Of No Man’s Lands and Ecumenism and Sanctification and Textual Families

And greetings welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday, it's what Well right now.

It's 5 p .m.. But they're gonna be fiddling with their clocks this weekend. Yeah, so They'll finally join the rest of the world here back in the land of normal.

No no no no let's let's be honest We're the only ones that we are do this we are the standard time well

We are we're always the standard time so but they have they have gone off Into their little you know world of you know

They think they know stuff folks. There's nothing I can do about this. It's Complete waste time, but there's nothing to do about okay.

I I try but There is some things you gotta gotta put up with you know

Somehow my Mac has decided that it has a new Java system on it, and so my favorite cut on programs

No longer working. I'm not happy about that I Hate to have that I hate to discover that right as I'm trying to fire things up and get things ready to go

But oh well on the last program I Went through verses relevant verses and a few folks in Social media noted that I did not address the subject of Islam Well I was sort of thinking more about Bible based discussions, so maybe that's why

I didn't throw one in there. I mean there's obviously lots of verses that you could You could look at but for those that were disappointed by that.

I thought all right. Let's um Let's look at a verse today on the program from the

Quran, and I think we'll go ahead and Open phone lines. I've got

I've got a couple articles that are of some interest By the way, let me mention

Not tomorrow, but Saturday I am intending to listen to Lord willing anyways

And I get that far in my ride without getting run over by a truck I Intend to listen to the debate that took place

What was it about six weeks ago? I think it was about six weeks ago debate on The deity of Christ with involving

Bart Ehrman and I thought I had saved the article

Yeah, there it is yeah, I'll be looking a little bit at this evidently this is a

Review of The debate that took place written by Justin Bass who was the

Christian representative I Didn't want to get into it yet because I want to hear the whole context

Of What was stated, but I'm really looking forward to hearing it

You might say why you've been been so slow because it when it first became available It wasn't available on YouTube.

It was available on some other site that I couldn't get access to And I was overseas and by the time

I could get access to it. I was at a place where I didn't even have internet I've just been traveling a lot and so Seeing this article and whoever sent me the link in Twitter.

Thank you for that Reminded me to track it down and of course it was on YouTube now

Which is it's just a whole lot easier for me to grab stuff off of YouTube. I've got that down Pat I know exactly how to do it and convert things to mp3 and it goes right on my iPod and it's it's it's the easiest way doing so I Intend to listen to the entire debate this coming

Saturday, I'm doing a little hundred and four mile jaunt Saturday and should have plenty of time to do that and Maybe make a little more progress on a book.

I'm reading called killing Rommel, which is about the What what was that what's the name of that rat patrol rat patrol remember rap patrol

They were they were British, right? It was the long the long -range desert patrol or something like that was the

British organization in North Africa and it was They were they were a thorn in the

Africa Corps side And so I'm reading a book called killing Rommel Rommel's a fascinating character

Absolutely fascinating character and his death amazing thing how that all turned out and Just just a fascinating element of history just past The present, you know,

I mean a lot of these books I'm reading were written back and you know about ten years ago and they can still interview some of the last

Survivors that generation, but there really aren't almost anybody. There's almost nobody left that that was a part of all of that now and so anyways, that's what

I'll be listening to on on the Ride, we'll get to that a little bit later on. But anyway

For those who are looking for a verse What I'd like to do is throw you a little bit of a curve and you might want to write down There are a couple verses in the

Quran It would be good for you to know maybe make reference to in talking to a

Muslim and it's it's not the same thing With with most Muslims like when you're talking to a

Jehovah's Witness and you show Firsthand knowledge of what they believe

You got to be careful with that because that can freak them out and they can be heading out the door faster than than anything because Well, you must be an apostate

Jehovah's Witness or you know We we only are looking for sheep like individuals and we don't want to Bible bash and blah blah blah blah blah

For most Muslims most Muslims Showing some knowledge of the

Quran is not a bad thing. It might actually give you those extra few minutes to be able to open a door of conversation and And so one that crossed my mind and one that's um,

I Would suggest to people in their Preparation in speaking to a

Muslim remember what the three barriers are. Everybody should know what the three barriers to Witnessing to a

Muslim are the three barriers to the gospel. Everybody should know this It's it's not not difficult to understand.

The first one is shirk shirk is the idea of associating anyone or anything with the law because the central affirmation of the

Islamic faith is Tauheed the oneness of Allah and so any violation of Tauheed is

A very grave offense called shirk. There's different kinds of shirk. There's major shirk and minor shirk.

I realized that but They believe the vast majority of them believe that what you are inviting them to By calling them to faith in Christ and calling them to the

Christian faith is to Commit shirk because they believe we are mushrikun

That is someone who a mushrik is a person who commits shirk and they believe that our

View of Jesus our worship of Jesus since he's just a human being that this involves shirk now, there are some

Muslims in the modern era That well in the modern era in in the

Western in Western Nations that do not believe

Christians are mushrikun, but they are the small minority the large majority of Muslims believe that we are mushrikun and so you are actually inviting them to commit a

Sin that is unforgivable The Quran says there's one sin that if you die on that sin Allah will not forgive you.

