October 07, 2011

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And welcome to a Friday edition of the Dividing Line, not just a mere review of the debates we've been looking at, we will be getting to them because we do want to make progress on that.

But there were two quick items I wanted to get to beforehand, and if you hear some noise in the background, there is a guy right outside the window just sort of standing there with a leaf blower, or I guess we don't have to make leaves around here, but grass blower, whatever.

Couldn't have timed that any better. Anyways, I saw an article a couple days ago,

I thought I would mention it. Al -Azhar University is the most prestigious institution of all of Sunni Islam.

I think that's a fair statement. And Al -Azhar, the deputy rector of Al -Azhar

University, Sheikh Mohammed Ashour, once again, memory

TV being the source of this information, there is,

I think, an appropriate observation that in the Islamic world, they say one thing in English and something else in Arabic.

And memory TV helps us to see that. And deputy rector of Al -Azhar

University, Sheikh Mohammed Ashour, gave a talk, Our Enemies Support the

Offspring of Pigs and Apes, from September 30th.

Now, if you're wondering about pigs and apes, the Quran says that Allah cursed disobedient

Jews and transformed them into apes and pigs in at least one rather intriguing incident.

And that has unfortunately become a paradigm. But he made these comments in a televised address,

I say to all my brothers and sisters, Jihad has become an individual duty incumbent upon each and every one of us, because our enemies have grown arrogant and have persisted in their great tyranny.

In an even uglier display, they publicly declare their support and defense of injustice, even though they boast that they denounce any injustice and that they are the ones who legislate human rights.

But the rights of what human are they defending and supporting? They support the unjust oppressors, the offspring of pigs and apes.

Now, you need to understand what he means by offspring of pigs and apes. He's talking about the Jews. He's talking about the Jewish state,

Israel, etc., etc. The level of traditionally driven hatred that exists amongst many

Arab Muslims in the Middle East is absolutely shocking.

And one thing's for certain, Islam does not help to ameliorate this problem.

It exacerbates it, and that is a problem. Christianity, on the other hand, is just the opposite, because in Christian congregations in the

Middle East, you see Arabs and Jews sitting next to each other and fellowshipping in one common bond in Jesus Christ.

And Islam has nothing to offer like that, really doesn't. It's one of the many, many differences.

The line between radicalized Islam, as the term has come to mean, I just refer to it as one strain of Quranic Islam that has a strong Hadith support versus another strain of Islam that emphasizes different aspects of the

Quran, sometimes aspects that other people think have been abrogated, and it has a different set of a

Hadith in its support. And my concern that I've expressed many, many times before is that the sources upon which the decision would be made in the debate between these various groups, the sources are insufficient to determine the issue.

And so I do not believe that Islam, as a religio -political system or a politico -religio system, depending on where the emphasis is at at any particular point in time, internally contains the ability to restrain the madness of underwear bombers and 9 -11 bombers and the frightening reports of people actually talking about planting bombs inside of people's bodies.

Just an amazing thing. So there's the first news item I wanted to take a look at.

And then Roger Olson, good old Roger Olson. I, some of you know, I tried to contact

Roger Olson and I wanted to ask him why he said on his blog that by principle he would not read anything by myself or Norm Geisler.

But he doesn't respond to my emails, he deleted my comments, and I've had a number of people written to me and say, you know, he's really not really a chummy type guy.

He's he's really not that kind of guy. OK. All right. Whatever. But he's written a book called

Against Calvinism. And I found I found today's article on his blog interesting.

Some thoughts about conversations slash debates between Calvinists and Armenians. Now, my book

Against Calvinism is published. And by the way, I just checked. I still can't order it on Kindle. I'm not sure if this is one of the we will not make it available on Kindle for a few weeks so that if you really want it, you have to buy the paper copy and then you can get on Kindle later thing.

I don't know. But I'm waiting for the Kindle. Just it's just not important enough to to rush it.

And once I've got on Kindle, then I can listen to it while writing and and we'll respond to it.

And, you know, you know, if there's anything really worthy of responding to. But anyway, I'm receiving invitations to debate

Calvinists. What I want to say is you ready for this, folks? Here's Roger Olson from Baylor.

What I want to say is everything I have to say on the subject is in the book. Read it.

Well, this seems to be in the Armenian DNA, doesn't it? Just seems to be in the

Armenian DNA. Read my book. I'm not going to talk to you about it.

I'm not going to debate you about it. I won't defend myself in any type of dialogue where you get any equal time with me.

But just read my book. There you go.

He goes on to talk about stuff. It's it's interesting. He says, the other day,

I was the guest on a 30 minute Christian radio program hosted by a five point Calvinist who treated me very courageously, but tried vigorously to prove

Calvinism true and Arminianism false in 30 minutes. It seemed to me that he assumed that somehow I simply was ignoring certain

Bible passages and just needed to hear them read to me one more time, as it were. I wasn't offended, but I was bemused.

Does he think I haven't studied the Bible? Does he think there are no other interpretations of, say, Romans nine than his?

I always come away from encounters like that, and I have more of them scheduled, just somewhat bewildered. Well, of course, what bewilders me is, does this man think that there are multiple proper and appropriate interpretations of Romans nine?

And I think he does. I think it's more of a, you know, I just think this is the better way type thing.

Then he says later on, I'm beginning to think even more than before that most five point Calvinists I know approach the

Bible very differently from non Calvinists I know. Yeah, I'm talking about evangelicals here.

I'm not including in non Calvinist liberals or unbelievers. Oh, OK, so your fellow

Arminians. All right. Or if you don't like that, then your fellow synergists.

Do synergists read the Bible differently than monergists? Probably, because to be a monergist is to really take seriously what the

Bible says about God's freedom in creation. And I think that is a fundamentally different way of viewing

God and man. For example, I'm musing here because I'm not sure about this.

It seems to me that most five point Calvinists I know seem bound and determined to believe anything they think the

Bible says, regardless of how horrific that may be. Now, let me reread that sentence.

It seems to me that most five point Calvinists I know seem bound and determined to believe anything they think the

Bible says, regardless of how horrific that may be. Now, I'll just let you muse on that for a moment.

He goes on to say, in other words, if they became convinced that somehow they had been overlooking something in Scripture, as they think

I do. And in fact, God and the devil are actually the same being such that God is evil.

They would believe it because the Bible says it. Now, OK, that's just dumb.

That's just that's just dumb. But the idea that he is expressing is that, well, they check their their moral principles at the door.

