October 23, 2003

From Phoenix, Arizona, this is

The Dividing Line 34602, for toll free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line, my name is

James White, it's our Thursday afternoon edition, and we invite your participation today at 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number, we already have one caller online, and we invite you to participate today, it is toll free, and that always makes the program move along a whole lot better, we get all sorts of interesting topics, and so you are invited to partake, partake and participate in the program today, 877 -753 -3341, in the

Deseret News, for yesterday, Wednesday, October 22nd, 2003, there is an article,

Pastors Condemn Preachers' Acts, They Say Such Evangelists Do Not Represent Mainstream, this is by Kerry A.

Moore, Deseret Morning News, nearly two dozen local evangelical pastors gathered near the LDS Conference Center on Tuesday to condemn the actions of street preachers who desecrated clothing sacred to members of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints earlier this month. The Reverend Greg Johnson, president of a coalition called

Standing Together, and by the way, that's actually Greg Vettel's, changed his name, but that's the individual to whom the book by Dr.

Blomberg, How Wide the Divide was dedicated to, said the actions of Lonnie Percival, Utah director of the

Worldwide Street Preachers Fellowship, and boy do I know him, and other street preachers who profess to be

Christian evangelists do not in any way represent the Christian gospel that he and other group members believe in.

The street preachers held protest signs and used bullhorns to deride Latter -day Saints during the faith's semi -annual general conference in early

October, and at one point reportedly spat and stomped on garments considered sacred to church members.

Two LDS men were arrested after taking the garments from the street preachers, and one was charged with assault. The Provo man has since received donations for his legal defense fund.

Those who would profess to be followers of Jesus Christ cannot and ought not needlessly offend those with whom they might disagree theologically, the

Reverend Johnson said. The group came together en masse to speak firmly against any actions that forward activities of hate and discrimination as qualities associated with genuine

Christian witness or behavior, he said. Those who profanely used the Mormon garments to mock and ridicule the

Latter -day Saint community in ways too egregious to mention owe an apology to the Mormon community, and we call upon them to repent publicly of their activities, he said.

Percival, who told a Deseret Morning News reporter on Tuesday that he planned to attend the press conference, didn't show up.

I hadn't seen that part before, but that doesn't surprise me. Those guys are, they are only brave in numbers.

They know they could never hold their own alone in any discussion on any topic, unless they had a bullhorn.

That would be about the only way they could do it. But anyways, Ken Mulholland, president of the Salt Lake Theological Seminary, said his institution has had the privilege of being picketed by Percival and company after decrying the street preacher's tactics on earlier occasions.

Oh, don't we know that? Don't we know that? I bet you they didn't have anybody show up with specific signs about him, however.

And anyone dressed with a bald thing on their heads, they'd look bald and sit there and say,

I love Gail Kiplinger. Anyway, the Reverend Johnson said various pastors who are members of Standing Together had tried to speak to Percival individually, but, quote, he was very disinterested.

And refused to hear us, end quote. There's a politically correct way of saying, talking to that guy is like talking to a wall.

And that's exactly right. I've tried it, been there, done that, absolutely no interest in hearing from anybody, no reasoning going on there at all.

Public discussion of the street preacher's behavior earlier this month has resulted in numerous letters to the editor of both

Salt Lake City newspapers, from many who are not LDS decrying the actions as unchristian.

The street preachers have repeatedly stated God has sent them to speak truth that others are reticent to say, urging

Latter -day Saints to either turn from their faith or burn in hell. The group wanted to make sure the public distinguishes between lone rangers like Percival and the wider evangelical community, which condemns his actions, according to the

Reverend Bill Young of Salt City Rock Church. Now, Salt City Rock Church?

I've heard of Salt Rock, and that's weird. The best way to support and encourage a person is through prayer rather than confrontation, according to Jeff Nellermoe of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church.

LDS Church spokesman Dale Bills offered a written statement in response, quote, We are grateful to Reverend Gregory Johnson of Standing of the

Ministries and associates representing a large number of evangelical congregations for their considerate and timely expression noting the importance of religious tolerance in our community.

We agree that religious differences should be discussed with gentleness and respect to avoid needless offense to others. Twenty -three pastors gathered for the event, and a total of thirty -six congregations were named as supporters on a press release provided by Standing Together.

The clergy said they represent not only themselves, but the sentiment within their congregations throughout the Salt Lake Valley.

The Reverend C. Kruger of the Mountain View Christian Assembly of God said while Orthodox Christians and Latter -day

Saints probably will never agree on many points of theology, if we disagree, we need to do so agreeably. As a minister here for fifteen years, he said he has learned his

LDS neighbors love God as much as we do, and both groups do it in their own way. The incident at the

LDS General Conference has come up in several informal conversations with members of his congregation, the Reverend Kruger said, and they are concerned about it.

Last Sunday morning, when he told his congregation about the press conference and desire to stand publicly against the street preacher's behavior, quote, they literally exploded in applause, end quote.

Well, I'm not surprised this has happened, of course. Of course, that is why we have not been tracking the

General Conference now for a full year. These individuals truly do not have any concept of what the gospel is.

They are mean -spirited, nasty individuals.