That's that shirk So the first barrier shirk second barrier surah 4 1 57

The denial of the crucifixion of Jesus. That's the only verse that does it remember the music video

We did the spoken word video 40 words 40 Arabic words surah 4 1 57

Obviously, if there is no crucifixion, there is no self -giving. There is no atonement. There is no resurrection.

There is no redemption. There's there's nothing So that's the second big barrier though in some ways when you think about it you can use that as a

Stepping stone because right there the Quran puts itself against all of history

I mean everything that that is relevant To the historical reality of the crucifixion the

Quran therefore ends up standing against that so Barriers are shirk crucifixion

Third one is the one that comes up in every single debate has to come up in every single debate and that is the allegation of the corruption of the text of the

Bible and as I've explained before the

Muslim Today Ninety -nine point

Five percent chance minimally probably more like nine nine point nine percent chance that any

Muslim with whom you're speaking They are going to believe that the words of The Bible the what's called the

Razum the actual text of the Bible That that has been altered and changed not just the interpretation not just even issues of pronunciation

The actual lettering of the text has been changed Corrupted over time

That's what they're gonna believe Historically that wasn't the majority view

Down through history there were two different streams some Muslims who thought only the interpretation had been changed and then others

Starting I don't know You know some would say earlier, but really getting rolling two three hundred years after the time

Muhammad You have those making the allegation of the actual corruption the text of scripture itself, and these are pretty much side -by -side for many many centuries

Until the publication of it's our al -haq in 1864. It's our al -haq that book ends up completely changing the perspective of The vast majority of the

Islamic world and It's a and that's why I Wanted to take it

I did that's why I wanted to Again mentioned to you the book the gentle answer

What all of a sudden you're looking like Like someone was just reminded me. I need to add that to the

Amazon store That's gonna be our way of getting it in our right. We'll add it to the Amazon store because Amazon has access to it it's just that it is printed in a different country and So there's limitations to be able to distribute it in the u .s.

So But you keep mentioning it and I need to make sure that's available So I want I want you to see

I'm putting my reboost tea on my new mr.

Coffee Mug warmer that I was given last night. I went over to Apologia If I keep saying it right they'll eventually repent and and we'll get with it and Gee you think could you

He's he's obviously had too much caffeine or something today. This is really, you know, could you

Use use your tire something wrapped around his neck Whatever you need to do just just keep him under control because I can't there's nothing new from over here

You know, it's it's tough. It's tough anyways, I went over to Apologia and filled in for Jeff Durbin and spoke on Mormonism last night and One of the folks who was there walked up and gave me my own.

Mr. Coffee Mug warmer because I had complained right here on the dividing line about my tea getting too cold by the end of the program and This is the wonderful Rooibos tea the red bush tea from South Africa, which

I was introduced to in South Africa To two drinks now that I really enjoy

That I was introduced to in uncle Dennis's house in Durban, South Africa And that is he is the king of the cola tonic

And they even sent me back with a thing I'm almost out I need to find I know it's here someplace

But I even got a bottle back through check luggage all the way from South Africa without breaking it, which is pretty impressive

But but uncle Dennis the king of The cola tonic and then

I my voice was almost completely gone A Week ago two weeks ago

Tuesday however long ago it was and it was really boosty that I had before the debate and did much better so I've gotten my booze and it's just I don't know

Durban's an amazing place. It's an amazing place. I'm not gonna tell you about the taxis in Durban, however, but they're weird and Now they've started driving around just honking their horns continuously

Evidently just letting you know that they're coming if you want to get a taxi ride and it's just It makes you want to have a sniper rifle

Yes, that huge you'd shoot the horn, of course, it's not the taxi guy

But Starting about 6 30 in the morning Stop oh terrible anyway

That's nothing compared to Lima Peru though I've told you Lima Peru you can get up at 3 30 in the morning because I did

I Had to get up that early to go to the airport when I came back a couple years ago you can get a 3 30 in the morning stand outside anywhere in Lima, Peru and There will still be at 3 30 in the morning a cacophony of horns

Because in Lima you just drive down the road where there's anybody on the road with you or not It doesn't matter and you just drive around honking your horn

It's just how they drive makes it really completely irrelevant because you don't even hear them after a while But that's they do and it just it's just oh, it's terrible.