And if the Bible if they think the Bible says it now, Olson would say the Bible isn't saying that.

But what he is saying is there is an external judge of what the

Bible can say about the character of God. He is saying that.

I, on the other hand, he says, presuppose that God cannot be evil, that goodness and being belong inextricably together or else there is no ground for basic trust.

This is why Wesley said of Romans nine, paraphrasing here, whatever it means, it cannot mean that.

He means no matter how much Romans nine and other scripture passages seem to say that God selects some people to save unconditionally, leaving others who he could save.

Both of those, I'm emphasizing those because he put them in all caps. Because election to salvation is unconditional and saving grace is irresistible to eternal torment in hell, it cannot mean that.

Why? Because God is good. Because God is good. So this is exactly the point that I made in responding to just one sentence of his commentary early on.

And people say, I haven't read the book yet. How can we? Well, because I responded to one sentence. And if that one sentence had meaning,

I responded to it. Well, here it is in even fuller sentences. The denial of God's freedom to save as he pleases.

He is under obligation. Not sure where this obligation came from, but some external obligation.

He is under obligation. If he could save all, he must save all. That's it.

That's my presupposition. I'm not going to argue with you about it. I'm not going to debate you about it. And I don't care what the Bible says about it.

And it doesn't matter if there are passages that completely contradict me. I don't care. I'm not going to believe them. Period. End of story slash

Roger Olson. That's what you've got. That's what I just read.

He means no matter how much Romans nine and other scripture passages seem to say that God's like some people to save unconditionally.

And they say exactly that and can say nothing other than that. Leaving others who he could save because election to salvation is unconditional and saving grace is irresistible to eternal torment in hell.

It cannot mean that. Why? Because God is good. In other words, I go back to the first person who ever said this to me, straight to my face.

I'll never forget it. It was, oh, when would the date on this be?

Mid 1980s, maybe late 1987 ish, 88, somewhere around there, maybe a female graduate student from the

Kino Institute here in Phoenix, which is a Roman Catholic graduate school.

Called me up and she needed to interview a fundamentalist.

Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun. You know, all that stuff.

Yeah, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, I need to do my sounds actually work here.

Turn my turn my thing up here. Let me see if they, if my channel sounds work here.

I just need to have these. Hold on a second.

Hold fast. Hold on. Just a second. Hold fast. Thank you. There you go. All right.

I just kicked him out of the channel. He says Roger Olson is irrelevant. I don't think that that's the case, so I just kicked him out of the channel.

Anyhow, she had to interview a fundamentalist. And I could just tell. I felt like I was in a

Petri dish, you know. I was a specimen, you know, and these weirdos, you know.

And so she comes in and we sit at this table in the front office.

We were in this old building. It's gone now on 16th Street. And we start talking.

It doesn't take long for us to get to the subject of God's sovereignty and salvation and the freedom of grace.

And she is just, she recoils in horror when

I say that God is free to save whom he pleases. And he is under no obligation to save all people.

That he is free and that grace is actually free. When I enunciated to her the idea that grace, to be grace must be free.

It cannot be demanded. It cannot be an obligation on God's part. She was just disgusted.

And I'll never forget, she looked across that table at me and said, I would never,

I would never worship a God like that. And I just looked at her and said,

I know. That's why you believe what you believe. And that's exactly what

Roger Olson is saying. God is, my God is better than your God. Because if he could save somebody, he would.

In other words, my God is better than your God because his grace isn't free. It can be, it's an obligation.

He has to. So my God is better than your God because at least he tries. He can't have any purposes above this.

There can be no purpose in the demonstration of his power or justice or any of those things.

No, no, no, no, no. And the more

I'm seeing him summarizing the thesis of his own book on his own blog, that seems to be what the argument is here.

These texts, you know, you might be able to understand it this way. You might be able to understand it that way. But, you know, we just can't understand it that way because then it would run into my synergistic presupposition.

And that is, if God can save somebody, he will. He's under obligation. Doesn't matter.

And isn't that really the Norman Geisler kids swimming in the pond thing?

And they all have their own version of it. But it's a fundamental denial of God's right to be

God and to save freely. And I guess they must mean then that since they've gotten saved, well, you know, part of that was just owed to them.

It really was. I mean, I'm awful glad God tried to do his best and I cooperated with him.

And so he was successful in his efforts because I cooperated with him. And if I hadn't cooperated with him, he wouldn't have been successful and he would have failed.

But all of that aside, he was under obligation to put forth his best effort.

That's what these folks are saying. And that's what Roger Olson is saying.

It says, even Calvinist Paul Helm, a leading evangelical Calvinist thinker, agrees, as I show in my book, that goodness attributed to God cannot be totally different from every understanding of goodness and love we know of.

Really? I'll have to see how he does that. Now, of course, I think that if God saves one person, that is mercy and grace undeserved.

So the problem is, as we read the Bible, I really do believe that Roger Olson doesn't believe major portions of it.

No, his traditions keep him from taking seriously not only the holiness of God, but the depravity of man and the fact that sinners are a stench in the nostril of God.

Oh, my God is too good for that. No, I don't think that has anything to do with goodness at all. So it comes out again.

There it is right there in our face, right in front of us.

And, you know, he talks about, you know, the Calvinist God being a monster and stuff like that and all that kind of thing.

And, you know, if we believe what Calvinists believe, God would not be good and therefore could not be trusted.

There you go. So it'll be interesting. Like I said, if Amazon ever gets around to making it available, then we will interact with it.

But it'll be a one -sided interaction once again, because obviously Dr. Olson is not nice enough to even respond to my emails.

I contacted him and, you know, what can I say? There you go. There you go.

There's some other stuff we could talk about here, but I really do need to press on because we still have a lot of material to cover.

So I did want to address those particular aspects. Now, I did –

I sent out – I was really busy last night. There's so many details you need to cover before a basically three -week -long trip.

When you're only home long enough to repack, that's a three -week -long trip. And one of the things

I was asking about was, you know, will we be able to use digital projectors in the debates and the presentations and stuff like that?

And I, you know, got confirmation from the locations that those things will be available and stuff.

One thing I was told was that Mr. Perkins has requested to be able to play portions of MP3s during his presentation.

Now, what might he be playing during the course of our debate?

Might it be portions from the dividing line? Well, we would hope so.

We would hope so. By the way, Rookie, excellent choice of clothing today.

That shirt there, it says, What is Hadith 2425? Wow, that's a cool -looking shirt.