They know little about Mormonism. They know little about the scriptures. They are not in obedience to the scriptures, and they are there for only one thing.

They are a scourge on the Mormon people, because they have truly ended any possibilities of the witness that took place there for eighteen years.

They will be held accountable for their actions, but they do not care. They only want to get on the camera.

They want people to scream at them, and to get angry at them, and things like that. That's just the way they are.

They are a very sad group of people, and they need to, I would say, need to be called to repent, but repent as in come to know

Christ. They have no respect for the Word of God or anything like it. We said that a long time ago. For some reason, some folks thought we were being too harsh, but I think by observing their behavior, it is very obvious what they are really all about.

I'm sitting here looking at some pictures on another website, pictures taken of the signs that were held outside the conference.

There's this guy standing there, man, he's got a look on his face. I tell you, it's bad. Burning in the bosom from the father of lies.

Well, that's true, but you need to give it in the proper context. We've got our standard fellow, one of the guys standing there with the temple garments in his hands, just filled with the love of Christ and a massive amount of ignorance.

Jesus saves Joseph and slaves, except they put N and then there's a space before slaves.

It's one word, guys. You might want to spell your signs correctly. Then you've got an old fellow standing out there, trust

Jesus, repent, read Bible. Oh, there's the word though, sorry, couldn't see it there very well. Read the

Bible, that's good. Let's see, let's scroll down here. Oh, this is a good one. Same group because he's got the know the

Bible thing on the back. One's got a sign with Acts 16, 31, and then we've got the gold plates of Moron, M -O -R -O -N.

I told you I sat there. In fact, we played for you probably a year ago now. This guy yelling, it shouldn't be

Mormon, it should be Moron. That's the depth of their understanding of, you know, here's a good read the

King James Bible and then it's got none of the others, of course, they're King James only. Oh, LDS, Liars, Deceivers, and Seducers.

That'll get a lot of good conversations going. Just unbelievable stuff.

That's the way these folks are. And as I said, they are a plague, a scourge upon the

Mormon people because they are responsible for ending meaningful outreach to speak to the

LDS people in a way that can communicate the truth to them. And so it is a sad thing.

So anyway, we have talked about them before. We never did do the big article when they did the stuff about me and Lonnie Percival and when they had the guy with the bald cap and we should have done a big article on that and provide those pictures because when people see these folks, when they see what they're really all about, they can understand that this type of activity is just simply inane.

But somebody's supporting them. Somebody's giving them the money to do what they're doing.

And I wish they'd stop, but that doesn't show any signs of it. In fact, I was really hoping.

I was really thinking along the lines of, well, you know, it's been a while. We haven't been out there.

Maybe they'll get tired of it, they'll go away. And maybe next April we can think about going up to Salt Lake City.

And, you know, doing the conference again. And then

I started, I even saw a story on them. In the brief few minutes we were in the hotel room long enough to watch

TV before we had everything to do with the debate, I saw the coverage of them and I was like, well, they're coming back in force and they come from all over the place and it's just a sad, sad thing that these are the people.

People look at them and they say, see, that's how you all are.

That's how everybody out there is. And even if they went away, it would take a long time to sort of flush the garbage out of Temple Square.

As far as, you know, from now on, many of those people will be very convinced that that kind of mindset is what anybody else who would show up, even if you're not carrying signs, you're respectful, your literature shows knowledge of Mormonism, you know your

Bible, you know your faith, you're obedient to the faith. All that doesn't matter.

All the work that was done for 18 years, gone. With King James only wackoids and that's what they are, they're

King James only wackoids. I do not apologize for that. All you got to do is watch the video of these people and you'll go, wow, man, they let them out of the institution to do this?

Why did they do that? Well, they just keep the door locked and all will be well. So anyway, unbelievable.

We've got We Have Colors, and I've only announced it a couple of times. We Have Colors. So we start at the top of the alphabet,

I guess, and let's talk with Aaron in California. Hi, Aaron. Hi, can you hear me?

I sure can. OK, you've dropped down a little bit. I am a Reformed Calvinist.

Actually, I'm a new breed. I'm a Mormon Reformed Calvinist. I'm just Mormon in the books, though. I mean, even though I'm not a fit,

I'm still in the church, but I am a Reformed view.

OK, some background on my question. I've become a Calvinist basically through a lot of reading through your work and testing it with logic very thoroughly.

And I have not really found anything that could really come against it. But I have found something recently, somewhat several months ago.

I have a friend that is Greek Orthodox who claims that one of the testimonies of his is the real church is this miracle they do at the

Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, where they make this holy fire that doesn't burn come out of the place.

And it goes around and lights candles and flies around. And after 33 minutes, which they say is the 33 years

Christ lived it, it becomes real fire. And they say everyone else has tried to do this, which they only given

Armenian reference, not Armenian, but Armenian form of Orthodox Armenian, Armenian, Armenian.

They tried. They bribed someone in like the 16th century. I think

I got my reference wrong there. But it's somewhere around that time. And they failed to produce it. And they're claiming, you see, we're the real church because we can do this and everyone else is everything's wrong.

