June 20, 2006

From 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. Yes, indeed, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

That is a toll -free number, that means it doesn't cost you anything to call it.

And we have, of course, invited all of the many, many, many people who have,

I think one of, just one of the blog entries over at Jimmy Akin's blog has 125 comments on it.

I'm not sure if that's the one where everybody went nuts on Peter Stravinskas or not. I don't think it is. I think that was a different one.

So, I don't know how many comments have been garnered, but if you were to believe just a small portion, just a small percentage of what you would read over there in the comments section, you would, if you saw me walking by on the street, you would hide your children's eyes and spit upon me.

That would be the only thing you could possibly do to be able to survive.

I think the better description would be something along the lines of the Grinch. Yeah. Yeah, he definitely resembles the

Grinch. Hide your Christmas presents or something, because here comes White. It's a pretty amazing thing to read that stuff from people who not only do not know me, but have never even read one of my books.

Most have never even listened to a debate, and 99 .9

% of them would not have the temerity to pick up a phone and try to substantiate what they were saying if their life depended on it, but they could at that phone number, 877 -753 -3341.

Anyway, it normally comes out this time of the day on Tuesdays, the

Carl Keating e -letter, and I just got it, let's see, 25 minutes ago, actually, according to my time stamp here, and we have here an interesting little notation.

There's a reference to Mark Shea's blog article on some thoughts on the apologetics subculture, and I think

I got a brief mention, I popped over to it, and it made reference to, when a guy adopts the handle

Pras Apologeon, you pretty much know where this guy's sense of identity is invested. He knows

Greek and you don't, he eats and sleeps apologetics, he will fill your screen with enough gaseous ASCII to fill the Hindenburg in pursuit of the exact parsing and declension of Haos Hu, all the while asking if your credentials are as big as his credentials.

The problem is, the reference to Haos Hu is actually to Eric Svensson, not to me, and I don't think

Eric uses Pras Apologeon, so there's a tablet of confusion there. But I followed the link over, and it is, the reason that the article is so long is because Eric was responding to Robert St.

Genes, and you may recall that funny story where St. Genes, right around the same time as the

Mr. X catastrophe, talking about the Hindenburg, there was the

Hindenburg of St. Genes' credibility going up in flames, but right around the same time he was basically saying that this one fella was going to take out

Eric's research on Haos Hu, and the guy doesn't actually read

Greek. So it does take a little bit of work to respond to someone who's basically throwing stuff your direction and they don't actually know what they're talking about.

It actually takes less words to respond to someone who does know what they're talking about than someone who doesn't. That's been my experience.

Because you have to explain everything, you have to go, no, actually that's not what that word means is, and here's what it does mean, etc.,

etc. So I understand that, but Keating says, among other things,

Mark bemoans a tendency among some Catholic and not a few Protestant apologists to get bogged down in minutia.

As an example, he refers to a discussion about the interpretation of the Greek behind the word until at Matthew 125, and he knew not until she had brought forth her firstborn son.

The link Mark provides takes you to an interminable tit -for -tat between a Protestant and a Catholic. That's between Eric and Robert St.

Genes. Read just the first few paragraphs, you won't be able to get through the whole thing. What will come to mind is

Macbeth's soliloquy in Act 5, it is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

The writer, in this case a Protestant, but Catholics have done the same, offers up thousands of words, 19 ,000 of them, in fact, my word processor counted 18 -something, that supposedly demonstrate that his understanding of until is true and that his

Catholic opponents' understanding is false. In fact, the most he can do, hope to do, is to prove that this particular Catholic committed an error here or there.

He can't and doesn't prove that the traditional Catholic understanding of until is wrong. Such a waste of time,

Karl Keating writes. Look, I'm an apologist, and I like engaging in apologetics, but there are limits.

There are limits to what apologetics can accomplish, and there are limits to my patience. When I come across a 19 ,000 word dispute about the meaning of a single term,

I don't think this is impressive work, I think this guy needs to get a life. Well, the funny thing is, this does seem to sort of be the

Catholic answers mentality. Now, that doesn't mean that I don't get frustrated with things that go on forever and ever and ever, but there are some pretty long articles on my website, especially in response to Robert St.

Janis, especially in regards to John 6, and the massacre of the syntax and grammar of that particular text, that I haven't counted up the number of words, but when you get to about the third round, and you're quoting what the other guy said, that sort of artificially inflates things.

If you actually went through and just found out how many words you yourself were writing, it's probably not going to be nearly as big, but Keating definitely doesn't get into that.

But then again, Keating doesn't respond to almost anything you say in rebuttal to him. I've refuted many things that he's said.

I've documented errors, I've played his statements on the air and demonstrated that what he was saying was just simply untrue, and you never hear a response, because basically, they don't really care about what people are saying about him.

They're just going to keep saying the same things. If it's wrong, well, fine, but that's just how things go, and their audience isn't overly concerned about that.