I didn't get – oh, don't do that. I didn't get mine yet. Hopefully, it will arrive today because we will need to take a picture of me doing the dividing line wearing my

What is Hadith 2425 T -shirt. But they are arriving.

I haven't checked yet to see if Zazzle has caught up, and there's a direct link now instead of having to go through Carla's page.

I'll have to check that, and hopefully I will post that once there is the direct link. But don't forget, all of you folks who just can't wait to attend the

Veritas National Conference on Apologetics at the

Vatican of the non -denominational denomination, the Costa Mesa Calvary Chapel, featuring

Norman Geisler and Ergen Kanner, and also some real interesting other folks like Tim LaHaye.

I want to do apologetics with Tim LaHaye. But anyway, those of you heading there,

I still think if you really want to set the standard for apologetic style, then you need to get your

What is Hadith 2425 T -shirt, and I can guarantee you, you will not be ignored when you attend that conference.

You want to be someone other than just someone who fades into the crowd?

Be wearing a What is Hadith 2425 T -shirt at any of those events, and you will be quickly recognized,

I assure you. All right, let's get back to the Roger Perkins debate.

I'd say we've got about 10 % left of the opening statement. We are going to get there, eventually.

So let's get back to it. He says this demands eternal existence. Now, we're back at Philippians chapter 2.

We said we were going to start right here at the Carmen Christi. And this is good, because this is going to be one of the primary areas of discussion that we are going to have.

And Philippians 2 .6 says, Who existing in the form of God.

And the question is, does Huparkon, as a present participle, refer to a point in time where the

Logos, or the Son, or Jesus Christ, came into existence?

Is that what this is referring to? Or is there a basis upon which

I and others have rightfully, I believe, pointed out that placing a present participle in a past context emphasizes the continuing nature of that state of existence in the past, hence eternally?

Let me read for you the translation that I provided in the article that I wrote for the

CRI Journal a number of years ago. I think it's over a decade ago now. I'm not sure what the date on this was.

But let me read you the translation that I provided. You must have the same mindset among yourselves that was in Christ Jesus, who, although he eternally existed in the very form of God, did not consider that equality he had with God the

Father, that's in italics, something to be held on to at all costs. But instead, he made himself nothing by taking on the very form of a slave, by being made in human likeness.

And having entered into human existence, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even the death one dies on a cross.

Because of this, God the Father, in italics, exalted him to the highest place and bestowed on him the name which is above every name.

So at the mention of the exalted name of Jesus, everyone who is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, bows the knee, and every tongue confesses,

Jesus Christ is Lord, all to the glory of God the Father. Now, I believe the insertion of the term the

Father twice is fully substantiated on the basis of the very last phrase of the

Carmen Christi, all the glory of God the Father. But you'll notice I did say, who although he eternally existed in the form of God.

And I will substantiate that further in my comments, Lord willing, in the opening of the debate.

And will challenge Mr. Perkins to provide us with a discussion of the syntax of the present participle in place in the eternal context.

And so, that's what is being discussed here.

There had been a brief statement, I believe Mr. Reeves may have been expressing his agreement in his opening statement, which again is well worth listening to.

We played it, we played the entirety of the debate. But he may have been expressing his agreement with my perspective and my translation at that time.

That what we have going on in this context is a reference to the pre -incarnate

Christ. And that the phrases of verse 7, the sub -clauses that I introduced by the phrase by, by making himself of no reputation, by taking the form of a servant.

And being found in likeness of man, etc., etc. That the emptying is actually accomplished by the positive taking on of human flesh.

It's the humiliation, the entering into human existence.

But the point is that the one who did this is a divine person. Not a plan, there is no plan that has ever been equal to God.

There is no idealized concept that has ever been equal to God. This is in reference to the son in his pre -incarnate state.

That is the only way that this can function as an exhortation to humility. Which is what the

Carmen Christi is in context in Philippians chapter 2. So we go back to Mr.

Perkins. Now again, one of the things

I'm going to ask Mr. Perkins to do. Is when you say something like Thayer's says this.

That if you're going to do that, that you make sure that what you're actually giving is

Thayer's definition of this particular usage of the word.

So instead of, for example, looking at Thayer's and I have it in accordance.

Properly to begin below, to make a beginning universally to begin, Homer, Aeschylus, Roditus, and following.

Number two, to come forth, hence to be there, to be ready, to be at hand, Aeschylus, Roditus, Pindar, and following.

Universally and simply. Now, when you start looking around for, well, does he, number three, to be with a predicate nominative as often in the

Attic. There are numerous references. Remember, this particular term, huparco, is a verb of being.

And so it is used many times and will have a very wide, exceptionally wide semantic domain.

And so you don't go to the general meaning of a word that has an incredibly wide semantic domain.

And try to cram that into a context where you don't really like what's being said by somebody else.

Now, Thayer does mention this usage, but it's under number three.

To be with a predicate nominative. And so you have en morfei theuhuparcaen, to be in the form of God, Philippians 2 .6.

That's all it says. It didn't say anything about below or anything like that. And so,

Mr. Perkins, I will be very sensitive to lexical abuse on your part because I can recognize it.

And if you're going to cite lexicons, then you need to make sure that you're citing what the lexicon specifically says about a particular text.

And even then, you better be prepared to defend that interpretationally.

Because, sir, words only have meanings in contexts. And I can present, and I've given the example, a number of times when

Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Donker give a meaning of a word that, in their interpretation, this is where, in the semantic domain, this particular usage falls.

And I can give a number of examples where, I can assure you, Mr. Perkins would disagree.

With Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Donker. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Donker are not the popes of anything.

And so, this kind of lexical abuse, where you're not looking at, really, what the source is saying about that particular usage, is, well, it's just that.

It's lexical abuse. And I encourage Mr. Perkins to not continue to engage in the abuse of lexical sources.

Because it was obvious, in this debate, especially because of what happened with Heismia Henn, that there really wasn't anybody there that could call him on it and correct him on it.

That will not be the case in a couple weeks in Brisbane. Did an eternal son have a beginning?

No. And then you look at Strong's number 5225. To begin under, not above, to come into existence, not pre -existence.

Did an eternal son come into existence below? How in the world are you going to force eternity into this text right here?

Whenever the definitions of Huparka was to begin below, to start to come into existence. I could deal with many other things, but I've got to hurry along here.

I'm sorry, that was not an answer. No meaningful response was offered by Mr. Perkins at that point to quote meanings that have nothing to do with the usage in Philippians 2 .5.