They've converted people by this alone. And I'm just, I don't really, that's a pretty hard thing to combat with logic alone since my only thoughts are if it can be proved that the

Greek Orthodox have in the past had contradictory scripture, like in the case of Cyril Lucaris, who was literally

Calvinist, a pure Calvinist who tried to reform the Orthodoxy. And they and they condemned his beliefs, you know, best way to argue against the

Calvinists is when he's dead, I guess. They condemned his beliefs about 30 years or so after he died. Right. Yeah.

I'd really like an opinion on this because I have found no apologetic work on what Protestant, what what reformed

Protestants should think of this miracle. And how do we answer the claims of this is a real church?

And I think the Greek Orthodox also have the view that only they go to heaven. I'm pretty sure they have a rather strict view of who goes and who doesn't.

And they claim they are as anti -reformed as you can get. Free will, synergism, everything you could think of.

Well, someone for you. Well, yeah.

I mean, I really don't think you're going to find that in in most of the writings of the the best leading

Orthodox theologians. They're not going to base it upon that. Someone channel just popped up a

URL. Of course, it comes from from Orthodoxy. And the talks about this, it had never

I'd never even heard the Orthodox people that are on the radio here in Phoenix ever even mentioned.

It's not like I listen to them all the time. But they there is a

URL. It was just popped into the channel. I'm looking at about the holy light is not only distributed by the archbishop.

It operates also by itself. It emits from the Holy Sepulchre, having a gleam of a of a hue completely different from that of natural light.

I'm not sure how you'd measure that. But it sparkles. It flashes like lightning. It flies like a dove around the tabernacle of the

Holy Sepulchre and lights up the unlit lamps of olive oil hanging in front of it. It whirls from one side of the church to the other.

It enters to some of the chapels inside the church, as, for instance, the chapel of the Calvary.

And that's that's spelled strangely. Maybe it's something else. I don't know. And lights up the lamps that lights up also the candles of certain pilgrims.

In fact, there are some very pious pilgrims who, every time they attended the seminary, noticed their candles lit up on their own accord.

And it sounds to me like some of the appearances of Mary to this divine light also present some special peculiarities.

As soon as it appears, it has a bluish hue and does not burn at the first moments of its appearance.

If it touches the face or mouth or hands, it does not burn. The appearance of the holy light is an event which occurs every year in front of thousands of visual witnesses.

Nobody can deny it. On the contrary, this miracle can reinforce those who have lack of faith. Well, this, of course, is from the it plays on the emotions.

And I well, yeah, that this book, this is this is from a book entitled Differences Between the

Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. So it's it's it's part and parcel of that very thing.

I'm looking at pictures here, and I can guarantee you that the place where I have seen very, very similar things to this is on the various Marian websites.

When we have the unrefutable testimony of thousands of people that Mary appeared.

And I remember when Mary was appearing in Georgia for a while, thousands of people smelled roses and there were no roses within miles of this place.

And this was clear evidence that Mary was appearing. And this woman was a prophetess and all the rest is wonderful and stuff.

I've never looked at this until now. And so I I have absolutely because I thought it

I thought it was. Oh, well, no, every religion has its shall we call it the

Benny Hinn factor in the sense that Roman Catholicism is, you know, takes the cake.

I mean, alleged miracles related to relics, related to to items like that, related to Fatima, Our Lady of Guadalupe, all all those kinds of things are just a dime a dozen.

I mean, there's there's just zillions of them. And in fact, it got so bad that at time the Reformation, Erasmus joked and some people say it was

Luther. I think it was Erasmus, though, joke that you could you could build an entire ship out of all of the genuine splinters of the real cross that were scattered around Europe.

And you could go in and view these real splinters of the cross of Christ and obtain indulgences and and miracles and all the rest is kind of fun stuff.

And there's nothing new about that at all. I mean, there's there's pretty much every religion has that element in it.

And it's not meant to be dealt with in a logical way, because until a person could go there and examine this themselves, how could that influence anyone who lives on the other side of the planet?

This somehow means that this particular religious group presents the truth of God, especially

Orthodoxy has a problem here because Orthodoxy by nature eschews systematic theology.

And as such, they believe that the truth is primarily communicated through the liturgy and the prayers of the church.

And so upon what logical basis could could the existence of a miracle somehow substantiate anything other than, well, the the high priest is good at creating fire or something?

I mean, how could that then be relevant to, for example, whether the Nicene Creed should or should not include the phrase from the sun in regards to the procession of the spirit?

There's no logical way to to attach that. Well, basically the place it's taken place at is supposed to be very holy.

And the fact that they've been doing this since the fourth century, every single year, I hear it alleged.

Would that be a little bit tough to do when the Muslims were running around whacking everybody's head off? But again, that you know,

I'm sorry, there just isn't any any real evidence that that has taken place since the fourth century, every single year and all the rest of that stuff.

But but that's what I'm thinking. Yeah, I mean, I mean, that's it'll be interesting to see if someone pulls up some responses to it.

I've never heard it from anybody before. So but I would propose a way to deal with miracles trying to convert people.

If they can perform, any group can perform any miracles you can you can want. But if they stand silent on a simple contradictory area of their belief and they just you just can silence them on that issue.

