again if a guy 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. So that's the path that he has chosen whereas the individuals 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 the work of God in drawing someone to Christ is on an enticing it's a powerful thing that actually brings a person to Christ, but What does Paul mean when he says that the mindset 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. God, but things can happen in individuals life.
For instance, I guess the example would be the the prodigal son who had given himself over to the flesh but then when Things change in his life. He suddenly came to his senses. He said, you know, this is really crazy.
Why am I doing this. And he goes and he he has a change of heart, you know. This is not because God zapped him and then changed his willer. It's because he made a decision. He sort of recognized what was going on and he said, you know, I really this is not this is not really making me happy.
God 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 a biblical term, but that the idea is not a biblical term. Is that God does not if you will magically wave his wand and Bad person becomes good. I think he he works with an individual.
He's making 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.
God reaches out. Well, the problem problem is that's not what Jesus said. He said no one come to the father. No one come to me unless the father sent him to send his drama 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. We want to 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 John 6 44 You're saying that all men are going to be raised eternal life. No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that not all will necessarily. All if I had a 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 that it sounds to me like you have Continue to have an external authority outside of Scripture that is determining your interpretation of Scripture.
Do you do you hold to solo scriptura?
Not in the way that you you should define it now.
What other sources are they saying to the right?
I hold to the view that God has revealed more things than just the Bible and so obviously.
Exegesis of the biblical text especially in light of the Book of Mormon saying too many plain and precious truths are being removed from the Bible and that is the Word of God only as far as it's translated correctly.
I don't know how you interpret that but that would become the the The least reliable of the four standard works and hence 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.
You determine that on the context of LDS theology. That's that's the difference between us.
No, 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 talk about the fact that God is interested in saving all all individuals.
Such as well. Well, John, I think it's 316, you know. God so loved the world and 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.
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 did God love. Was it just the the the elect?
Well, remember you see 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 cosmos the word world 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 are John 3 16 is the only people 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 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 leadership of the church above anything.
Even the interpretations that have been given by previous leaders of the church. 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.
All I'm saying is that the Invitation is extended to everyone, but not everyone.
Receives the invitation. We agree on that the the the calling in the sense of the general call 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.
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 more than I 1032 is very clear on that.
I would submit to you. That's what biblical theology teaches 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. 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, but the Bible presents the theocentric religion. That's one of the big differences. I think that anyway. It's still I still would like to.
Come on, Pierre. You got to admit when the 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 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 I mean if you think about it The view I said as I listen to you.
Your gospel. Often get the impression that gosh God must be a very egotistic individual. He's only interested in 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.
Well, you know and I 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 believe God was an exalted man I could never believe most of what the Bible says.
I every time that I I go into these passages like Romans 9 and 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 you're a god in embryo 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 The the word and it comes into existence.
He he himself was once a man lived under the 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 some from Directing you Pierre to to the biblical teaching where God himself Warns you against ever thinking that he is like you. 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.
Anyway, I'm not interested in in you know, specifically defending Mormon doctrine per se but to argue the point strictly from the Bible Pierre. 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. You do not we do not come to the biblical text in 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 covenants 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 any passage you could raise I mean I could throw much better ones than you've thrown up Matthew 23 37 2nd Peter 3 9 1st 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 in the text which results in eisegesis rather than exegesis.
We all we all have our prejudices. As I listen to your so-called exegesis of Scripture I see it as just you know overt eisegesis you are preconceived Calvinistic traditions into a clear verse God's purpose towards man.
Okay, let's let's find out if that's true.
In John, let's let's find out that's true. It's very easy to say we can both say you're engaging in eisegesis. All right, explain to me then this will this will and there's lots of people listening this right now.
Let's 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 Alton is the direct object of Helcuse in John 6 44 and then there's two words Cago on a stay so and I will raise and then you have Alton now you have two Alton's they're both direct objects.
They are within two words of it. 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 Alton is a different group than the second that the hymn who is drawn is?
Not the same as the hymn who is raised up or if you're going to say well it is then please explain. How on a stay so I will raise up means anything other than to eternal life in the context of John chapter 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 to say and who ultimately comes to the father to to Christ Is the one who was raised up on to eternal life?
I don't think any Latter-day Saints who understands his theology will disagree with that. My disagreement is is that You seem to have the notion that the only people who will come to Christ are the ones whom God has pre-selected.
Yes, that's not what the father is saying here. I don't guess what the Lord is saying. He says who because you have to answer the question who did God give to Christ. It's not the pre-selected individuals.