He says this is a present participle. Well, Mr. Perkins, what does that mean? How is that different than an heiress participle?

See, that's the question that I would ask at this point. And I will ask if he brings this up as an excuse in his response to my exegesis of it.

Okay, you say this is a present participle. You happen to be right. That is information that anyone can get out of a good

Bible program, and I assume that Mr. Perkins has a good Bible program. I have all the good Bible programs. I really do.

I'm blessed. I have the gold standard, in my opinion, Accordance, which is only for Mac.

On this Mac in front of me, on Parallels, I have

BibleWorks. I haven't used BibleWorks in a long time now that I have Accordance. And I have

Logos. And I have a humongous Logos library. And once again, thanks to all of God's people that has made that possible.

I hope that I use it appropriately and well in that way. But I've got good

Bible programs. So, even if I couldn't parse Huppercone, which I can, on site,

I can find out what it is pretty easily. But you see, this is where a little

Greek is a dangerous thing. And that is, a lot of people think that because they've got a Greek program, a program that can do

Greek, and tell them what that means, wow, that's a present participle. Okay, well, could you explain syntactically,

Mr. Perkins, the difference between having a present participle here or having an aorist participle?

Now, that requires something more than a really good Greek program.

You actually have to have learned the language to know what the difference would be. And in fact, what he's emphasizing would require an aorist, maybe an iterative imperfect, you might be able to argue something along those lines.

But he's totally missing the significance of placing a present participle into a past context.

And so he has not given any response to the assertion at all.

If he wants to say it began to exist, then why is it a present and not an aorist?

Well, because there it says it can mean that. Yeah, but he's not talking about present participle usages of hubarko, is he?

No, he's not. And so, you know, if Mr.

Perkins had not done what he did on the Tuesday debate, if he had not stood in front of Mr.

Reeves and said, you know, the Church of Christ is well known all across the board for just how bad they are in Greek exegesis and hermeneutics, while he himself is standing there pretending that heis, meahen are three different Greek terms, then

I wouldn't make these challenges. But he did. So I have to challenge those things because he's making claims.

But I'm sorry, there was no substantiation offered there. Nothing was offered in substantiation at that point.

I can deal with the present active participle. I will tell you this, where it says, being in the form of God, more faith,

Bower's Greek -English lexicon defines this, page 528, as the outward appearance, not preexistence.

An outward appearance, the shape of a bodily form. Once again, we have lexical abuse where, evidently, if you can find any reference, anywhere in a

Greek dictionary that will substantiate your position, then it doesn't have to have anything to do with what it actually says concerning the actual text.

There is a reference to Philippians 2 .7 in Bower's opening definition of morphe.

And again, he goes with the general first definition.

Form, outward appearance, shape of bodily form. Of the shape or form of statues.

Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons. That wouldn't exactly fit his position, would it?

Of a messenger is also given. And then you have morphein doulu labon, he took on the form of a slave, expression of servility,

Philippians 2 .7, with schema as in Aristotle. This is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preexistent

Christ. And morphe theuhuparkon, although he was in the form of God.

Antiochus' body is the framework for his morphe or essential identity as a descendant of divinity.

Similar human fragility, Philippians 2 .7, becomes the supporting framework for Christ's servility and therefore his kenosis on the appearance of one, etc.,

etc. So notice that actually if he had read the specific comment of his source about Philippians 2 .7

and the use of morphe here for morphe theuhuparkon, it talks about this is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preexistent

Christ. So I wonder if Mr. Perkins would have the temerity to say, well,

I disagree with the interpretation of this specific term provided by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Donker, or in this case

Bauer, Arndt, Donker, and Gingrich. This is the third edition that I have in accordance in front of me. And so I'm not giving you the meaning they gave for this term at this verse, but they gave this as a general meaning beforehand and I'm going to apply it to this verse.

I don't know. Is that not lexical abuse? I think that's a clear case of lexical abuse at that point as well.

Of course, he's going so fast, no one, even myself, could ever keep up with the rat -a -tat -tat machine gun fire type approach here and check everyone.

But hey, this is all recorded. If there's a microphone sitting in front of you, if there's a camera staring you in the face, you better be careful what you're saying because it's going to be checked out by people who actually do know how to utilize these sources.

And there you go. Interesting element there. Thayer, page 418, says this is the external existence.

Esos, in the neuter plural, Robertson and Lightfoot said that this does not refer to equality of persons but attributes.

If you would read verse 9, it says that God has highly exalted him. Who? The Messiah. God highly exalted him.

The Greek verb for exalted, it means to raise someone to the loftiest height. Okay, let me just stop there because pretty soon, this is going to be one advantage to this.

Pretty soon, see right now, if I want to see the channel and internet and stuff like that, what

I'm playing back and my Bible programs are on the same screen. And that means one has to be in front of the other. Okay, so once I get back, and I just want to once again express my sincere thanks to Brian.

I'll just use a first name, but my sincerest thanks to Brian. When I get back, my

Dividing Line studio setup is going to dramatically increase in its, what do you call it, horsepower, shall we say.

And I will be able to have the playback stuff on a completely separate screen from, and I'll be able to dedicate one full screen to nothing but the

Bible program. And that means we'll be able to respond even faster. Why mention what

Esau means? I'm not sure, not what it means, but why

Neuter Plural, et cetera, et cetera. It's an adverb meaning equal. What's the point?

Other than to just throw something out there to be equal with Thao. Who's being equal?

If God is the one who is indwelling Jesus, so that Jesus is two persons, then who is not giving consideration to becoming equal?

Who is it? Is it the Son? Is it the external form here, just the human being?

Well, if it's the human being, then how did the human being empty himself? I would imagine,

I take it from Mr. Reeves' commentary that he takes the, this was a incident in Jesus' life like when he washed the disciples' feet type thing, which is the

Lutheran view as well, interestingly enough, and Robert Raymond's view, which is really weird. But again,

I interacted with all those in that article that I referred to before. But when he quotes

Robertson, I would love to look that up. He didn't give a reference. Equality of attributes.

Okay. What does that have to do with anything? It was done so quickly that I, you know, maybe he'll go more slowly.

I hope he goes more slowly and gives a more textually based, understandable explanation or exegesis.

But one thing for absolute certain, he's going to have to give us an exegesis of the text that takes us from beginning to end and explains this.

How is the Carmen Christi, as a sermon illustration, an example of humility?