I don't think any miracle can validate following a lie, which is which is, you know,

Cyril Lucarius apparently had reformed the church for about for for a short amount of time.

And, you know, there's no basis to say you have to believe in Greek Orthodox to be saved if their beliefs have flip flopped over the years, because then you just believe whatever you want then.

Well, but but I think there needs to be a valid response for people who try and try and look at miracles as a way to validate it, validate a reason to follow faith.

I think no matter how many miracles you have, if there's a simple lie that stands in the way of contradiction, like I've seen in Roman Catholicism with Honorius, I believe, and and others,

I think no matter what the miracle is, I would advise people to, you know, stay away and follow just the truth in the word.

Well, I think the best the best response in regards to miracles is is found in in the words of of Abraham to to the rich man in Luke chapter 16, when the rich man said he said,

I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house, where I have five brothers, in order that he may warn them so that they will not also come to this place of torment.

But Abraham said this, verse twenty nine, they have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them. But he said, no,

Father Abraham. But if someone goes them from the dead, they will repent. But he said to him, if they do not listen to Moses, the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.

And obviously rising from the dead is a is a miraculous event. And here the scriptures are saying, no, if they will not listen to the scriptures, then all the miracles in the world are not going to change them.

Now, you do need to recognize one thing. Claims of miracles can be extremely attractive to an unregenerate person, a person who is who is either a religious hypocrite, a person who is playing at religion.

They they can go from one religion to another. You can get converts like that. There's no question that claims of miracles very, very important for their

Marian miracles and things like that are real big in Roman Catholicism as far as the trying to call people into that particular fellowship and faith.

But the point here is that to be truly persuaded in the in the spiritual sense requires that work of the spirit of God that opens the hearts and the mind.

So to listen to Moses and the prophets, to give obedience to the word of God. That's what I wanted to bring up. I mean, I can't say

I don't believe in miracles. I think watching God work in the world and I think the reformed have that very miracle of where we don't try and convince anyone.

We just spread the seeds of the word and we watch how suddenly it just springs out of people. Do you know what

I mean? Yes, I do. I mean, that that is our own mirror. I mean, that's the miracle we can witness to. And it keeps us going, even though it seems like just a hopeless missing because no one likes

Calvinism. We're located group where we are so hated. I'm I'm so hated among my own kind.

I'm even looking for a church. But but, you know, I mean, even with Calvinism, where it says, by all means, oh, we shouldn't be preaching because we just sit back and stay where they let you know.

We're the ones who are going out and doing the preaching. And and I believe miracles do have do have their place.

But it's just a matter of if it's a miracle from God or the other place. And I really have to confess, I I do believe that the thing is going on in Jerusalem.

But I need a I'm going to have to set it down that either this comes from God or it or it's a means of trickery from Satan.

I believe in the contradictions in Greek orthodoxy, this miracle does not validate who there are one single bit.

I did not validate that the true church, that they have a doctrine of contradiction. And and that's just my now there are there are all sorts of alleged miracles going on.

I mean, I include a story when I speak on the Marian dogmas of the miracle of Mary's appearance in the windows of the ugly duckling car building in Clearwater, Florida, just a few years ago.

I have pictures of this. And soon they had 30 ,000 people filling this this this place.

In fact, ugly duckling had to sell the place to a Marian group. And there's this this water stain on on a set of windows from where a palm tree had been when they cut the palm tree down.

They had used reconstituted water to water this thing and it had stained the window. It looks like Mary. And so now they've they've bought it.

And Mary supposedly appears and talks to people and they have masses there. And I mean, that kind of thing is going on all the time.

And it is not obviously something that is relevant to the truth claims of a group, especially in that kind of a yes, a

Marian palm tree is what it is. And so I'm going to bring up with my

Greek Orthodox friend because I I would like to be able to give an answer. I think I found a lot of answers for this.

Well, I'll be interested in seeing how many URLs end up in my mailbox by the weekend from folks who track stuff down, because we have a lot of a lot of really geeky people who listen to the webcast.

So I'm sure there'll be some more stuff out there and probably some responses to it and things like that. So but I appreciate you bringing it up,

Aaron. God bless you. All right. Thank you. I thank you. Bye bye. Eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one.

But let's say there's there's I've never heard of that one before. And given that I have talked to a few

Orthodox folks, that's not one that that's that that's most interesting.

I'm surprised I hadn't heard it before. Anyway, let's go to back to California, I guess, was the first ones in California.

Aaron was in California. Let's go back to California and talk with Johnny. Hi, Johnny. How are you doing,

James? How are you doing, sir? All right. My question today is about well, today,

I don't know if you got a chance. So I'm a little sick. So sorry about that. My I was listening to the

Bible Answer Man. And I don't know if you have to listen to it today. Actually, it's on right now here in Phoenix.

So I'm it's really difficult for me to listen to both. Oh, OK. Well, I think you might enjoy the call coming up in about 15 minutes.

Well, you know, I really am not going to be able to be listening to that in 15 minutes. But anyway, there is the

Baptist Calvinist that called in and they were talking about how the

Southern Baptist Convention was predominantly reformed when it originated. Right.

And Hank was saying that is true and so on and so forth. But as the conversation went on on the

Bible Answer Man, the man wanted to, I guess, somewhat get

Hank's spin on the whole issue of the doctrines of grace. But in a very summary format, the guy told him his perspective, particularly from Romans chapter eight, verses seven through eight.

Right. And he was basically saying, you know, that faith and repentance are requirements for salvation.

But these are things that are pleasing to God. And you feel that that indicates that regeneration should precede those things because they are by nature gifts from God, etc.

The one thing that puzzled me is that Hank, I don't want to use the word ignored, but he didn't really address

Romans chapter eight. He went on to go to what he's becoming, if it hasn't been already, his pet argument against Reformed theology.

And that is to go to passages that deal with the fall and the whole author of evil issue.

And basically what I'm asking is, when dealing with Romans chapter eight, and I know that Dr.

Geisler is buddies with Hank, and I was just looking at it just a few minutes ago to how he explains

Romans eight, seven through nine, but he doesn't really address the question of man's inability to please

God in an unregenerate state regarding faith and repentance. He basically doesn't even mention it. Dr. Geisler doesn't on page 65 of Chosen but Free.

But what I'm asking is, are non -Reformed people like Hank and others denying or not understanding that Romans eight is talking about the unregenerate man, or how do they see this passage?

Well, good question. I don't think that I'm violating any agreements here to announce.

I've mentioned this before. I may have announced it before. I don't know. But mark your calendars. I'll ask that question on December 16th when

I will be on the Bible Answer Man broadcast to discuss this very issue with George Bryson and Hank Hanegraaff.

And I obviously will intend to press the issue of man's inabilities, especially in response to libertarian free will, the fact that u dunatai is used of man, not dunatai, that we should be concerned about the free will of God before we're concerned about the free will of man, for without the free will of God, there can be no free will of man.

And I will press Romans eight, seven through eight. I'll press compatibilism.

I'm going to be talking about chatty Cathy dolls and divine rape, too, and demonstrating those things are not properly representational of Reformed Theology.

And so I imagine that program will go a minimum of two days.

And most of the time that I'm on, we go three hours. So that would extend for three days.

So I don't get real good responses, to be perfectly honest with you, from most of my non -reformed friends on those passages.

Generally, what I get is when I present exegesis of a text, we end up with, it can't mean that because of my philosophical construct over here.

It can't mean that because of what I have concluded in regards to the fall of man, even though the scripture doesn't say anything about these issues.

These are my philosophical constructs, and they rule over exegesis rather than the other way around. So that has been my experience.

And so generally, the response to Romans 8, 7 through 8 is either to take sort of a view that, well, no, we're talking about carnal

Christians there, not about those requiring the flesh and are not regenerate. Or generally, just you run off someplace else.

Well, what about his point in, let me close this door before the dog starts barking.

One of the things that I'm not sure where Hank is coming from, because one of the things that the

Baptist gentleman said was that there is a distinction between the revealed will of God.

I know, I think you've talked about this on the show a few times. There's a distinction between the revealed will of God where God says, this is wrong, this is right, this is the way it should be.

And then there's the decreed will of God where God, as you always quote Ephesians 1, 11 and the

Baptist did, by the way, that God works all things according to the counsel of his will. Hank responded by saying that this,

I guess, maybe sets a little bit of a dilemma where God has two wills that are in conflict.

And he referenced the fact that, of course, the passage, I think it's 2

Peter 3, 9, where it says that God wants to save everyone. And he's basically saying, so God wants to save everybody, but he not really does.

So he has his decreed will where he doesn't want to save everyone and his revealed will where he does, and somehow this sets forth a conflict.

How would you respond to that? Well, of course, I respond to that by exegeting 2 Peter 3, 9 and demonstrating that it does not say anything of the kind.

Same with 1 Timothy 2, 4, Matthew 23, 37. So I'll present those. Whether I'll get any exegetical response to any of those,

I really don't know. I sort of doubt it because, again, that's just not the way the argument goes.

Without 2 Peter 3, 9, 1 Timothy 2, 4, Matthew 23, 37, the libertarian position collapses in a heap.

They have to be taken to have a certain meaning and that meaning has to be assumed. And so I will obviously be pressing those issues when it comes up because it will very, very quickly.

But I would obviously point out that God's will is that no one kill and yet we also have

Acts 4 saying that God's hand predestined the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Now, you may not like having to accept both those two things and figuring out how it works, but that is there.

It is there in the text of Scripture. And so far, when those issues have been raised,

I haven't heard any responses to them being offered by George Bryson or Norman Geisler and certainly not by Dave Hunt.

The responses that are offered anyway, at least Dave Hunt tries, I suppose, but I think most folks can see the response really has no substance to it and does not actually address the text and does not really answer the question.

The standard response is to go to another issue, go to issues that are not necessarily going to force you to actually deal with the text as it stands.

Which is what Hank did. Well, I want to ask you something. I remember you bringing this up years ago on the

Bible Answer Man with Hank against Tim Staples, where you brought up that the real issue in the

Reformation was about the... Sufficiency of grace, not the necessity of grace. Right.