The answer to the question is is those who hearken unto your voice and for and follow all your commandments. These are the ones that I will give on to you and you'll lose none of them. That's not what he said.
No, no, no, no, no you just you just not there's there's ice of Jesus fear that that's the biggest example of ice of Jesus I've seen so far a day. 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 and I see you you turn that around said well if you'll do the father's will if you'll do these Things then you're given to the given given to the father.
That's not what Jesus said. That's ice of Jesus. 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's what you just said and here's a perfect example of.
Where your external theology derived from other sources? Drives you're reading the text and makes you do ice of Jesus. Well, if you said that I'm doing ice of Jesus show me from the text.
Let me ask you this then to clarify the issue is is who do you think the father gave him? Who is the who are the ones that he gave him? They're called the elect. Okay on what basis does God elect?
He's elect Ephesians chapter 1 the basis of his mercy and grace. Solely and not anything by the way, but let me let me expand on that to make sure 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 the basis is solely in God not in the creature.
So on what basis does it. I mean still you haven't really specifically answered the question. What does he. How did he decide that? Person a is going to be saved and person B is going to be damned. What what decision processes he make.
Is he. Well.
Well, first of all good-looking they are. No. No, I just 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's not a matter of works. It's not a matter of anything like that. It is solely his mercy. No, see one of the things you've missed and and again.
It's because of it's because of the theology to dragging into the Bible. Is that what you missed here was in in making this choice again, the point is out of this entire group that falls in Adam and is deserving and desirous of this deserving of his wrath and 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. More Moroni 1032 rips that out. The Book of Mormon is clearly 108 degrees.
I'm not gonna never mind Mormonism because you're bringing it in whether you know it or not. Yes, you are. Yes. Yes. Yes, you are Here come on don't that be like telling me tells me don't don't raise Christianity when discussing something come on you you that's part and parcel of your content 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.
I'm talking about Catholics also holds in 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 it's a it's a 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? 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 1032 Where you rid yourself of all ungodliness and love God with all your heart soul and mind then the grace of Christ is efficient 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 they do side with you on that issue.
But let me finish my thought here on John 637 and the question that I was asking. And now I come back to this other point that I find very interesting and That is that I would challenge you to find 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. God is a universe. God as the The ruler and creator of the universe does not engage in arbitrary actions. If you're asking me to give you a reason. Here your God is too small. You worship a man I know but you're but you're not hearing me because you've got an idol for a God Pierre.
You don't understand you. 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 then that's saying I don't accept that I'm saying show me how I'm trying to tell you.
Explain to me how this is. If you want something more than what the scripture gives you I can't give it to you nor what I want to. If you're not. If you're not. If you're not Satisfied with Ephesians 1 5 6.
If you're not satisfied with Romans chapter 9 verses 14 and following. If that isn't Enough for you I'm not gonna I'm not gonna 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. Oh Yes, even to us in Genesis you recall when when when Cain and Abel offered their offerings and and Cain was rejected.
No, he was wrong. And what did. What did the God tell him? You know if thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted and if thou do it not well, then sin lies at your door. Okay, and so, you know the challenge is, you know, if you do well, you're gonna be saved.
If you don't do well.
And when the Bible 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 the issue of the of the offering that Cain made in Mormonism. But the point is you're not interpreting the Bible properly at all.
Not sure that 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 commandment and 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 said 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, but why not? Why not? 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 the wrong scriptures Jesus is not saying.
Oh, hey, just 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 of Jesus 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 what is he pointing out 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 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 was the purpose of law according to Galatians chapter 3? It is a schoolmaster a tutor to lead us unto Christ. We may be justified by faith. Why would we seek to be justified? Because we realize that we cannot in 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. Because Moroni 1032 says you can. That's the whole point Pierre. You're there's your eisegesis.
You've 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 in the Midwest and that's the problem.
The reason why the young man Didn't go it's 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 so he thought he had kept all ten and what's what's in reality? He had stumbled at the very first one. Is there anyone who doesn't Pierre? Have you fulfilled Matt have you fulfilled Moroni 1032 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 1032 says To go back to the rich young man.
No, no, wait a minute Pierre. I asked you a personal question here I'm out. Let me I will confess. I have not loved Pierre. I haven't loved God perfectly today.
The answer to your question is no. I have not yet accomplished that yet, okay.
Well, then we're only 1032 says get there but the Moroni 1030 so God grades on a curve. No, it's not a curve.
You know, it's we are saved by grace after all that which we can do.