This is for everybody. I've mentioned this before. You know, I know that Algo's in channel and Algo can probably just call in and say this for me.

But we always have new listeners. And unlike Algo, most human beings forget things over time.

But I sat down with Jehovah's Witnesses in a friend's home years and years ago.

Two pioneer ministers. Two women. And we went through Philippians chapter two.

And I went through their interpretation provided by their horrific translation of the

New World Translation. And then I gave my interpretation. Of course, their interpretation was

Jesus was not equal with the Father. He did not give consideration to a seizure, namely that he might be equal with God.

He remained subject to the Father as Michael the Archangel or as a lesser being.

No deity. And then

I went through the text and I said, here you have the eternal son, object of the worship of the angels in heaven.

Equal with the Father in participation in deity. And yet he lays aside those rights which are his.

In service to others. Specifically to us. And because of this, he's highly exalted. And given a name which is above every name.

The name of Jesus, which of course is quoting from Isaiah. And it's about Yahweh and so on and so forth.

And I said, now, we have two interpretations. Which one is the only one that makes sense? And I went back to verses one through four.

Where Paul is exhorting the congregation to humility of mind. Do not look to your own things only.

Look to the things of others. Do not consider yourself better than others. But in humility of mind, put others before yourself.

And I said, which one is an example? Which one is an example of true humility?

If Jesus was Michael the archangel, would we say, oh, what an act of humility that he does not try to become like God.

What an act of humility that he does not try to seize the throne of God. That's not humility.

That's just not committing blasphemy. But if he truly does participate with the

Father and the Spirit in the one being that is God. Is the one who was seen by saints and angels sitting upon the throne, as John tells us.

And yet, if he was willing to lay aside those privileges. Not cease being the logos, but lay aside those privileges.

As the text says, by taking on that human nature. So as to serve others.

Is that not the greatest example of humility that one could ever have?

And when those two pioneer ministers saw that. They, I'll never forget the one.

As soon as she saw it in her own Bible. She literally physically moved back from her

Bible as if a snake had appeared on the pages of her text. Because she saw it.

She got it. She realized that's what it meant. And that's for Jehovah's Witnesses, that's the best way to witness to them.

Because folks, they don't leave their Bibles behind. She took that Bible with her. Every time she had to open that text.

And the Jehovah's Witnesses refer to it every once in a while. Every time she opened that text, she'd have to remember. What it really, really said.

And so, I can lay this out. Can Roger Perkins present a clear, contextually based, consistent interpretation of the

Carmen Christi. That does not engage in special pleading. And explain who it is. Who while equal with God.

Did not consider that equality a thing to be held on to. He has no preexistent son. There can be no idealized plan.

That could consider these things. And empty himself.

Empty himself. Notice, Hay -ow -ton. Hay -ow -ton.

A -la Hay -ow -ton a -ken -o -son. Sometimes there is absolute glorious beauty.

In Greek grammar. Oh, it's not a Gnostic thing. I have people come up to me all the time.

Well, if I don't really know the Greek, then I, you know, I just would not really be able to understand the Bible.

What does it say in Greek? And normally my response is, what it says in English. But there are golden nuggets.

And this is one of the golden nuggets. You see, ow -ton would just be the accusative form of him.

But Hay -ow -ton is reflexive. And a -ken -o -son means he emptied.

And used with a reflexive, he emptied himself. It's not he was emptied.

This is what, you know, Perkins is always going, he did not come of his own. He misunderstands ow -hay -ow -to as if separate from the father.

But he doesn't, he has to do that because a -la Hay -ow -ton a -ken -o -son.

If this is talking about the incarnation, and there's no question that Morphine, Dooloo, Labone, and En -ham -oy -ah -oh -ma -tai,

Anthropone, Ganaminos, the next two phrases below. Get the screen so I can see it here.

These next two phrases, Morphine, Dooloo, Labone, taking the form of a servant. Now, what he'll, I don't know if he's, he didn't take the time to explain this, but if he takes the this is a human experience thing, then this is when

Jesus, on the night of his betrayal, girds himself in the cloth and washes the disciples' feet.

And then En -ham -oy -ah -oh -ma -tai, Anthropone, Ganaminos, now we can actually see it on the screen, and being made in the likeness of man.

I'm sorry. It is such a huge stretch to try to apply that phrase to what happened on the night of Jesus' betrayal.

This is the Incarnation. And since it is the

Incarnation, this has to be a divine person doing these actions. And it had to have been a divine person who made himself of no reputation and did not consider, consideration is an act of a human being.

These are all actions of the divine son prior to the Incarnation, which, interesting enough, is exactly how

B. Dagg took it as well. The very lexical source that he was quoting.

Now, one of our smart folks in Channel, and everybody in Channel is a smart folk, well, except for Wonky, but it's his position to be the village idiot in the

Channel, and he does a very good job at it. But one of the smart folks in Channel thinks that this is the citation of Robertson from Word Pictures on Philippians 2 .6,

Morphe means the essential attributes as shown in the form, in his pre -incarnate state,

Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Well, I sure hope that's not what he was quoting, because how can you quote one sentence when the very next sentence completely contradicts your own statement, which denies the pre -incarnate existence of Jesus?

Morphe means the essential attributes as shown in the form, in his pre -incarnate state,

Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. I agree.

I agree. No two ways about it. But that's not what he said.

In fact, I know we're not making much progress here, but Philippians 2 is worth listening to.

Let me back it up again and see if we can catch that. God has highly exalted him. Who? The Messiah. God highly exalted him.

The Greek verb for exalted, it means to raise someone to the loftiest height. Okay, I didn't get far enough back there.

Let's go back to there. I can deal with the present active participle. I will tell you this, where it says, being in the form of God, Morphe, Bower's Greek -English lexicon defines this, page 528, as the outward appearance, not pre -existence, an outward appearance, the shape of a bodily form.

I did not refute this point. Not pre -existence. How does that logically follow, even if that was the definition?

How would it logically follow that has something to do with pre -existence? It doesn't. It doesn't at all.

You mean there can be no pre -existent bodily form? Unless he's just saying, this only has to do with physical things, which, of course, is not what any lexical source is.

This can only be applied to physical things. That's obviously not true. Thayer, page 418, says this is the external existence.

Equal, esos, is neuter plural. In the neuter plural, rather, Robertson and Lightfoot said that this does not refer to equality of persons, but attributes.

Robertson and Lightfoot? See, I just don't know what that source is.