Anyways back to the subject. What is in that tea anyways? Back to the subject

So three barriers Shirk crucifixion corruption of Scripture And the corruption of Scripture becomes foundational to everything else

I mean it just you have to deal with it over and over and over again. Oh Kofi's a

Kofi's a Rooibos tea lover, too Yay That's good

You know here I am almost 53 years of age and I just now have discovered the Rooibos tea but sub hey

That just means the rest of my life will be all that much better When We asked the question did the author of the

Quran however Believe in the corruption of the Bible I think it you can make a very very strong argument that the author

Quran did not believe that the words of the Bible Had been changed because the words of the

Bible are nuts all they are sent down by a law They contain light and guidance. We are Held accountable to judging by them.

We had to have possessed them to be able to judge by them and There is this interesting phrase and this is the verse you might want to write down in surah 18 27 surah 18 27 there's an interesting phrase there and I'll I'll render it literally here

There is no Changer of his words and this is referring to Allah There is no changer of Allah's words now most the translations will say something along the lines of none can change his word or something like that, but It's interesting.

It's very similar in form to what you have in Romans chapter 3 where there is no

God seeker There is none that seeks after God and you have a active participial form

Moved by dealer One who changes so there is no one who changes his words

His his Kalima so That's obviously not talking about interpretation

That's that's actually in the context of exhorting people to believe in the

Quran But part and parcel of the of the Quran's teaching is that the words of Allah are not just in the

Quran that may be the final revelation, but there are revelations beforehand and part of the

Authority of the Quran is its relationship of those previous revelations. So If you could have someone who could change the revelations of Allah in the past Why couldn't you have someone that could change revelations of Allah in the present

But the specific statement of surah 18 27 is there is no changer the one changing active participial one with the ability to accomplish the changing of His Kalima his words about the only way

I can think that Muslim would get around. This would be to say that this is only in reference to the

Quran now, there's nothing in the text that says oh other of Allah's words can be changed but the words in the

Quran cannot though. That's functionally what they end up believing. I Mean given the position they've taken regards the

Old and New Testaments That is pretty much where they come down But the

Quran itself says there is no changer of Allah's words so either they have to get rid of the idea that the Torah and the

Injil were ever Allah's words or deal with the reality of What is actually said there?

So someone in channel brought up the the use of Ali translation. It says none can change his words.

Yeah, that's That's one way of rendering it or literally there is no changer of his words same thing same thing

Well, someone's asking if there's no video today We having problems. No So Jason, yes, there's there's video.

It's uh, it's up and running and Then someone down New Zealand Thank you for all you do

The impact you have even reaches to here in New Zealand where the world's best rugby team is lol

Yeah, I look I've never been to New Zealand I want to go to New Zealand Unfortunately, you have to have boots on the ground to get to New Zealand Okay, and obviously it has to that has to be somehow worked in with Going to Sydney and Brisbane.

I want to get back down there. I really do It's been a while and I'll be honest with you. I Think yeah, thank you very much

Now he's showing me the video on his phone to prove that it's it's working I wasn't questioning that I'm just saying someone

Was saying no video today. It means it's not working on their end I want to get down there.

I hear New Zealand is absolutely beautiful And would like to visit no two ways about it, but I'm gonna be perfectly honest with you.

I I'm a very kind person It's gonna give me an all -blacks jersey and I'll take it and I'll I'll be

Thankful for it all the rest that stuff and look the all -blacks are tremendous. They really you got to give them their credit

But I've learned rugby in South Africa Okay, I've got a number of South African jerseys and you know,

I I pulled for the spring box you know, it's just just the way it is and And, um, uh, you know, they won, they, they, they beat

South Africa fair and square, it was close. But even my friends in South Africa said they deserved to win that one, so, uh, which

I found odd because most of the time in the United States when your team loses, you don't go, ah, they really deserved to lose that one.

That's just normally not how American fandom works. Uh, uh, I could ask about a certain college team, but that would give away too much information.

Um, but, uh, yeah. How are they doing? Oh, oh, okay.

Gotcha. All right. Yeah. That's fair. We're not going farther than that anyway.

So write that one down. Sir. 1827. There is no changer of Allah's words right there might give you an opportunity to get into a discussion, a conversation, uh, with a

Muslim on the subject of, you know, at least open the door for you to be able to talk about, uh, the scriptures and things like that.

8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number for you to get involved in the program today.

We've got a good half hour left in the program. I, I, uh,

I saw this article, uh, this morning.

And the reason that I saw it was because, uh,

Patrick Madrid tweeted it. Now, some of you will remember Patrick Madrid, Patrick and I have debated a couple of times and, um, in fact, once, as I recall, because of the, uh, let's see how this works.

Now, if I scream horribly here, well, it's still warm, but it's, is it on?

Yeah, it's on. All right. We'll see how that, we'll leave it there. See if it keeps it right about there.

Cause that's, that's certainly drinkable, but it's not, you know, that initial burn your tongue off type thing.

Anyways, uh, Patrick, I follow Patrick on Twitter, which sometimes is, um, frustrating some of the stuff that he retweets, but Patrick's Patrick and I are about the same age.

I think he might be a little bit older than I am. I'm not sure. And he's got a very good sense of humor, really does.