In fact, one of the comments that I read on Jim Higgins' blog a little while ago, about an hour ago, was someone complaining,

James White always says his exegesis is right. And I stopped and thought for a second, what am

I supposed to do, say it's wrong? My exegesis is wrong, now do you like me?

Well, if you like me, then... The standards that I was seeing in the thought processes of much of the commentary over there was basically, unless you will say that in all probability you're wrong, and unless you will accept our claims to authority right up front, and unless you'll just basically adopt our viewpoint of how

Protestants should basically bow down to the Roman Catholic system, then we're just going to say you're a mean, terrible, horrible, nasty person.

And one of the arguments was, you try to make your Catholic apologists look bad by pronouncing

Greek different than they do. I'm just, oh my goodness, I was waiting for one that says, you know what, you've shaved your head just as a cheap debating trick.

I mean, there's no more logic or rationality in the rest of this stuff. It's like, whoa, man, it's okay, alright.

I sort of understand how President Bush feels sometimes, to be honest with you, because I don't think

President Bush could say anything without the press going after him, and I think it's pretty much the same thing there.

So I did find that rather intriguing. By the way, if we want to be aware of the nuttiness going on in the world right now, oh, okay, there was a light on, number six it was on,

I didn't know why that was there, so I was trying to get your attention, but you're just probably playing around with the phone lines and stuff.

Oh, you're waiting, seeing where all those folks that were criticizing me, yeah, just making sure the phone lines are working, yep, they're all working, okay, good.

Well, I remember one of my first exposures to liberal theology was back when

I was at a Southern Baptist church, and I hadn't, I don't think

I had gone to, well, no, I was in seminary, so maybe this wasn't one of the first ones, but maybe it was one of the first really practical ones.

And a friend of mine was running a TV camera, I actually, believe it or not, did run television camera when

I was a younger person, I actually got paid to do so, and wasn't too bad, yeah,

James White equates himself with the President of the United States, yes, that's exactly what you're going to see. Quite true.

That's a soundbite. That's a soundbite, there I am, yep. I understand President Bush. See, he thinks he's the

President now. Anyway, a friend of mine was running a television camera at the

PCUSA convention, which that year was in Phoenix, I think, if I recall, no, it couldn't have been 89, no, it must have been 86, somewhere around there, anyway, and he was telling us about the debate over homosexuality at this particular convention, and I remember

I actually ran camera for one session at the PCUSA convention when it was at the downtown convention center, this was,

I don't know when this was, it had been many years since I had run camera, they called me up and said, we really need a camera, and I said, look, I haven't run camera in years, make sure to put me on the one farthest away, and of course they put me on the one right down front, which is much harder, you're having to track people and stuff, and they had these four microphones set up to represent north, south, east, and west, and they had these prayers, and every single prayer, bless us, gay and straight, heterosexual, homosexual, blah, blah, blah,

I mean, it's just all they ever talk about. And so this friend was telling me, this was back in the 80s, about these debates that they were having, and how the, unfortunately, the homosexual group sat right behind him while he was running camera, and how uncomfortable he was with all the things that were being said, and so on and so forth.

Well, we shouldn't be overly shocked then, at a link that was provided to me this afternoon,

Fox News, alternatives to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may come for Presbyterians.

You haven't heard this yet, have you? Birmingham, Alabama, I'm surprised they even allowed him into Alabama, to be honest with you.

The Divine Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, could also be known as Mother, Child, and Womb, or Rock, Redeemer, Friend, at some

Presbyterian church, USA Services, under an action Monday by the church's

National Assembly. Delegates to the meeting voted to receive a policy paper on gender -inclusive language for the

Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies, with alternative phrasings for the

Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them. This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership,

Legislative Committee Chair Nancy Oldhoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the

Trinity. If I may just comment briefly, when you have an Iowa laywoman debating about these issues, that might tell you where your problem is!

Hello? The Assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.

Friends, if it was a conservative bid, it would have been to anathematize everybody who had worked on the paper in the first place.

That would be the conservative bid, okay? A panel that worked on the issue since 2000, can you imagine working on this since 2000?

Wow, there's an investment of life! A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language of the

Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the

Triune God to expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder. One reason is that language limited to the

Father and Son has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women, the panel said.

Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible, oh wow!

And noted that Jesus' most famous prayer was addressed to our Father. Here's, okay,

I hope you're sitting down, folks. Besides mother, child, and womb, and rock, redeemer, friend, proposed

Trinity options drawn from biblical material include lover, beloved, and love, creator, savior, sanctifier, king of glory, prince of peace, spirit of love.

Early in Monday's business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of familiar doxology, praise

God from whom all blessings flow, that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God.

At which point I would, you know, that's a part of me that goes, at which point fire and brimstone came down from heaven, that's the end of my report.

But that's not what happened. I don't want to give them any ideas, but did anybody come up with tree, bark, and sap?

Actually, we were coming up with a number of them in channel that seemed quite appropriate. We have to include the pantheist in there.