I don't know what he's referring to there. I don't think that Robertson, he's probably conflating two sources.

And I can guarantee you, we just saw that A .T. Robertson believes in the pre -existence of Christ.

And I know that J .B. Lightfoot believed in the pre -existence of Christ. So, to quote either one of them in this way.

If you would read verse 9, it says that God has highly exalted him. Who? The Messiah.

God highly exalted him. The Greek verb for exalted, it means to raise someone to the loftiest height.

The one who was highly exalted by the Father was the one who humbled himself.

The exaltation is the result of his self -humiliation.

Who humbled himself? How can a mere human creature, distinct from divine nature, be humbled to be human?

Makes no sense. Makes no sense. I'm looking forward to having cross -examination on the basis of the text here.

I think that will be very useful. No. The second divine person who has humbled himself is now being exalted in light of his having humbled himself and done the will of the

Father. Not above being... It doesn't say anything about above being God. That's not what it...

It's just not what it says. The passage is referring to the human life of Jesus. Hebrews 1, 2, God made the world through...

So he says this passage is referring to the human life of Jesus. Okay. Then get ready to try to back that up because you're not the only one who said it.

I just think you're completely wrong about it. The son, Bowers, he's dealing with Deion, the genitive case, through there.

Bowers, page 180, says that Deion, the genitive, where it says that God made the world through the son, this equally means on because of, on the occasion of.

Thayers, page 133. Because of. Because of.

So, Hebrews 1, 2, let's take a look at this. In these last days he has spoken unto us by his son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

And so, Deion, according to this assertion that was just made, was that Thayers or Bower that he said that?

Let me... Again, both things on the screen at the same time. So it takes me just a second here.

Let's go back because I want to double check, want to make sure we're accurate. Page 180 says that Deion, the genitive, where it says that...

I missed... I got page 180. That's pretty close. That's pretty good. ...resulted to a loftier state than being

God. Clearly, this passage is referring to the human life of Jesus. Hebrews 1, 2, God made the world through the son.

Bowers, he's dealing with Deion, the genitive case, through there. Bowers, page 180, says that Deion, the genitive, where it says that God made the world through the son, this equally means on because of, on the occasion of Thayer.

On the occasion of what? On the occasion of creation?

I mean, the discussion of Deion is massive because of the fact that Deion has...

Prepositions in Greek are significantly more expressive and commanding than they are in English.

In fact, it's the prepositions that govern the cases, not the cases that govern the prepositions in the Greek language.

So, I'll tell you what. Why don't we set up for a quick break?

I could use a little swig of water here. And I want to look up exactly what

Bowers says if I can. So, we will take a look at that and continue.

I know we're not getting very far today, I'm sorry, but this is important stuff. This is one of the few times when you really get into the key textual, the key texts, especially the

Carmen Christi, or those that are relevant to the creatorship of Jesus, such as Hebrews 1,

Colossians chapter 1. So, we'll be back right after this. Answering those who claim that only the

King James Version is the Word of God, James White, in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt

Scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author

James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

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

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

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

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming

Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7.

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

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

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

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils.

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements. And many

Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.

This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book,

The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatory and indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomin .org.

Public Crimes The criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James White's most provocative book yet.

White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week, as he seeks to leave no stone unturned.

Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture, one crime after another is laid bare for all to see. The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from His Word.

What has happened to this sacred duty in our day? The charges are as follows. Prostitution, using the gospel for financial gain.

Pandering to pluralism. Cowardice under fire. Polonius eisegesis. Entertainment without a license.

And cross -dressing, ignoring God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women. Is a pulpit crime occurring in your town?

Get Pulpit Crimes in the bookstore at aomin .org. Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality.

Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same -Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the

Bible's teaching on the subject. Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including

Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans. Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law.

In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people.

The Same -Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality.

Get your copy in the bookstore at aomin .org. Hello everyone, this is

Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program, the need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater.

I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday, yet they have never been confronted with their sin.

Alpha and Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner, making no excuses.

Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior, and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior.

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with, while equipping the body of Christ as well.

Support Alpha and Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you. In fact,

I think he said he put the entire entry on Diya into Microsoft Word. His search for Hebrews 1 -2 turned up nothing.

All we really needed to put in it was Diya with the genitive, and I had looked very closely at that.

Marker of instrumentality or circumstance whereby something is accomplished or affected is one of the primary sub -clauses there.

Marker of personal agency through or by is a very common one as well.

And of divine activity, 1 Corinthians 1, Hebrews 2 -10, etc.,

etc., would be the areas where this would be cited if a specific comment was being made.

And likewise, it then follows with the accusative or something like that, which would be a completely different utilization below that.

So it's a lengthy discussion, but I see nothing whatsoever about Hebrews 1 -2.

And so I want to listen one more time to what is being claimed Bauer says at this point.

He's often to a loftier state than being God. Clearly, this passage is referring to the human life of Jesus. Hebrews 1 -2,

God made the world through the Son. Bauer is dealing with Diya and the genitive case through there.

Bauer's page 180 says that Diya and the genitive, where it says that God made the world through the Son, this equally means because of, on the occasion of.

Thayer's page 133, of one who is the author as well as the instrument.

Moulton & Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, page 145, illustrates that Diya with the genitive case is as money paid by a hand directly.

A hand, ladies and gentlemen, is not a distinct individual from you. Now, I just got to stop there because all of this is just, again, just a complete abuse of the

Greek language. Diya with the genitive speaks of agency.

That's why it says through, by means of. And that's the entire point of Colossians 1.

And if you want to see oneness, trying to argue against Colossians 1, the preexistence of Christ, go listen to my debate with Robert Sabin on the subject.

It's clear. And this is really where the position really falls apart because you have to come up with, a hand is not an individual person, as if that's even slightly relevant to what the person giving the definition was meaning.

I mean, that's just not even semi -meaningful argumentation at all.

So Diya with the genitive case that we saw up here doesn't prove one single thing, and I've quoted that from the most authoritative lexicons on the market.

No, you've just abused all the authoritative lexicons on the market and have given absolutely not the single bit of meaningful argumentation that comes from a knowledge of syntax, and especially semantic domain, and especially in regards to the syntax of prepositions and the range of meanings that they can have in governing cases and all the things that come from that.

Hebrews 1H simply says that the Son is a prophecy from Psalms. It's saying that the

Son would be the one Old Testament God. This was written to the Hebrews, by the way, that were still offering animal sacrifices.