So he does post some, some enjoyable stuff to read. Well today, you know,

I wonder if I, uh, I wonder if I still have it, uh, here. There's just so much stuff on my feed that it's, that it's ridiculous.

Uh, so it's really hard to keep up with stuff, but, um, there's this, there's this, uh, picture from,

I'm not sure. Is it from, um, Inception? I forget what the movie is, but it's just these two guys and they're just, they're laughing their heads off.

They're just, ah, and so it's, you know, one of those meme things that you, that you utilize.

And, uh, it basically, as I recall, was something along the lines of, this is my response to Peter Lightheart's, uh, demands on Catholicism.

And it was these two guys laughing their heads off. So it was a rather derisive, um, dismissal of, uh, what was, what was being said.

And as I should have assumed, uh, there'd be no way you can find something like that when you, when you want to find something like that in your, uh, in your feed.

So yeah, it was just, that's what happens when you have too much of a feed. Um, so anyway, uh,

I clicked on the, on the link. I hadn't seen this, uh, what

I want from Catholics become more Protestant. So here's Peter Lightheart.

Now I'm not going to go back over all the weirdness about Peter Lightheart brought up on charges and, you know, all the stuff that came along with that.

I not gonna, not gonna get into all that right now, but Lightheart, as I described it in channel this morning to,

I think it was Micah, I said, Peter Lightheart, he reminds me of back in world war one where you'd have these huge armies facing off at each other in these trenches and a battle would be when the one side jumps out of their trench and gets slaughtered running across the land to the next trench.

And that middle ground where, Oh, have you ever looked at the numbers in world war one? Oh, it's unbelievable.

The number of people would die in a single day, just mowed down, unbelievable, entire generation lost.

It was just amazing. Um, but as you know, that space between the, between the trenches was called no man's land, no man's land.

Well, Peter Lightheart has marched out into the no man's land between Rome and Geneva.

And he's put up a tent. It's not even a, you know, it's not even a place of any shelter, one single round that hits it gone.

And, um, he's frantically gesticulating in both directions to try to get us all to get together.

Meanwhile, the true believers on the other sides are just sitting in their trenches looking at him like a madman because in many ways that's exactly what he is.

So he writes an article, what I want from Catholics become more

Protestant. This was a today. My wishlist for Catholics is terribly old fashioned and terribly assertive.

There's hardly space here to defend my positions or thoroughly critique the Catholic position. So this may end up sounding like a drive by shooting or a childish tantrum.

I trust that I can formulate my wishlist with enough columnists that it doesn't turn into a bleep list. That's I had to bleep it.

Yeah, it's just the way it is. I want the Pope to give up his claim to infallibility. In our day, the

Pope stands as a global symbol of Christian faith and Popes of recent decades have been among the greatest

Christian leaders of recent history. This is what you get when you're in the middle, okay? You're the people on both sides are gonna look at you and go, are you insane?

The Pope is a universal teacher, a stout defender of Christian morals. No, this doesn't say doctrine.

A living icon of charity, a father to princes and presidents gives me might have to drink some more tea.

None of that makes him a definer of dogma. No matter how narrowly tailored papal infallibility may be, it is theologically and historically unfounded as Lord Acton knew.

I want the Pope to give up his claim to exclusive primacy. Why not be content with being primus inter potus among the ancient seas?

Suppose Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Didn't he leave it to Paul to lead the mission of the Gentiles? Besides, should we not be open to the possibility that the center of Christian gravity will shift dramatically in the future?

In 3 ,000 years, might not the bishop of Beijing or Lagos or Brasilia be the actual primate of the church?

In 10 ,000 years, will Vatican -centered Christendom be anything more than a distant memory? Makes one wonder exactly what his eschatology is, but we won't go there.

Catholics should give up, sub point. I want Catholics to give up their sectarian exclusiveness.

Jesus and his spirit are present in the suburban Bible church, the Chinese house group, the

Pentecostal assembly at one of Rio's garbage dumps. The son and spirit have promised to be wherever word is preached and bread broken, where disciples strive together toward maturity in Christ.

These assemblies are no less churches than the congregation of St. Patrick's. Fellowship with Rome is not the same as fellowship with Jesus.

Submission to Rome is not the same as Catholicity. Jesus and his spirit do not observe Vatican protocols.

I want Catholics to stop spreading pious falsehoods about Mary. Protestants have unjustly neglected

Mary's central role in the Bible and redemption. But Catholic Marian dogmas are a cure worse than a disease.

I want Catholics to honor Mary by giving up inventions like the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

Failing that, I would be content if these speculations were treated speculative opinions rather than dogmas.

I want a Catholic to explain how Mary, a Jewish woman of the first century A .D., can simultaneously hear the appeals of millions of people who speak dozens of languages that she never learned.

I know Catholics don't believe Mary has become God, but looks like something only a God could manage. I want

Catholic theologians to give up the pretense that the dogma of the church has never changed.