That would be inclusive, and embracing, and emergent, and accepting, and those are all good words, allegedly,

Mr. Peter. Apparently. Apparently. Now, the one that you were operating the camera at,

I remember there was a famous one right back then where they were at the end, they brought in all the Indian tribes.

No, that was at the beginning. Oh, that was at the beginning. Oh, you want me to tell the whole story? They had the, what is it, the medicine man or the shaman pray at a

Christian event. Okay, here's what happened. It was the beginning of the, you know what? It wasn't,

I need to make a correction here. It was not PCUSA. It was the Anglicans. It was,

I'm sorry, it was the Episcopalians, which are in the news anyways, so, you know, six and a half dozen, they seem to be competing with one another as to how fast they can become, you know, apostate, and it was the

Episcopalians, and as you know, when you're running television camera, you have these headsets on, you have a little microphone, so you can reach down and on your belt or on your, you know, somewhere you've put this little switch, and you hit this little switch, and you can talk back to the guy who's in charge and say, hey, you know,

I can't move over there because of this, that, or the other thing, so we're sitting here, and we had seen this being practiced, okay, and then we saw the

Indian medicine men coming in, and it's pure paganism, okay? I mean, this is, there's nothing Christian about this.

They're coming in, they're evoking their pagan gods, and this is supposed to be a blessing because we're in Phoenix, and when people come to Phoenix, they figure you got to do something about Native Americans and things like that, and so what

I did is I knew that most of the guys in this group were

Christians, and in fact, I figured everybody on the cameras were Christians, and so when the medicine men were coming in to do their thing,

I switched on my little microphone, and I said, okay, guys, here's what's going to happen. I figure that the roof's coming down, so I figure these tripods are pretty strong, so I suggest you dive underneath them when you hear the rumbling as the roof comes in to flatten this place, and of course, the director's like, you know, but that was what

I suggested, so it was, yeah, it was quite the interesting, whenever you see those guys mumbling something in their thing, you think they're saying something really important, like I can't get that shot because there's somebody, no, normally, it has something to do with something completely different than what's going on at that particular point in time.

So, yeah, there's what the PCUSA is up to, mother, child, and womb.

I just have a hard time thinking too many guys were involved with that one, I just, I don't see that happening.

I like the one somebody just put in channel lock, stock, and barrel. Yes. There you go. Yes, the channel is currently exploding with very insightful, interesting discussions of various sundry things.

Anyway, the phone line's still working? They looking like they're okay there? Yeah, yep, they're looking good.

Okay, well, I don't understand, but, you know, yep, that's a dial tone.

That is a healthy dial tone without anyone connected to the other side.

Well, anyway, I got an email this morning, and it was a fellow asking me a question concerning Gregory Boyd.

It's been a while since we've talked about the open theists here on The Dividing Line. Some of you may recall that we did a debate against one of the leading open theists down in Orlando.

That was, what, 2001, I believe? Has it been five years? Could it possibly have been five years since we did that debate?

Because that was 2001, wasn't it? I think it was 2001. Anyway, we debated the issue of open theism, and it's still out there.

Gregory Boyd is still out there promoting his stuff, and a fellow contacted me this morning and was asking about a claim made by Gregory Boyd in regards to John chapter 9.

If you recall the story, Jesus, as he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth, and his disciples asked him,

Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind? Jesus answered, it was neither that this man sinned nor his parents, but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

We must work the works of him who sent me as long as it is day. Night is coming when no one can work.

While I am in the world, I am the light of the world. When he had said this, he spouted on the ground and made clay out of the spittle and applied the clay to his eyes and said to him,

Go wash in a pool of Siloam, which translated means scent. So he went away and washed and came back seeing.

You know the rest of the story. He's brought before the Pharisees, and they don't believe that he was the blind man, and things like that.

And so there was a discussion, there's a discussion in Boyd's book, God at War.

And he quotes from Calvin, and I'd like to thank once again the Uber Librarian for getting me this very quickly.

As I have mentioned a number of times before, my library is currently non -functional, and so I wanted to comment on this, but I wanted to have the context,

I wanted to have more of the context than the email provided to me. And so I sent the

Uber Librarian a note that gave the book and the pages, and so I have here in front of me, thanks to the

Uber Librarian, and she knows who she is, and like I told her, when we get to be a big supported ministry with lots of supporters and stuff, she is officially in charge of research, because if you need something from the

Uber Librarian, poof, it's there. And I'd tell you some other stories about the great successes of the

Uber Librarian, but we do not have time. Anyway, yes, it does sound like a superhero,

Uber Librarian, superhero, Superman, Uber Librarian, they all go along the same lines. Little different superpowers, however, slightly different superpowers with the

Uber Librarians. Anyhow, I have on my screen the PDF of the pages in Boyd's discussion, and he quotes from Calvin, and he quotes from James Boyce as well.

Let me just give you the citations here. Calvin says, for so long as he was blind, there was exhibited in him an example of the divine severity from which others might learn to fear and to humble themselves.

It was followed by the benefit of his deliverance in which the wonderful goodness of God was reflected. He reminds them in general that this cause of God must be abundantly seen as true and lawful in the theater of the world when

God glorifies his name. Nor have men any right to argue with God when he makes them the instruments of his glory in both ways, whether he appears as merciful or severe.

Now, obviously, unless you are immersed in biblical theology, that kind of thing is going to definitely cause you a problem.

And Boyce basically flows along the same lines when he says, would

God Almighty permit a man to be stripped of his family and all his possessions, to be struck with such illness that he would find himself sitting in ashes, this is talking about Job, bemoaning that he had ever been born just so that God himself might be vindicated.

Would God permit a man to be struck with total blindness throughout the better part of his life so that in God's own time he might become the object of a miracle performed by the

Lord Jesus Christ? There's the blind man, John 9. In the light of the word of God, we answer not only that God would do such things, but that he has done them and indeed continues to do them.

Now, Boyd rejects this and he basically says that there is a general gospel understanding that afflictions are the work of the devil.

Now, of course, neither Calvin nor Boyce would dispute that. They would say, however, that God ordained the ends and the means and that, as Job illustrates, he has control over the works of the enemy of our soul and Job does sort of prove that to be the case.

But here is the point that I was being asked about in the email that I was given this morning.

Basically, here's his argument. But the verse should not be interpreted. This is page,

I'm afraid I'm going to lose the whole thing here. No, okay, good. Page 233, storming the gates of hell,

God at war, Gregory Boyd. I wasn't sure if hitting that button would mess me up.

Anyway, but the verse should not be interpreted as suggesting that God's will is behind this man's blindness in the first place.

And this is my third point. The original verse, now notice how this is said.

The original verse does not say that he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed.

Now, that is sort of what I just read in the New American Standard. Jesus answered, it was neither this man's sin nor his parents, but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

So that is the New American Standard translation. But he says, no, the original verse does not say that, quote, he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed, end quote.

The Greek simply has hinnah with the aorist subjunctive passive of phanerao to manifest and can readily be translated as.

Now, I stop right there. Obviously, I have absolutely no problem at all in the discussion of the original languages in my writings.

And there are a number of books where I engage those original writings fairly extensively, especially in my work on justification, for example.

No problem at all. But just looking around the pages here and remembering the fact that open theists, for example, have glommed onto the

King James version of Psalm 139 to try to get around the teaching that our days have been determined by God.

If you listen to the debate that I had with one leading open theist a number of years ago, as he put it, he said, look, you

Calvinists have had a lot of time to work out your theology. We're still working ours out. That was actually meant to be one of the corrections and responses to one of my questions.

And it is true that you have Hinnah here and you do have the error subjunctive passive of phanerao.

But when he doesn't go on to then explain why telling you that this is the error subjunctive passive is relevant, that's when

I start getting worried. If I'm going to give you information about what the original text is saying,

I'm going to try to limit it to the information that's actually necessary for the proper interpretation of the text or for the substantiation of the point that I'm trying to make.

And a Hinnah clause in the vast majority of the times that it is used in the

New Testament, Hinnah generally means in order that. It's used with the subjunctive, which is why this is in the subjunctive.

It's used the subjunctive to express meaning or purpose. It's the general way of introducing a purpose clause with the result that for the purpose of purpose and result clauses,

Hinnah, that's something you start really focusing in on very, very early on in your

Greek study. And so that sounds really impressive. But then it says, and can readily be translated as, quote, but let the works of God be manifested, end quote.

As is certainly the case in Mark 5 .23, Ephesians 5 .33, 2 Corinthians 8 .7, as is likely the case in Mark 2 .10,

5 .12, 10 .51, and a host of other passages, and as is frequently the case in the

Septuagint and later post -apostolic writings, the Hinnah here should be taken as forming an imperative, not a purposive clause.

In this light, Jesus is simply saying that in contrast to the misguided moralistic speculations of the disciples, the only thing that matters concerning this man's blindness is that God can overcome it and thus be glorified through it.

Now, why don't any translations render it that way, then, would become the question.

Secondly, is there such a thing as an imperatival Hinnah? Well, there is.

There is. And in fact, so that it's not just me talking, let's look at what a friend of mine by the name of Dan Wallace has said about the imperatival

Hinnah. This is on pages 476 and 477 of his syntactical grammar, grammar that I used in teaching

Greek syntax and second year Greek and Greek exegesis at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

He says the subjunctive is rarely, that's not exactly what you heard from Boyd, is it?

The subjunctive is rarely used after Hinnah with the force of a command. Although structurally this looks like, looks to be a subordinate use of the subjunctive, it occurs in clauses where the subjunctive is the main verb.

Thus, this usage could just as easily be treated under independent use of the subjunctive.

And he gives, well, he gives the same examples that Boyd gave,

Mark 523, where my little girl is near death, come and place your hands on her.

Hinnah, Elthon, come and place your hands on her that she may be healed and live.

Ephesians 5 .33, Matthew 20 .33, Mark 10 .51, 1 Corinthians 7 .29,

2 Corinthians 8 .7, Galatians 2 .10, Revelation 14 .13, which he did not mention.

But there are other, there are a couple other possible references listed. Interestingly enough, only one, and this is listed under possible references, is

John 1 .8, only John 14 .31, 15 .25. He doesn't even identify those necessarily being the, falling under this category.

And this would probably be pretty much it for the entirety of the New Testament. What you'll notice is that of the examples that Boyd gives, and that Wallace gives, that are at least probably in this category, none are in John.

None are in this very Gospel. And so this would be an argument on Boyd's part that this is the only one.

But there's, there's a real problem here. And I'll close this, we'll take our break, and then go to our phone calls. There's, there's one problem with it.

It makes no sense in the context. Let's try to fit this in somehow. Jesus answered, it was neither this man sinned, nor his parents.

Stop. End thought. But, in fact, you can't even put but there.

You just simply have to go, let's work the works of God. Let's work the works of God to be displayed in him.

I mean, it, you can't fit any of this together. It makes no sense.

You have to insert a complete break after the word parents.

And what are you left doing with, with Allah? Allah is clearly functioning as an adversative here.

And that, Dr. Boyd, is why translations don't render it that way. It's because here you've got a glorious example of looking at one word, just one word, and going, well, over in these other places, this one word could be understood like this.

But words don't come in singles. It's similar to, remember what we mentioned earlier about Carl Keating and, and Mark Shea and the conversation between Eriks Fenson and Robertson Janus.

Roman Catholic apologists have gone around saying, well, you know, haos, look over here, it's used about Michal, and she did not have children until the day of her death, and obviously she didn't have to start having them afterwards.

Ha, ha, ha, ha. And everybody chuckles, and ooh, wow, he knows the word haos. But as Eriks Fenson pointed out, haos isn't in Matthew 125 alone.

It's in Matthew 125 with who? Haos, who? Is there, is there significance there?

Has anyone bothered to look at haos, who? And the fact that this phrase has a particular meaning.

We have phrases in English that have particular meanings. And the same thing is true here. You have

Allah introducing this last phrase, but in order that it might be manifested, the works of God might be manifested in him.

So we need to keep that in mind. I'm hearing a brr sound. I'm not sure where it's, where it's coming from, but it's not coming from me.

I just wanted to make sure you didn't think that was coming from me. Anyhow, let's go ahead and take our break, and then go to our phone calls, 877 -753 -3341.

We'll be right back. What is

Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free? A New Cult? Secularism?

False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Potter's Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler. But The Potter's Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself.

In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.

The Potter's Freedom, a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. You'll find it in the

Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at 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 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're 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.

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 almen .org.

Other times, it's been the Catholic Answers Forums and every once in a while, got to get everybody going.

And one of the folks I mentioned specifically by name was Shane. And I have a feeling, Shane, that's probably the same

Shane that's calling from Massachusetts right now. Am I guessing correctly? That's right. Hi, how are you doing?

I'm good. How are you? Doing all right. Hey, I was just scanning down some of the comments here and I ran across one from June 14th posted by Shane that says,

Mr. Staples got killed in his debate with Mr. White, if I recall, due to some less than honest strategies on Mr.

White's part. I was wondering what less than honest strategies I may have utilized with poor, poor

Tim Staples. Well, in regards to that specific instance, I couldn't, in fact, I wanted to call in because I wanted to be able to let you know that I wasn't just posting and running there.

I wasn't trying to hide behind the keyboard or whatnot. No, that's good. Unfortunately, I mean, by the time that you put that post up on your site last night,

I only had about 17 hours between then and now. So I mean, I have about 60 hours worth of debates of you, which

I could have gone through to try to find some specific instances, which I didn't have time to. If you are interested in pursuing it,

I'd be more than happy to do my work and get back to you in another program. Well, the phone line's always open.

I mean, you later on the 17th posted, well, in fact, you're the one that talked about different pronunciations, sadispacio, you know, we can look at all those.

But I'd be interested, you know, when folks accuse me of dishonesty, especially since I was there and I actually think

I've documented rather fully on the website what took place, especially in the second debate on papal infallibility,

I'd be, you know, just interested in what dishonesty I engaged in. Well, like I said, the fact is that I actually, as part of my,

I really respect your arguments against Catholicism. So what ends up happening is as a result,

I can read all sorts of stuff and I do that. But in terms of really studying the issues and delving in and challenging my own faith, one of the things that I do quite extensively is listen to your own debate.

So I listen to them quite frequently. And so, as I said, that was a few, that was a number of days ago.

And so in posting that up about Tim Staple's debate, that was not something that I had readily at the center of my mind.