And you mentioned that and Tim, I guess, wanted to, maybe with a smile on his face, point out that Hank didn't agree with you.

Right. Now Hank, he just said, well, just read my book, Resurrection. I was wondering, because Hank, when the issue of Reformed theology is brought up in your presence on the

Bible Answer Man, he seems really passive and quiet. Do you think that that will be the situation when Bryson's there with you?

I don't know. I do not know what kind of interaction there's going to be at that level. My assumption would be that I'll primarily be interacting with George Bryson.

However, I would assume... I'm certain that Hank would be aware of the fact that I know what his objections are and that George could be presenting the same objections.

And so, basically, I would put it this way. If there is an exchange in which

I am directly addressing the assertions in regards to Chatty Cathy dolls, the claim that the only alternative to libertarianism is that concept that you just pull a string and out comes what's pre -programmed, which obviously does not even begin to accurately represent the concept of man being created in the imago dei.

He has a will, but that will is enslaved to sin and things like that. If George Bryson does not provide a rather strong defense of the position that is

Hank's himself, then I would expect that Hank would make comments on that and would enter into the discussion.

But I have no way of knowing because I've not been in a situation where I was specifically addressing an issue where I knew that Hank was in disagreement and had made the public statement that he doesn't believe that Reformed Theology can answer these questions.

And so, I don't know what that's going to be like and we'll see what happens.

Well, because in listening to Hank, I've noticed that he has said, even though he reflects a lot of Dr.

Geisler -ish influence, he has said that he doesn't agree necessarily with all the same language that Dr.

Geisler uses. And I am willing to bet my life that Hank would probably disagree with at least some of the details that Mr.

Bryson has to say in his books. But it'd be an interesting exchange. Well, I would imagine he would because I don't think that it's

Norm Geisler that is the major influence on this issue with Hank. Oh, no, okay. I don't think it is.

I think the major influence on Hank at this point is Lutheran in form, not

Geislerian. Okay, well, thank you very much, Hank.

Okay. Bye, James. All right, thank you. God bless. We skipped our break because we have so many phone calls today on such a wide variety of topics.

None of them that I can see right now. Oh, we do have Jason in the United Kingdom.

I will be able to get to talk to an Englishman again. But I'll wait.

That's why. Oh, really? Well, I didn't... It isn't actually. It's actually morning here.

It's nearly 20 to 1 Friday morning. Oh, okay. So I'm up late.

Well, I was actually just looking down the line of folks and someone who will remain nameless just threw me a complete curve.

But you're on now, so we'll get to everybody. Anyways, go ahead, sir.

Yeah, I was wondering if you could help me answer an Arminian friend of mine who argues quite strongly that you can lose your salvation.

And the argument that he's using is he's looked up the word believe in,

I don't know, Strong's Concordance, I think it is. And he says that Strong said that the word believe doesn't simply mean believe as in believe something is true, but it actually carries connotations of obedience and persevering and continuing to believe.

Because I'm not a Greek scholar, I may as well be Chinese as one. Yes, as one person has said.

Yes, yes. I can't really respond to that. Well, the term pisteuo can certainly be placed into a context where something like obedience can be indicated by the context and issues about continuing to believe would be an issue of grammar.

That is, is it used in the aorist? Is it used in the present tense? For example, the Gospel of John, true belief is always in the present tense.

It's ongoing in contrast with the aorist tense, which is used for surface level belief.

For example, in John chapter 2, there are people who believed in Jesus, but Jesus was not believing in them.

He was not entrusting himself to them because he knew what filled the heart of men. And the Jews in John 8 who had believed in Jesus, aorist, not present tense, not ongoing, by the end of the chapter are picking up stones to stone him.

And so there's that whole issue of what form is it in?

And really the issue is not so much the meaning of belief. It's a very rich term, and there's nothing within Reformed theology that would begin to lead anyone to believe that it needs to be some simplistic thing to believe in the perfect nature of salvation.

The thing your friend needs to understand is that saving faith is a gift of God. It is a work of the

Holy Spirit, the ability to have it. It is something we do, but we cannot do it unless we are enabled to do it.

Then it becomes the natural thing that the regenerated, changed heart does, and it will continue on until the end of the work of God within us, because it is

God's work within us. It's not something that just finds its origin in us. And so the ideas of any type of obedience, there's a passage in John 3 where some translations render

Pestuo as believe, I'm sorry, as obey. And that's one issue, but that's really, in fact, that's

John 3 .36, by the way, in case you were looking for that. That really isn't the issue as far as this issue with your friend is concerned, because it sounds like your friend is still operating on the foundation that, belief is something

I have to somehow create within myself, and therefore, if it has to be ongoing,

I might fail. Well, that's what I see with him, actually. I asked him once if he has any assurance of salvation, and he said no, because at that point he didn't feel as though he was really walking with the

Lord very well, and so he thought, well, no, I can't at this moment say that I would be saved if I died now.

Well, it sounds like your friend has very little understanding of the

Gospel of Christ, to be perfectly honest with you. What I mean by that is, does he really, really believe that the work of Christ is so completely dependent upon him, that the death of Christ, the ascending of the

Holy Spirit, the entire work of the Trinity is dependent upon his ability to somehow hold on tight long enough to make the whole thing work?

I mean, you have to wonder if such a person does not fall into the warning of Galatians 5.

They're seeking to be justified by things that they do before God, and they don't have the joy, at the very least, of being able to trust in a perfect Savior, and probably, if they're to that point of recognizing and openly claiming that the

Gospel is really dependent upon their accomplishment, you have to wonder if they've ever actually heard the

Gospel of grace itself. Well, I do believe that he has, because the sort of churches that he's involved with seem fairly sound on the fact that it's by faith alone, and I suppose he thinks that his faith needs to be maintained,

I suppose. I think he would still say it's faith alone that saves. Yeah, but if this faith is a human act that God has no control over, and it's something that he has to keep cranking out, that renders the sacrifice of Christ and the work of the

Holy Spirit totally subject to human activity. And at that point, I don't know that,

I'm not sure what churches you're referring to, but there's a fundamental problem here. He has a very man -centered

Gospel, not a God -centered Gospel, and that's what he needs to find out about. He's sort of very into Jacob Prash type.

Well, that's a shame. Even Hunt wouldn't take that extreme of view.

And, you know, I just take those folks of John 6, and I hold their feet to the fire, and say, how could

Jesus say the words he said here, if what you believe is true? Because I don't see that following. How can

Jesus say that he will lose none of those that are given to him, if, in point of fact, it's really not up to him one way or the other?

That kind of language just doesn't make any sense in light of what is being said there.

Okay? Thank you very much. Oh, thank you very much, Jason. Thank you for calling. I really wasn't expecting to be on that quickly, you know, but it was put on there very quickly, and so that's just, you know, okay.

Well, thank you very much, Seth. Thank you, bye. Bye -bye. I got to do something here for just a moment, because as soon as that hits the airwaves, we're going to have somebody who is going to start yammering, and so I just need to take care of that.

Okay, let's go ahead and let's talk with Bobby in Mississippi. Hello, Bobby.

Hey, James. How you doing? I'm doing great. How about you? I'm doing just fine. All right. My question is on the

KJV only issue. I have a friend that I go to school with, and he brought up something to me the other day that I searched your book, and I didn't see it addressed, and I really didn't know how to answer it.

It's on the John 3 .16, and maybe you've heard it. He made the point that the

King James Version has only begotten, while the other versions just have only son, and his point was that Jesus is not

God's only son. We're his sons also, but he is the only begotten. Well, of course, he's wrong to say that only the

King James has only begotten. I'm looking at the New American Standard. It says only begotten too. The issue, first of all, has to do with the meaning of the

Greek term monogamies. There is no question that as far as monogamies huios, the unique son, that that is applied only to Christ, and in fact,

John generally reserves the term huios for the son, and he uses technos, technon, for the children of God by faith in Christ.

So it's not a translational issue at that point, because as I said, there are many English translations that also have only begotten son.

The real question is, what does monogamies mean, and should it be only translated only begotten?

I certainly strongly prefer a unique son in that situation because of the fact that monogamies, its emphasis is upon the uniqueness of the relationship, not upon the idea of being begotten.

Many people have a problem with the idea of Jesus being begotten in the first place, and it does tend to carry a meaning in English that is not as clear as the original term.

I did address the meaning of monogamies, but not in the King James only controversy. I might have,

I don't remember, but specifically I addressed that in the context of the

Forgotten Trinity. I have an entire section on that in the book on the Forgotten Trinity. So if you want to look up various and sundry resources on the meaning of monogamies, you could find it there.

But again, it's not a translational issue, because many translations do that. The real issue is, what is the best rendering of the term monogamies?

It's not a textual issue. There's not a variant there. Something like that. And if he does believe the

King James only one has it, he's sadly deceived at that point, because there are many versions that have that same type of rendering in it as well.

And so that would be an error. Okay. Well, I believe he specifically said that the NIV did not have it.

How would you defend the NIV when it does not? Does it have monogamies?

Well, the Greek text that the NIV is translating obviously has it. It translates it as only, because that's what the term means.

It means only or unique. The idea of begotten is an old error that is based upon a misunderstanding of the term monogamies.

The idea was that monogamies means monos, only, and then that the rest of the

Greek word is geno, which means to beget. It isn't. It is genos, which means race or type.

And so how would you put only type, only race? Well, only or unique is the best way to render that.

And so in reality, the argument is that he's just not understanding what the actual term monogamies means and is arguing for a traditional understanding of a

Greek word and saying, well, since the King James has it, nobody else does, which is wrong. The New American Starent has it.

And I don't know why I don't have in my English comparisons here the

New King James version. Let me pop it up here. Something tells me that it probably has the same thing. Let me look here.

And New King James, where'd it go? I brought it up and I don't see it.

There it is. Yep, only begotten. So New King James has it. New American Starent has it. So he's wrong at that point. But still,

I would argue that the ESV, NIV, the modern translations are giving you a more accurate rendering of monogamies than the

King James is. Well, that's what I needed to know. I appreciate it. All righty. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. God bless. 877 -753 -3341.