When they try to explain that nothing substantive has changed between Trent and Vatican II, when they distinguish between unchangeable doctrine and changeable formulations of doctrine, they appear disingenuous.

I prefer the old free church independents who eagerly expected the spirit to break out fresh light from scripture.

Worse, the premise of unchangeability makes it impossible for the church to repent of mistakes. Catholics don't think

Vatican I, for example, will ever be overturned. It cannot be. But that means there will never be a full reunion with Protestants and Orthodox.

The Catholic theologians must find a way to massage Vatican I so that it doesn't say what it manifestly says.

The possibility of saying the church erred is excluded in principle. When I attend

Mass, I want Catholic priests to let me share the Eucharist with my Catholic brothers. Sorry.

I want Catholics to accept my invitation to celebrate Eucharist with me and my Protestant brothers and give up any doubts they might have that what we

Protestants celebrate really is Eucharist. I mean, that's just the level of naivete here is just enough to make you go, really?

And which is why Patrick Madrid was laughing out loud as he probably should have.

I want Catholics to give up veneration of the consecrated host and other sacred objects.

Jesus gave us his body and blood to eat and drink, not to admire. Whatever Catholics think they are doing, to Protestants they appear to be indulging a form of liturgical idolatry.

At the very least, they are distracting from Jesus' purpose of the Eucharist. Take, eat, take, drink.

Subtitle everyone become more Catholic. My rants are typically direct against my own tribe of conservative

Protestants. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Peter. You're not a part of the conservative Protestants anymore, been a long time since you were.

And typically I'm urging them to become more Catholic, to acknowledge church authority, to cultivate sacramental piety, to embrace the glories of the whole

Christian tradition, to honor Mary and the saints, to conform worship to the pattern of the ancient church, which is essentially the pattern of scripture.

Typically I am urging Protestants to receive Catholics and Orthodox as Christian brothers, which they are. I am not contradicting myself when

I rant against Catholics and urge them to become Protestant. What I want above all for both Catholics and Protestants is full reunion and reconciliation in the truth.

What I want is a church where the old names of Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or other are discarded so that we can all wear the old new baptismal name, father, son, and spirit.

And I want, and I want because I'm persuaded it is what Jesus wants. Well, again, that's, uh, sounds wonderful.

Lightheart is a good writer and he, but you know, it says

Peter J. Lightheart is president of the Theopolis Institute in Birmingham, Alabama, an adjunct senior fellow of New St.

Andrew's College in Moscow, Idaho. So I'm not sure what Doug Wilson's doing with him. He is the author of many books, most recently, et cetera, et cetera.

Lightheart's words sound wonderful, but they in essence refer to a world that does not exist.

They do not deal with issues of gospel. They do not deal with the reality of false gospel.

And they are fundamentally a complete total capitulation to and betrayal of the

Reformation. Let's just put that simply. And as a result, you know, a couple of things you can go, yeah, that's, that's fine.

But then, you know, what he gives one hand, he takes away with the other, uh, similar to N .T. Wright. So that was just one of these articles that you, you find on the web that, that even the

Roman Catholics are going, really? Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. One person out there in the no man's land, you know, gesticulating both directions.

There you go. Peter Lightheart. Okay. We have a phone call here that I wanted to,

I read as quickly as I could because it's a phone call from my native

Scotland. Hello, Jason. Hi, Dr. Light. How are you? Doing pretty good.

Yeah. Um, I want to say that, um, I am very encouraged by your ministry and I learn a lot from you and I pray for you on a regular basis.

Well, thank you very much. We need that. Um, I wanted to thank you for making a video for my wedding as well.

I really appreciate that. And my question was, what skills do you think an apologist should have and how can somebody like me develop those skills?

Well, you know, there, there are different, there are different areas of practice of apologetics.

Um, not everyone should be seeking to debate in a mosque or debate a

Bart Ehrman or whatever. Um, if you, if you have the ability to engage in that kind of, um, interaction, then that's great.

We, we need more people like that, but you shouldn't think that that's the only way to quote unquote do apologetics.

Um, there are lots of pastors, for example, who do an excellent job in teaching their people, uh, apologetically and to be prepared to give an answer, uh, who would not, uh, dare make a foray into the official debating realm, uh, because that's a very narrow skill set.

It's a very specific skill set. It requires the ability to, um, very much multitask, uh, to follow numerous lines of thought at the same time.

To be honest with you, um, the, the closest parallel that I can think of for the debate situation skill set, uh, is the ability to be an excellent chess player because to be able to play chess on a, on a high level, uh, requires this multitasking, this ability to, uh, do multiple things at once, follow multiple lines of argumentation and so on and so forth.

And look, not everyone is, not everyone has that ability or should, should be trying to cultivate, uh, that ability.

Um, you know, apologetics can be done in written form, um, where a person will have significantly more time to think through, uh, arguments and to do research and, and, and things like that.

Uh, and especially in teaching in the church, uh, a person who may not have the vocal skills to be able to be on the street corner or on YouTube or doing the webcast wherever else might be able to be extremely effective in providing thoughtful, meaningful, uh, apologetic responses.

And of course, as I said in the last program, apologetics flows from your theology.

If you have anyone who is an apologist who starts there and then forms their theology to fit their apologetic, they're doing it backwards and there's going to be a disaster down, down the line.

So obviously a person who has a solid grasp upon the theological foundation of the

Christian faith is obviously going to be one who's, who wants to share that with others and communicate that to others as well.

And, um, so, you know, again, it depends on, on what aspect of doing apologetics you want to be involved in as to what the skillset would be.

Um, and then practicing those things. Well, you know, that's, that's hard to, you know,

I've never had a, you know, I teach classes on apologetics all the time, but I've never like taken a class on a debating form or, you know,

I've taken classes on logic. I would think that would be a really good thing to do, uh, along the way.

But I've never been in a situation where I had someone saying, well, you, you should have done this. You could have done that.

You could have gone that direction. You let him get away with this or you didn't hear when he said that. I've never had that kind of, of training.

It's just something that, uh, came to me over time. And I've, uh, had a lot of practice, uh, basically when you, when you've done 150, you've, you've, you've got a little practice under your belt, but, um, uh, the, the first place to be looking to do this is, is not out in the world on the front lines, but within the church in preparing others.

But obviously it's a sort of a give and take situation because you're going to be, you're going to have more ground upon which to stand in helping others to, for example, witness to Muslims.

If you yourself have been witnessing to Muslims or to Mormons or wherever else it might be. So, um, the, the thing to avoid, however, is the common pitfall for apologists, which is to become disconnected from the church and to not do apologetics within the church first and foremost, but to be doing it someplace else.

So many apologists just wander around the countryside. And if they're in a church on the

Lord's day, it's because they're speaking there and not because they're actually, you know, serving or, or, or anything like that.

So avoiding imbalances, very, very important for anyone who's, uh, who's involved in apologetics.

Right. Okay. Um, my second question and my last question was to do with textual criticism.

Um, in my church, and you know, obviously, you know, um, Pastor Jim Handyside, um, in our church, we use the

King James Version. We do not believe it's perfect or inspired in any way, but we believe it's the best translation to date in English.

Um, I've heard the argument that, um, if you have Byzantine manuscripts dating from the fourth century onwards, they must have had parent manuscripts going back earlier than that.

And the evidence for these manuscripts is that the early church fathers quoted from them.

What would be your take on that? Well, um, it, there are, there are a number of theories that have been introduced to attempt to explain the lack of earlier documentation for the

Byzantine text type and specifically to try to respond to the reality that the

Byzantine text type does give evidence of conflated readings, for example, where, uh, if you have a conflation, this is clear evidence that the, the later reading is, uh, drawn from earlier readings.

So, so a scribe had two different readings, puts them together. Obviously that, that put together version had to come later than, than the ones that was, it was derived from.

And so there have been all sorts of theories that, well, you know, they were just used so much that they wore out, uh, and the

Alexandrian ones weren't used so much. And so they, you know, they didn't wear out and that's why we still have them and, and that kind of thing.

And it, it's all a theory attempting to explain the reality of the history and that the history is that the form of text that gives the greatest evidence of being the earliest form of the text, um, is the

Alexandrian text type and not the Byzantine text type. There is clear evidence in the text type as a whole there.

You can find individual readings to dispute, but text types are not made up of individual readings.

They're made up of a whole family of readings that texts share together and the

Byzantine text type, uh, tends to be longer and tends to have evidence of being a compilation of earlier text types that we can identify in the

Alexandrian and Western traditions. And whenever we find papyri, whenever we find new manuscripts that go way, way back, uh, into the, the second and third centuries, well, lo and behold, uh, they, they do not give us distinctly

Byzantine readings. They, they give us Alexandrian or possibly Western readings. And so, um, saying, well, they had, there had to have been parent manuscripts.

Well, when you have a conflated reading, yeah, you've got parent manuscripts, but it's obviously not parent manuscripts from that particular tradition.

Um, or if you have expansions of titles and things like that, that again, these are indicative of, of later, uh, expansion rather than saying, well, there, there had to have been something that came before it.

Yeah. The Alexandrian and Western manuscripts came before it. And it's, it's understandable to see where those readings would then come from and, uh, come together to form the

Byzantine readings. And so, um, you know, thankfully, uh, brother

Handyside and I haven't, uh, you know, come to blows over that particular subject that as I recall, most of the time

I just, uh, translated directly from the Greek and didn't, uh, didn't get into any, uh, any discussions about, uh, about, uh, uh, you know, underlying textual issues.

But, um, obviously from, from my perspective, especially today where we are dealing in Western cultures with people who have been deeply influenced or even to use the term infected by the likes of Bart Ehrman, um, we, we can't, we can't ignore the, the apologetic importance of establishing the earliest texts of the

New Testament that we can, not a traditional text. And that to me is the biggest issue when we're talking about, um, uh, about textual criticism.

Right. Okay. Okay. Can I, I know I said that one was the last question. Can I ask you one more?

Well, I've got two more people online, uh, waiting to get through. So we'll, we'll have to ask you to bless us with your

Scottish accent, uh, on a, on a future program with those. Is that all right? I'll do that.

Okay. Dr. White, thank you very much. Thank you very much for your call. God bless. All right. Bye. Now notice

I didn't, I didn't do my Scottish accent. Um, I just make the observation that most people, they heard my

Scottish accent and heard Jason speaking, just wouldn't be able to tell the difference. So there you, there you go.

I can hear that all the way through the, through the window. I thought, yeah, yeah. We haven't soundproofed that door for some reason.

After all these years, we were going to do that, weren't we? At some point in time, but just haven't got that round to it yet.

Got it. Let's talk to Wake, uh, James in Wake Forest. Hi, James. Hello, Dr.

White. How you doing? I'm doing well. Um, I just had a question, um, about, uh, has to do with Catholicism and furthering, um,

I guess meaningful dialogue and just, um, other than like, you know, people like Robertson, Jennison, um,

Patrick Madrid, other like conservative traditional Catholics who are seriously looking for like engagement in doctrinal differences, where it would actually further a serious conversation or debate about, uh,

Protestants and Roman Catholics. Yeah, well, they're, they're not normally the people that you think of as being involved with, with ecumenism though.

I mean, it's more of the liberals that are involved with ecumenism. Yes. Hello?

Oh, yeah. Sorry. Um, well, I meant, like,

I understand that, but I guess I meant more, maybe I shouldn't have used the word ecumenism, but I meant more of, um,

I guess Catholic, like you've used the term Protestants of conviction, but like Catholics of conviction where they, you know, they would, um, defend

Trent and things like that. Um, yeah. Well, they're, they're, they're all, they're all hiding in their bunkers trying to, trying to live out the, uh, the

Pope Francis zombie apocalypse. Yeah. I mean, from their perspective, it really is the walking papal dead.

Uh, it's just, it's just the bishops are walking on, you know, uh, they're, they're feeling very much in the minority these days.

So, um, you know, to be honest with you, we, in debates years and years and years ago, we would talk about the fact that this is, this is the only true ecumenism because we are disagreeing with one another, but we're honestly representing one of those positions and we're engaging in the conversation.

This is the only true ecumenism, but it's next to impossible to get Roman Catholics to debate anymore because back then, um, they didn't have

EWTN and they didn't have this already established audience. Now they do.

And it's next to impossible to get people like Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin and these guys to come out and do full on debates anymore because while, why would they do it?

The purpose that they had back then no longer exists for them. And so they've got their audience now and now they're in danger of exposing their audience to stuff that they may not want to discuss.

And so you can tell when was the last time I did a Roman Catholic debate?

I don't even remember. Uh, it's, it's, it's been a while. What? Well, not

Staples here on the program. I thought there was something after that, but it's been a while. It's yeah, yeah, yeah.

We did do the one on Long Island, but that was years ago. So anyway, it's been a long time. And if they were looking to do that kind of ecumenism, they've got my number.

They know we'd be willing to do it. But, um, did we get, do we get lots of phone calls each day from, uh, from well -known

Roman Catholics who want to engage in debate? No, no. Rich says no. So yeah.

So I do see some willingness on the part of people like Tim Staples to debate some lesser known folks that, you know, he can get away with his

Staple -isms with. That's disappointing. Yeah. Yeah. But, but not, not folks that could really engage the subject in a, in a rather full fashion.

So, and the liberals who are in the ascendancy right now, they have no reason to do any of that at all.

Um. Well, yeah. You know? So there you go. There's your problem. There's your problem.

Um, and then the liberals, if they do want to talk to you, as soon as you express anything like, well, you know,

I do believe that there is objective divine revelation that says X, Y, and Z. They're like, oh, okay.

You're not really the kind of person that we want to be having a conversation with. Right. You know, they head out the door. So it's tough.

I, I would, I would have to say that the state of that conversation right now is extremely poor. Um, because you, most of the people talking on our side are compromised and are paddling around the middle of the

Tiber river. And then on the other side, uh, they've got folks lining up on their side of the

Tiber river, launching little boats out and paddling around too. Um, so it's the liberals talking to the liberals and, uh, you know what happens when two liberals talk together, they fall into a ditch.

So, um, that's how that works. Yeah. Um, so I would say that right now the state of the meaningful ecumenical conversation is almost non -existent, almost non -existent.

Wow. Yeah. Yeah. That's all right. Um, is it okay if I just, uh, ask a further question or do you have to?

I've got Luke, Luke in Mississippi might hunt you down cause we've only got about three minutes left and, uh, he probably wants to get his question in.

So, but I appreciate it. All right. Thank you very much. All right. All right.

God bless. Bye bye. All right. Let's, uh, talk to Luke in Mississippi. Would you have hunted him down if I had done that Luke?

Um, no, sir, but I appreciate you taking my call anyways. Yes, sir.

I'm calling because I have a question, um, about the relationship of good works with salvation.

And I have this question because I've noticed that within some Reformed, uh, circles lately, there's been a debate.

Um, one side saying salvation as a whole is through faith alone and in Christ alone where faith is the only instrument.

And then the other side saying that while faith is the only instrument of justification, works play a role as a means of ultimate salvation.

And I was wondering if you would speak to that issue. Well, when you say ultimate salvation, if, if what you mean by that is that it is

God's intention, um, to work in his elect people so as to conform them to the image of Christ.

So if the lives they live are glorifying to God, um, I can't see how anyone could argue that given that that's directly the teaching of Ephesians chapter two, that we have been saved by grace through faith.

Uh, that not ourselves gift God a lot of works. They may suppose for we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which

God before a day that we should walk in them. So that's always been the classic formulation. Um, is my works do not contribute to my standing before God.

They cannot contribute to my righteousness before God. Um, my, uh, my, my substitute stands in the presence of the father accepted in my behalf and I am in him.

So there's nothing I can add to that. But given that God intends for me to continue living on this planet, then he has to have a purpose for that.

And that purpose is to live in such a fashion as to be conformed to the image of Christ and to be conformed to the image of Christ.

Um, the, the standard terminology is, is the concept of progressive or experiential sanctification.

Uh, and yes, it's grace working within me, but it's, it's still the reality that, uh,

I am seeking to live a life of holiness and I'm seeking to live a life in such a way that honors and glorifies

God. So, um, I know there's all, there's always the argument about monergistic sanctification versus synergistic sanctification, which

I think is just a complete missing of what the categories are actually talking about in the first place and, and very confusing and not helpful at all.

I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to. Um, Well, um, yes, sir. I think that, uh, that probably plays into, uh, that debate and I've just been kind of, you know, reading some things, posts from different, uh, sides and, um, and it, and it seems that maybe one side was separating justification and I understand that they are distinct justification from our ultimate glorification, but...

Well, they need to be distinguished because they're not identical, but they have close, of course, are, are intimately connected.

All those who are justified will be glorified. But, but the issue is, does God have a purpose having justified us in having us continue to exist in this world and not just taking us to heaven?

Um, and the answer is yes. His purpose is to form Christ within us and that we, you know, you have the book of Hebrews.

We are to pursue holiness without which no one will, will ever see the father. So the, the person who has been renewed by the

Holy Spirit will seek that holiness and will seek, um, to live in a way that is honoring and glorifying to God, recognizing that I am not by that adding to the work of Christ or saying the work of Christ is deficient in my behalf.

Uh, it's just the natural, uh, result of being, of having your heart changed is that's how you want to live.

And so the response is out of love. Uh, but obedience out of love is still obedience.

And that's what, what Christ calls us to. If we love him, we'll keep his commandments. Right, right.

Well, thank you. I appreciate you, uh, um, answering my question and taking my call and, uh, appreciate you and Rich and, uh,

Alpha and Omega Ministries and the Dividing Line. And, uh, God bless you guys. Okay. Thanks, Luke.

Appreciate it. All right. God bless. Thank you very much. All right. Uh, I just want to make sure everyone understands that last question.

Um, one of the issues there, there's, there's people that just jump off both sides of this.

Uh, you, you've got to understand Sola Fide has never been a denial that it's

God's purpose that his people be holy. That's the people that deny the Lordship of Christ.

It's, and it's not a reformed position at all because the reformed have always understood that God is accomplishing his purpose within us.

His purpose is to conform us to the image of Christ. It's not a denial of Sola Fide because we recognize that that Fide, that faith is the work of the spirit of God within the heart that has been changed.

That heart of stone has been taken out. The heart of flesh has been given. It's natural for that heart of flesh to therefore continue to believe and to pursue holiness.

And so beware of those who try to oversimplify that and end up falling off one side or the other.

Uh, they, they put up websites and start talking about how everybody and their second cousins, a false teacher and everything else.

And you need to be aware of that. Thanks for listening to the dividing line today. Went a little bit long, but that's okay because we're not on a network and nobody cares.

And that's why we do it this way. So we survived, uh, the, uh, caffeine overload, uh, on the part of, uh,

Rich Pierce and, uh, the studio audience as well, which was a little bit odd today, but, uh, it all, it all ended up working out.

So Lord willing, we'll see you next week and hopefully we'll have a review of the ermine debate on the deity of Christ as well.