It was just more of a general recollection of it. But if you are, if you would like me to substantiate that,

I'd be more than happy to. And I just want to point out also that in terms of some of the points

I made on Jimmy's blog about some of the tactics that I accused you of, I think it's important to note for anybody that might've read your post and not been able to be aware of this, is that in terms of, for instance, the statement about pronouncing

Greek words differently, I said that your opponents do that too. I wasn't trying to say that you're the only one that does anything, but I would say if pushed, that I think that your tactics might tend to be a little bit more to the sketchy side more often than others.

But there's no question that all those participating debates do that. Well, Shane, more often than who?

Well, more often than a guy like, well, I'd say Tim Staple's particularly.

I think one of the reasons that he did suffer so poorly in that debate is that when he goes in the debate there,

I mean, I don't think you'd have any problem with admitting this or with agreeing with this, rather.

He believes what he believes. You disagree with him, but he's on fire for what he believes. And he's really more concerned.

He's not really concerned with winning the debate. He just wants to say what he thinks is true. And so I think as a result, that's one of the primary reasons he got killed.

So more than him, I'd say yes. A guy like Bobson Jenis, I mean, he's probably closer in terms of the different types of techniques and tactics he uses.

But again, he's a better debater than Tim is. So it's really not a statement that you can apply all across the board.

It's a statement that you have to apply in pertinence to individuals. I mean, you've debated Jerry Maddix, you've debated

Bobson Jenis, you've debated Tim Staples, you've debated Jimmy once, and then you have that Bible Answer Man program.

And then there's a few other folks you did here and there. Well, if we go back just a little bit, back to the

Greek issue and this idea that, but the way it is, I'm reading from your words, but the way it is done, the tone indicates the message the audience is supposed to get is that the opponent does not know

Greek as well as I. Now, of all the people that I've debated, which of my opponents has more years of teaching

Greek and Greek exegesis at the graduate level than I do? Well, I don't know that any of them have more years of teaching

Greek exegesis, but that doesn't have anything to do with how well they know the language. I mean,

I can find a person, and you know this very well, I go to Gordon -Conwell Theological Seminary and find someone that's been teaching theology for 60 years, and they might have no idea what they're talking about.

Okay, but, so when, I'm just trying to figure out the reading into, if I pronounce, if I'm debating someone who does not have years of experience teaching

Greek and Greek exegesis, and they mention a word, and I then respond, or I read a text, or whatever the situation might be, should

I mispronounce it the way they mispronounced it, so that I don't look mean?

Oh, not at all, but let me just give you an example. For instance, and I won't, just so that I'm not picking on you,

I'll pick on, I'll pick on Gerry Manatee. I don't know if this actually happened, but just to give an example, you might say the word, you might pronounce it,

I'm not, you know, quite sure myself what the proper pronunciation is, you might say the word, um, anamnesis.

And then he might come on, and in his presentation, when it's time for him to say the word, he might say, now in Luke 22, 19,

Jesus uses the word anamnesis, and he might say it with that sort of inflection, that sort of tone, and it's, there's no need to really accentuate the pronunciation, to really enunciate it so well.

And as I said, Gerry and Bob are probably the two folks that have probably done that in addition to you.

I don't know that Jimmy has, I don't know that Tim has, but Gerry and Bob, I'd say, have also done that.

Shane, why do you assume that the way someone pronounces something is supposed to carry some devious debating trick?

Have you ever done a debate? Do you have any idea how many things you've got going through your mind at one time? Oh, I'm well aware, and that's why

I said, I mean, remember, the context in which I posted that on the blog was I said that I thought that at times you did use some dishonest techniques.

So, as I said, I can substantiate that later, just give me some time to go through and find some examples, but the point that I was making is that somebody challenged me and said, well, he's never used a dishonest technique in his life, or something to that effect.

No, they're actually just asking that someone try to substantiate this just constant drumbeat of just how terrible and horrible and nasty

I am in debates. Oh, I don't think you're terrible and horrible and nasty. I think a lot of times you're very respectful, you're very courteous, you'll joke around with your opponent.

I remember you shared your timer with Gerry a number of times. I had to, that's because Gerry can't ever remember to bring it up.

Well, Gerry, you know where Gerry is right now, and so, you know what

I have to say about that? Well, actually, you know, I don't keep up with all that stuff.

I'm not sure who's still in Gerry's corner. It's probably a pretty small group anymore. But the point being, the point

I'm asking about, Shane, is how do you know that on any one of our parts, there is some dishonesty in the pronunciation of a

Greek term? Let me assure you, in a debate, some of these other things would be significantly, well, actually,

I don't know that it could, but some of the other things you've mentioned, for example, let's look at some of the other ones, because I think we've went over that one.

Satospasio, you say the frequency with which he uses this word in his debates is absolutely astonishing. You know where I got that from, right?

I know where you got the word from? Yeah, who I'm normally quoting. You know that I'm quoting from a

Roman Catholic source at that point. I've not made something up. Are you aware that this is a term used in Roman Catholic theology in regards to the suffering?

Oh, I recognize that. I mean, what I'm just saying is that when there'll be a time,

I mean, for instance, if you're debating somebody on Sola Scriptura, there's really not much of a need to mention

Satospasio. It's really a side issue. Unless someone has said that the traditions that we hold to do not in any way materially impact any biblical doctrines, and I have to give examples of where traditions do, in fact, impact very centrally key biblical teachings, such as the

Atonement of Christ and contrasting that, because from my perspective, Shane, most people who know their

Bible really well have a real problem with the idea of Satospasio, the idea of suffering of atonement, the idea that that is not the application of Christ's suffering to us.

It is the suffering of the soul itself for the temporal punishments of sin laid upon it in purgatory.

That's the reason that I make reference to it is because most folks have no knowledge that that remains an acceptable part of Roman Catholic teaching.

Well, actually, I would say that, for instance, in chapter 8 of the 14th session of the

Council of Trent, it does say that, thus, man has not wear into glory, but all our glory is in Christ, in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we satisfy, bringing forth fruits worthy of penance, which from him have their efficacy.

By him are offered to the Father, and through him are accepted to the Father. So, I would disagree with your assessment of that.

Well, back up. The name of that particular document from Trent is what? I believe that that is the

Decree on Penance. And that's not about purgatory, is it? No, but it's talking about satisfaction, and Satospasio is a component of satisfaction.

In fact, I would say it's a primary component of satisfaction. It is. And the reason that a person can undergo

Satospasio is because that opportunity has been provided by the grace of God.

But are you telling me that you can actually demonstrate? You can go to Ludwig Ott, for example, and he's going to say, now, what we've got going, when

I use the term Satospasio, is the application of Christ's merits in our behalf in purgatory?

Is that how cleansing takes place? I would not be able to comment on that, because I did a little bit of preparing for this call by going over some of the debates, but I didn't prepare on that specific matter.

And I don't think that if you were in the debate, which is obviously in debate, I don't think you would want to comment on something which you hadn't prepared for.

That's true. However, I am reading what you have publicly written accusing me of dishonesty.

And Shane, when I post things about people and accuse them of dishonesty, and then go on the air,

I would say that I need to be able to back that up. Now, you're asking for time? Great. I look forward to your backing that up.

But my point is, aren't you doing this a little bit backwards? Well, no. The person asked for some examples.

And that's what I was getting at a few moments ago before the conversation shifted to Satospasio, which is that the context of why

I posted that was simply because I had said that I thought, this is a general statement,

I thought that you did use some techniques at certain times. And obviously, some other folks had said that.

So I think the fellow named Brian asked for some examples. He did. And so I just listed off the examples as I could, and as general a term as I could.

Yes, however, you did... And I prefaced it by saying, I didn't know your heart. And I didn't know your mind.

I didn't know why you were doing these things. It just seems as though these could be techniques that were used. So if you weren't doing this,

I'm willing to accept that. And I put that on the post. But Shane, you also said it is a tactic, which is unconcerned with the arguments the opponent is making and is concerned only with turning the audience against the opponent and the church he represents.

The frequency with which he uses this word in his debates is absolutely astonishing. And I'm just simply trying to...

I do think it's astonishing because I don't know that I've ever... I can only think of two debates in which you've not used the term, of those that I've heard anyway.

And the vast majority... Let's think about the relevant debates where Satospasio would come up.

It would come up in regards to Sola Scriptura, in regards to traditions. It would come up with the Mass in regards to the Atonement.

It would come up in justification. It would come up in purgatory. It would come up in... What other subjects have we debated?

I mean... Well, I guess it could come up with the papacy in regards to papal authority and defining traditions.

That might be a possibility. Well, I guess. But I would say that, for instance, what I was going to say a few moments ago about the

Sola Scriptura, I really don't think that that is within the realm of the debate subject because once you say, well,

I'm going to try to address whether or not this tradition is contrary to Scripture or not,

I think that what that is, is that's really the thesis for a whole other debate. When you're dealing with Sola Scriptura, the theses of those debates have pretty much been, does the

Bible teach Sola Scriptura? And so, it shouldn't involve trying to figure out whether or not

Satis Pacio, or Sola Fide, or Sola Gratia, or whether or not the

Sacrifice of the Mass or anything. Because if the debate is, does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura, whether or not a particular tradition is contrary to the

Bible has nothing to do with it. That's where you're wrong, Shane. I'm sorry, that's where you're wrong.

And that's where I've explained many, many times that though it certainly is Rome's approach to avoid having to put her cards on the table, to avoid having to admit that she has a position.

I can't get Roman Catholic apologists to actually defend their position. I've tried. I can't get them to do it.

I can't get them to take the opposite of Sola Scriptura. You would think after all these years that they'd be more than happy to substantiate their view and their view of the ultimate authority of Rome.

But when you want a Catholic apologist, you want a Catholic apologist to take the affirmative and I want a

Catholic apologist to actually defend their positive claims concerning Rome on tradition.

They won't do it. They just want to be able to hide their cards and attack Sola Scriptura with examples and with standards that if applied to their own position, would refute their own position.

So that's the point there. And so when that's come up, Shane, the whole reason it's come up has not been to dishonestly engage in false debating tactics, but to recognize that when the

Roman Catholic says, oh, well, but we have the church, they're the ones that once they raise that, once they take a position that they're not simply an atheist approaching this, then they've opened up that aspect of the discussion.

They're the ones that are trying to bring it forward. Now, we're almost out of time, Shane, but I did want to quote you on one other thing and ask you a question. Okay. You said that the fifth example of my dishonest debating tactics was say he only has a very short time left when he just started speaking.

The point of this is to tell the audience that he can't get his entire point in the time allotted so that they will think it actually a better, more thorough point than it is.

If someone simply says there is much they would like to say and they don't have time for the legitimate, Mr. White does this sometimes and his opponents do too.

There's nothing wrong with this. However, saying that one has a limited amount of time and there are 27 minutes left on the clock for an opening statement that he has had months to prepare for is a subtle and ingenious trick.

Now, I don't remember the specific debate you might be referring to, but you know, the fact of the matter is, especially in debating gerrymatitics, that has been the almost constant theme that he has utilized.

I mean, when I first debated him on Long Island, I told Chris Arnzen beforehand, he said, so what do you expect you're going to hear from gerrymatitics?

And we're sitting in a diner in Long Island a couple hours before the debate. And I said, well, if he does what he's done the past two or three debates, he's going to come rushing in about 10 minutes before the debate.

He is going to get up and he's going to talk about how all his best books are packed away in boxes. He is going to say that he has had nothing to eat today, but a

Diet Coke, that he has written all of his notes on a yellow pad at stop signs on his way driving there, and that I'm such a great debater that he feels like he's engaging in the

David and Goliath thing. And Mr. Arnzen looked at me like, you've got to be kidding. Well, if you've listened to the

Marion debate on Long Island, where we did the four doctrines, you know that that's exactly what he said, almost word for word, so much so that Mr.

Arnzen was absolutely blown away. I remember looking at him out in the audience. He was blown away that I had basically given him a direct quotation of exactly what

Jerry was going to say, because he did all those things and said all those things. Now, I've never used that as an excuse.

And in fact, you'd be interested to know that before the debate the next year on Sola Scriptura, I think this was 97, about right.

I faxed Jerry. And amazingly enough, he got it because most of the time you can't get hold of him.

But I faxed Jerry a note, and I was very blunt with him.

I said, Jerry, for the past three or four debates now, you've used this excuse about all your books being packed up, and David and Goliath, and all the rest of this stuff.

May I make a suggestion? We're still months ahead of the debate. Be prepared and stop making excuses. And you know what?

That was one of the best debates we had because he didn't make any excuses, and he was prepared, and he never responded to what

I sent to him. But that is something that I have had to deal with on the part of my opponents. I don't ever recall saying, oh, you know, this man's such a great debater, and all my books are packed up.

When have I ever, you know, I may have said something along the lines of something that says, you know, this is a huge topic, and there's no way to get to all that.

Why is that a trick? That's not a trick right there. That's what I was talking about.

And again, it all goes back to the preface I put to all those points being that, again, you're in a debate.

You don't, everything's rushing out. You've got a million things to do, a million things to think about at once. I understand completely that in that setting, you might, it might feel like you've been talking for 15 minutes when you've only been talking for two.

I understand that. And if that's what's happening, that's fine. Every single thing that was in that post was with the preface of, these are just a quick, this is just what

I can tell you, you know, right now. He might not be doing this. I don't know him. These are just examples I can think of off the top of my head.

Now, Shane, what you said was, he has had months to prepare for, is a subtle and ingenious trick.

Now, if something's subtle and ingenious, that means I am purposefully attempting to engage in a dishonest behavior, and I just simply have to ask you, is it?

Actually, it says ingenuous. Okay, you're right. Ingenuous. It's a subtle and ingenuous trick.

That's even worse, because at least the other one gave me some credit for coming up with something. But the fact is, have you ever heard me do a debate with a

Roman Catholic apologist where I was not prepared for it? Absolutely not. You prepared about as well as anybody.

Okay, there you go. Well, I'd like to find out what it was in the Staples debate, if you could look into it.

What was it? Before you back this up, may I suggest there are some resources on my website you might want to look at, because we documented everything that took place in regards to that debate.

You might want to look at that first and find out whether it was we who was dishonest in that debate, or maybe it was the group that Tim Staples was working for at the time.

You might want to look into that. I appreciate your call. We'll listen to you next time, right here on The Dividing Line. God bless.

I believe we're standing at the crossroads. Let this moment slip away.

We must contend for the faith our fathers fought for. We need a new reformation day.

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.