I think I've still got another call here. And this would be Joshua in Chandler. Hi, Josh. Hi, I have a question for you on an old divine line topic that you did.

I've been going through the old archives for the past week and... I'm sorry. I'm sorry, what?

I'm sorry that you've been going through the old archives for the past week. That must be a very difficult thing to do.

Well, I've got a lot of work to do, so I've been very bored. But there was a message that you did on the

Purpose Driven Life, Purpose Driven Church CD, yada, yada, yada. I did? Yes, it was around March this year,

I believe. I think I mentioned something about encountering it in a bookstore.

Is that what you're referring to? That I was in a bookstore and I couldn't find hardly any books on theology, but I found an entire row of the

Purpose Driven Church stuff because there was this program that was coming up and all the rest of the stuff.

Is that what you're referring to? I believe it is that. My question doesn't have specifically to do with that.

There's a comment that you made on the show, and it's probably hard for me to ask you this because it's quite some time ago, but you'd mentioned that you'd seen very few megachurches that had worked out well.

Yes, uh -huh. And you'd also mentioned that you thought that it might be possible that within the

New Testament that there was kind of a cutoff point for church membership. Well, I had mused on the idea that the churches that we see, you know, when you look at a megachurch, what generally happens is you develop a number of small churches within it.

And in fact, I may have told the story about being a member of a megachurch and how to avoid that very development, they would break up the

Bible study groups every year. They would just toss them up in the air and change all of the arrangements so that that natural tendency for the creation of a mini -church within the big church, where you knew everybody, you knew who you could go and ask questions of, and the fellowship and all the rest of that stuff.

And I think I mused on the possibility that in light of the existence of house churches in the early church, that you would have a similar type of a situation.

I mean, gatherings of thousands and thousands of people would be real easy for the

Romans to track down in the first few centuries of the church, obviously. And it just seems natural that people want to know their leaders.

They want to have fellowship with one another. And hence, I do know some megachurches, but those megachurches have many elders.

Those elders are directly involved in the lives of the people. And you still have, even in those situations, somewhat the megachurch is sort of a level of church above the little church that everybody knows everybody in.

It still just seems to be a natural thing. But I was just sort of musing on those particular issues.

Okay, I was just curious about your statement on that. I belong to a rather large church in the

East Valley, and I was just kind of curious as to what that was based upon.

Well, I think, again, in any large church, I think it eventually reaches a size where it's very difficult for any one man or group of men to have a lot of personal interaction,

FaceTime, shall we say, with almost anyone. And so the natural tendency is, if I don't have access to the quote -unquote big pastor,

I'm going to find somebody else who is in some form of leadership that is the person that functions, in essence, as my pastor.

Now, there may be some big deal that comes up, and I have to go talk to the big guy.

But my experience in a megachurch was you only talk to the big guy for the real big stuff, but the everyday things of life, you are dealing with these other people.

And I don't know how that can be avoided. That's just the nature of fellowship itself. Those churches that survive as megachurches generally allow that kind of thing to flourish, but make sure that those who are involved in those sub -positions of leadership are people who are really plugged into the church, they have the characteristics of leadership, and aren't likely to go off and start their own little kingdom, in essence, because that ends up resulting in real difficulties.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. God bless. Alrighty. Well, I didn't get a chance to do nearly as much of my

English accent as I wanted to. But then when I saw a particular person in the channel having a complete cowl when

I did, it sort of broke my heart. I'm very sad. I must report to everyone.

But I'll get through this. I'll survive that. And anyway, believe it or not, we're going to have two weeks of dividing line in succession.

And that's pretty unusual recently. We've been traveling a lot. But we are going to be here all next week.

And Lord willing, we'll be here for the... Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. The closing music is going to be coming up here in a second.

But I know I mentioned on Tuesday that probably next Tuesday morning is when we would have

Jerry Matitix and Eric Svensson on. I had misread Eric Svensson's email. He's gone all of next week.

And so I have sent an email to both Mr. Matitix and to Dr. Svensson.

And both had indicated in their emails that the week after that would be fine.

I know Matitix said that he's not traveling in November. And Eric said that he would be available during that week.

And so I have asked if Tuesday morning, November 4th would be best for that.

And I'm waiting to get confirmation from both of them. So I did mention the possibility of next

Tuesday morning. That's just not going to work out. So don't freak out about that. But hopefully the week after that,

November 4th, is when we will have both Eric Svensson. And I read that Ron Tichelli article that appeared in Envoy.

And I just cannot wait to hear Eric Svensson responding to it. It was...

Honestly, the level of this article was, well, I'm really not an expert on Greek.

And so I showed these arguments to Greek scholars and they all laughed. That's the level of response that this article provides.

It does try to argue at least some examples. But it's fairly obvious to me that it was not based upon a reading of Eric's actual work.

And so I'm really looking forward to his presentation on that.

And to his defense of his own doctoral dissertation. You know, there are ways of defending your doctoral dissertation that are significantly more difficult and more challenging than doing so within the context of your own professors.

And here's a good example of it. So keep that in mind, some of you. Anyway, we will see you Tuesday morning here on The Dividing Line.

Thanks to all who called in this week. Thanks and God bless. 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