I know we are great. We are saved in spite of all we've done Pierre. No, that's not true at all. I know Moroni 25. I know. Second if I 25 23 2 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 is no longer on the basis of works.
Otherwise grace is no longer grace. If you try to add those Second 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 can 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 fit 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 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 second Nephi 25 23 is not is is that grace is a is a Helping aid. In fact, let me if you don't mind here. I'd like to I'd like to read something to you. Do you have your your quad there.
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? Mm-hmm. It's on page 697 and Would you agree that if this passage utilizes Second 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 to 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 and consequence 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 second Nephi 2523. 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 present position that I was saying is 180 degrees opposite of the teaching of the scriptures in Romans 11 6 and everywhere where God's grace is discussed.
We'll see there's there's my point. Pierre is Romans 11 6 and it was on the basis of grace. It's no longer on the basis of works. Otherwise grace is no longer grace. Try to mix 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 the scriptures are teaching including the Bible and that is that you know that that. Somehow if because it works synergistically that somehow grace cannot be grace grace again.
Is is that power from God that enables us to do things beyond our own ability? That's not the Bible.
That's not the Bible's definition. That's Mormonism's definition. That's not the Bible's. No, no, no, no, no. No, that's not the Bible's definition. Do you remember remember Paul's discussion Galatians 2 21?
I do not nullify the grace of God for if righteousness comes through law, then Christ died needlessly. Christ died needlessly law. Well, and that is God's law. Now it's referring to the law of Moses. That's not God's law.
Well, that's God's law, too.
But he's specifically talking about God, you know I did that the law of Moses that anyway when we as Latter-day Saints was certainly agreed that salvation does not come to the law of Moses.
God has not given any higher law than he gave on Mount Sinai. 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 you see 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 theology 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 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.
I said Jesus not me. But here we have we've gone a long time haven't we? And I don't even know what program you were listening to. You're gonna be surprised if you go back and listen to the archives and what we were actually talking about.
You called we were actually being downright silly today in some ways. We were talking about Strange pictures of Roman Catholic apologists and magazines and all sorts of weird stuff. You could go back you're gonna listen to the archives and I think you're probably get a chuckle out of it.
But I wish you would go back and listen to the archives. And listen look at these passages and look at them in their context. I I simply have to try to say to you you keep importing these things. That definition of grace on page 697.
The Bible Dictionary is not a biblical definition of grace it is it violates the very definitions provide to us in Galatians in Romans of the freedom of God and We've gone we've gone around a lot of different hills today.
But hopefully it's been useful to you and and useful to others as well. Thanks for calling the program today, Pierre. Okay, keep listening. Alrighty. 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 Steven, 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 taking the time for that gentleman. Indeed as 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. Yes.
One of the issues that they didn't nobody brought up and this was on on icons. Is that in the Old Testament that I believe the Ark of the Covenant had figures on it? If I remember correctly.
Didn't weren't there some figures and that were. Well, they were there cherubim on the on the top of the. Because there are their wings covered over the the mercy seat. Yes. Uh-huh.
So there were figures in the in that would actually be in the temple in the Holy of Holy. There were there were.
Just as just as I don't know if you've seen the main page article on our website right now, but I have. And I mentioned there in a hushed on the the bronze serpent that God Commanded to be made and the key issue in both those situations is while God commanded that those image be images be made He never commanded or allowed the bowing down before them and the giving to them of Latria or Julia.
And that's that's really the issue that 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 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 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 they would even change the the pronunciation the reading of the of the text itself, so It yeah, I 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 Julia 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 and then the issue didn't get didn't get raised. You mean the New Jersey Shore parking lot, what are you talking about?
Well, I tried to but but the belt Parkway Was down to one lane on the island. I mean I was I let I did leave very very early and it took four and a half hours to get there.
Anyway, oh, yes, and Hank that particular comment, right. And he used Romans 5 I guess the trying to get to a parallel to compare the parallels comparing the you know, the one man sin, right? this type of thing and to me that.
So the overriding context there is before we're saying is that this is for all men being all types of right?
Well, unfortunately music's underneath me. And so I'll be very very quick and basically saying yeah. That's not really relevant to put the presentation on the subject of particular redemption. But why don't you give us call back on that?
We can talk about a little bit more next time around here on the dividing line. Thanks for listening today. We'll see you next week. The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries.
If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 0 3 1 8 or write us at p .o Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks.
Join us again next Saturday afternoon at 2 p .m. For the dividing line.