They were so wrapped up in the Old Testament. That's all

Hebrews 1H is? Just because it's written to the Hebrews, this somehow means this is just a prophecy?

But of the Son, he says, your throne, O God, is forever and ever. Who said that?

Who said, your throne, O God, is forever and ever? Wasn't that God?

So who's he talking to? Himself? How does saying this was written to the

Hebrews, and they were still wrapped up with all this stuff, how is that relevant to understanding what the verse actually says?

Old Testament thoughts. Now, he said that the Jews did believe in three divine persons in the

Godhead. Or he said the Old Testament prophets who were Jews believed that. Please bring us that from the

Old Testament, Mr. Reeves. Please bring us and show us a Jew that has ever believed in a trinity of persons in the

Godhead. And we want to see it on the Scripture, too, from the text itself. Ladies and gentlemen, Jesus said in John 4 that Jews know what they worship.

There's two Greek words for know. Gnosko and Edo. Gnosko denotes partial knowledge.

Edo denotes full knowledge. Now, I will expand upon this when we get to Brisbane.

But this is something that, unfortunately, he repeats so many times that I think it is, again, something that we need to expose.

Oida. Oida means to know.

And gnosko means to know. And as with all words, as we have discovered, its usage determines its meaning.

And, in fact, if you look up Oida in Lo and Nida, you discover that it is gnosko, oida, noridzo, gnosis.

That's the family. And the reality is that oida is just simply an older form.

Remember, languages develop over time. Languages are always spoken before they're written. And really ancient forms persist because they become entrenched in the earliest forms of language.

Even when smoothing out of grammatical systems, verbal systems, takes place frequently under influence from other languages, the oldest forms will survive that because they are such a part of the language already.

That's why, you know, when people learn Greek, there are these variant forms, you know, like me verbs and stuff.

And we just get mad at them. Why couldn't they have just made it all regular? Because those are frequently some of the oldest forms in the language and they're not going to be smoothed out in the same way because they are so firmly entrenched.

And so the reality is that he is making a distinction that once again would demand first and foremost a context and it would be the context and usage that would have to substantiate that, not the mere appearance of the word.

And so oida actually comes from the stem aidan. And it can simply mean to have information about, to know.

Sometimes it is not making any statement that that information is necessarily true.

It can mean to be intimately acquainted with or stand in close relationship to. To know, to understand how to do something, to grasp the meaning of something, to remember, to recognize merit.

Those are the primary meanings given to oida.

Gnosko can have all of the same. The semantic domain is not of necessity different between gnosko and oida.

They have great amount of overlapping. So here's the meanings given by Bauer for gnosko.

To arrive at a knowledge of someone or something. It can be personal knowledge or of a fact, for example, mathematics.

To acquire information through some means, ascertain, find out, to grasp the significance or meaning of something, to understand, comprehend.

To be aware of something. Oida is the term that can have reference to sexual intercourse, for example, in regards to Adam knew

Eve. I can guarantee you that wasn't a false knowledge. To have relationship with, to have come to knowledge of, to indicate that one does know, to acknowledge.

I'm just going through all of them here so you get the whole range. You notice the range was very much similar to oida.

And, in fact, tremendous amount of overlapping. Then you can have other forms like epigonosko.

Epigonosko would be a strengthened form of the term.

And yet, even then, to have knowledge of something or someone. To ascertain or gain information about someone.

To connect present information or awareness with what has come before. To indicate that one values the person of another.

To come to an understanding of. See, even with epi, even though it's a strengthened form, it does not mean simply by the use of the word that it's necessarily communicating something greater than just the use of ginosko.

Someone needs to buy a couple of books for Mr. Perkins. D .A.

Carson's work on exegetical fallacies. And Moises Silva's work on lexical semantics.

Because he is guilty of over and over and over and over again violating fundamental exegetical rules when it comes to the use of lexical sources and things like that.

There might be a place where a writer could contrast oida and ginosko so as to make the kind of assertion that Mr.

Perkins is making. But you would do that via context. The mere fact that Jesus says, you worship what you do not know.

We worship what we know. Ha oida men. Does not mean that when ginosko is used, that that somehow is a lesser knowledge.

That just simply does not follow. And I will provide examples of that if need be.

If this were to come up. Because there are a number of places where ginosko is used in a significantly deeper sense than just a partial knowledge.

That is just... Again, folks, I know that at this point I am ruining a lot of the type of preaching that you hear out there.

Not the type of preaching that we have at our church.

Speaking to the... So you're not the rookie anymore. You're the probie now? I like probie.

I think probie is... I like NCIS. So... Now, who's the probie on NCIS?

Is that... You don't know? Oh, he's a bright, bright guy.

I don't watch television. That's nice. Okay. Well, the probie on NCIS is a computer genius.

So being called probie isn't all that bad in that particular context.

But anyways. There are just so many places that we could go to.

And I realize that I'm ruining a lot of the sermons that you hear out there. But this also explains why so many of those sermons end up contradicting other sermons.

It's because they're not based upon solid truth.

Just look at... No, Ziva's never been the probie. No, Halftime's wrong.

Oh, man. We've got a bunch of NCIS noobs in the channel. Just look at just the...

Let me just give you just some examples from the first meeting under Bauer to arrive at knowledge of someone or something.

The Will of the Master. Luke 8 .10. Does that mean only a partial Will of the

Master? To arrive at truth in John 8 .32.

You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Oh, no, you should only partially know the truth because that's Gnoska. Really?

The Spirit of Truth. The Spirit of Truth. John 14 .17. Even the

Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive because it neither sees him nor knows him, you know him for he dwells in you and will be in you.

The Way of Righteousness. 2 Peter 2 .21. God's glory is found in some...

That's 1 Clement. That's a patristic citation. But do any of those passages have as a fundamental part of the meaning partial knowledge?

No. The term itself does not carry that kind of necessary meaning.

Only by usage does it do so. And so when you hear people saying, well, the word here means this, and blah, blah, blah, blah, and you've never heard it before, there's probably a reason why that is.

Just be very, very careful. Very, very common. Mr. Perkins is not alone in making this kind of error.

Unfortunately, well, probably all of us make it once in a while if we're not careful. Jesus used

Edo here. In other words... He actually used Oedon. ...fullness of knowledge. The Jews fully know what they worship, and the

Jews have never worshipped three divine persons in the Godhead. So the Jews fully know whom they worship.

Every Jew? Of course not. In conclusion, John chapter 10,

Jesus said, no one snatches believers from his hand, no one snatches believers from the Father's hand. Then he brought the hands together, ladies and gentlemen, and he said,

I and my Father are not two Bruce Reeves, but one. And that is who Jesus Christ is.

My opponent has... I don't get the feeling that Jesus actually mentioned Bruce Reeves in John chapter 10.

But even beyond the flair there, we don't know what

Jesus did with his hands. But even if he had brought them together, Mr.

Perkins, he said, Esmen. Esmen. Esmen. And just as the first -year

Greek student knows that haismeahen is one phrase, one word, I'm sorry, not different words.

They also know that Esmen is a plural verb of being.

We are one. He didn't say, I am the Father. He did not say, I am the

Father. That's not found anywhere. He said,

I and the Father, we are one. We are one.

Not, I is one. And the balance of the Scripture is that point.

It's beautiful. It has a second divine individual in the Godhead coming on the scene that no one knew nothing about in the

Old Testament. We have the self -same God coming in the flesh from the Old Testament we've been reading about the whole time.

So much more to say, but apparently my time is up. God bless you and thank you. I want to see what

Bruce Reeves says right here at the beginning of the second portion. Mr.

Bruce Reeves. It's good to be with you again tonight.

I appreciate your good attention this evening. Listening to Mr. Perkins, Mr.

Perkins, from just the surface hearing, you were guilty of so much double talk we don't even have time tonight to track it all down.

You would say one thing one time and something else another time. And I tell you, I'm starting to see clearly your problem.

I think you're just denying what the Bible says altogether. That's infidelity. He says, well,

I don't understand how this could be so it can't be. No, we accept, ladies and gentlemen, what the

Scriptures say. Now you... Now, that's what I referred to before and I just simply have to agree at that point that there are overriding presuppositions involved here.

No two ways about it. Now, let's skip to the rebuttal period and try to get at least a couple minutes of this done and then that will leave us sometime on Monday to get into the

Tuesday presentation. And I think that's about as far as we're going to get.

I would like to have gotten farther, but I spent a lot of time today looking at the lexicons. To affirm what the

Scriptures absolutely and positively do not say. Let me tell you that I do not believe that only a human died.

I've already stated that to him. So don't talk to me about false assumptions. Don't talk to me about misrepresenting your position.

And yet, he mocked the concept of dead deity. So, who died?

Not who ceased to exist. But who gave his life? I think this is what

Bruce Reeves was saying. It's double talk. It has double meanings. I told you in my first presentation that I believe that God died in his human existence.

He said the same thing. God died in the Incarnation. Well, that's the same thing that we're saying.

The difference between him and I is it's the same God of the Old Testament that we read about. And our position, his position, is it's one we've never read about under the

Old Testament coming. No, that's not his position. You would say that the Son is prophetically revealed, that the

Son is seen in the vision of Isaiah. You have the psalm talking about kissing the Son. And you have all the prophecies of the coming of the

Son. No, come on. At least accurately represented. In other words, a

God that we never knew anything about, a God the Son, came in the New Testament that you read absolutely nothing about in the

Old Testament outside of prophetical. And he quotes Psalms 53, which was a prophecy...

Psalm 53? I mean, excuse me, Isaiah 53. Okay, that's better. ...which was a prophecy that I've already told you the

Son was prophesied to come, which it is just astounding to me that we don't see

Father and Son interaction under the Old Testament. Well, if the revelation of the

Incarnation takes place between the Old and New Testament, that actually makes...

In fact, it predicts the very position that we take, doesn't it?

Yeah, that's interesting. So we've got God the Father and God the Son under the Old Testament, co -eternal persons, and absolutely no interaction between them until the

New Testament. Then all of a sudden they begin to speak up. And you want to talk to me about absurdities. Now, he told me about double -talk.

He tells me that I'm double -talking, and then he turns around and tells us there's three divine minds in the

Godhead, but there's still just one God. And you're going to talk to me about double -talk. Again, this isn't argumentation, because there is one divine mind, and yet there are three persons who recognize it.

I mean, all of this is just, well, I just don't believe in anything but Unitarianism, so anything other than Unitarianism just must be wrong.

Well, that's not argumentation. That's not argumentation. And it's not argumentation to say, well, because I'm Unitarian, then there can only be one center of consciousness in the divine being.

Well, prove that. Prove it from the sources. Don't just assume it.

You've got to prove it. And then he accuses me of being heretical. Well, you have put me in pretty good company tonight,

Mr. Reeds, because Paul said, after the way which they call hearsay, so worship I, the

God of my fathers. Whenever a Jew says... Here he's dependent upon the

King James, and the King James is translating the term which we get heresy from as sect.

So all they're saying is he is of a certain sect, and I'm not really sure why he makes that application, but he does so a couple of times.

I think it happens again on the Tuesday night portion of the debate, too. As the fathers, he's referring to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the patriarchs, who was

Paul's God. Who art thou, Lord? I am Jesus.

And so Paul was saying that during his day, there were some people that were saying that it is heretical to worship

Jesus Christ as the one God of the Old Testament. So you put me in pretty good company, Mr. Reeds.

Now, of course, Paul was saying nothing of the kind, certainly not in the application made by Mr.

Perkins about the one God of the Old Testament. Yes, the one God of the Old Testament had manifested himself in Jesus Christ.

There's no question about that. But reading into that Unitarian presuppositions and somehow trying to enlist

Paul to that point, that just doesn't work. I appreciate that. Now, he says that... Actually, I think we're pretty much out of time on the program today.

We're going to get together on Monday, and we'll do a jumbo program probably early afternoon.

I'll let you know. And that'll be it. We'll have one more shot at the...

Man, I'm probably going to have to skip the rest of the rebuttal and just go to the Tuesday, because the Tuesday presentation is the positive presentation about Echad and Elohim and Eloah and stuff like that.

And so that is something we need to try to get to before I jump on the airplane on Tuesday and head for the land down under.

Thanks for listening. We'll see you next week. God bless. Believe we're standing at the crossroads

Let this moment of self away We must contend for the faith our fathers fought for We need a new

Reformation day It's the sign of the times

The truth is being trampled in a new age paradigm Won't you lift up your voice

Are you tired of plain religion It's time to make some noise I'm your

Wittenberg I'm your Wittenberg I'm your Wittenberg I stand up for the truth

Won't you live for the Lord Because we're pounding on Pounding on Wittenberg The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106 Phoenix, Arizona, 85069 You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G Where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks.