Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.
Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.
If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.
Here is James White.
Yes, indeed eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number. That is a toll-free number means it doesn't cost you anything to call it and We have of course Invited to all of the many many many people.
Who have. I think one of just one of the blog entries over Jimmy Akins blog has a hundred and twenty five comments on it. I'm not sure if that's the one where everybody went nuts on Peter Stravinsky's or not.
I don't think it is. I think I 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 comment section.
You would. If you saw me walking by on the street, you would you would hide your children's eyes and spit upon me. That would be the only thing.
To be able to. You know, so I think the the better description would be something along the lines of the Grinch. Yeah.
Yeah, you definitely resembles the Grinch hide your Christmas presents or something because here comes white. It's It's a it's a pretty amazing thing to 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 that phone number eight seven seven seven five three three three four one anyway. It normally comes out this time of the day on Tuesday's 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 Shay'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 apology on 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. Asked you to fill the Hindenburg in pursuit of the exact parsing and declension of house. Who all the while asking if your credentials are as big as his credentials problem is the reference to house?
Who is actually to Eric Svensson not to me and I don't think Eric uses prasapalogy answers a tabbit of confusion there but I I follow the link over and it is the reason that the the article is so long is because Eric was responding to Robert's and Janice and you may recall that funny story where some Janice right around the same time as the mr. X Catastrophe Talk about the Hindenburg.
There was there is the Hindenburg of some Genesis credibility going up in flames, but right around the same time He was Basically saying that this this one fella was going to take out Eric's research on house who?
Who and the guy doesn't actually read Greek and So, 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.
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 was does mean and etc, etc.
So I understand that but the Keating Keating says among other things mark me moans a tendency among some Catholic and not a few Protestant apologists to get bogged down in minutia as an example refers to a discussion about the interpretation of the Greek behind the word until at Matthew 125 and you were 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 Robertson Janice. 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 of Protestant. But Catholics have done the same offers up thousands of words 19 ,000 of them in fact my word processor count 18 8 something That supposedly demonstrated his understanding of until is true and then 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, if anything 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 Robertson Janice, especially in regards to John 6 and The massacre of the the syntax and grammar of that particular text.
That I haven't count 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 could be nearly as big but Keating definitely doesn't get into that. But then again Keating doesn't respond almost anything you say and rebuttal to him I've I've Refuted many things that he said I've documented errors have played in his statements on the air and demonstrated that you know 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 them.
They're just gonna keep saying the same things if it's wrong. Well, you know fine, but you know, that's just 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 Say it's wrong my exegesis is wrong.
Now. Do you like me? Well if you like me then These the standards that I was seeing in the in the thought processes of much of the commentary over there was was basically Unless you will say that 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 What Protestants how Protestants should basically bow down to the to the Roman Catholic system? then we're just gonna say you're a mean terrible horrible nasty person and and and One of the arguments was was you try to make your Catholic apologists look bad by pronouncing Greek different than they do.
Oh My goodness, I was waiting for one that says, you know what you've you've shaved your head just as a cheap debating trick. No, there's there's no more logic or rationality the rest of this stuff like whoa Man, that's it's okay.
All right. I Sort of understand how how President Bush feels. Because I don't think President Bush could say anything Without the press going after him and I think it's it's pretty much the same Same thing there.
So I did find that rather rather intriguing and by the way if we if we want to Be aware of the nuttiness going on in the world right now. Okay, just there was a light on number six it was on I don't know didn't know why that was there.
And so I was trying to get your attention, but you're probably playing around with with the phone lines and stuff. Oh, you're waiting to see and 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 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's 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 actually got paid to do so and Wasn't wasn't wasn't too bad.
Yeah James White equates himself the President United States. Yes, that's exactly what you're gonna. That's exactly what you're gonna see. Quite sure that's a soundbite. That's a soundbite. There. I am.
Yep. I understand President Bush say thanks. He's the president now. Anyway, a friend of mine was running a television camera at the PC USA Convention, which that year was in Phoenix I think if I recall not couldn't have been 89.
No, it must have been before May 86 somewhere around there anyway. And he was telling us about the debate over Homosexuality at this particular convention, I remember I actually ran camera for one session at The PC USA Convention when it was a debt 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 to said we really need a camera said look I haven't run camera in years. Make sure to put me on the one farthest away.
And of course it put me on the one right down front and which is much harder. You're having to you know track people and stuff and and they had these four microphones set up To represent north south east and west and had these prayers and every single prayer bless us gay and straight.
You know heterosexual homosexual blah blah blah. I mean, it's just all they ever talked about and So This this friend was telling me this was back in the 80s about these debates that they were having and 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 are being said.
And so on so forth. Well We shouldn't be overly shocked then at 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 in 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 the meeting voted to receive a policy paper and 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 and 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 time that would be the conservative bit, okay?
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000. Can you imagine? Working on this 2000. Wow there's a there's an investment of life. I Worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language of the Trinity should still be used well 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's most famous prayer was addressed to our father. Here's okay, if you 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 the Part of me it goes at which point fire and brimstone came down from heaven.
That's the end of our report. But that's not what happened.
You're you're looking. 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's that seemed quite. We have to include the pantheist in there.
Well, we. That that would be inclusive and.
Embracing and emergent and accepting and those are all good words. Allegedly. Apparently. Yeah now the the. The 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. Well, that was in the beginning. Oh, you tell the whole story. They had the. What is the medicine man or the shaman, okay?
Here's what happened ray at a Christian event. Here's here's what happened. It was the beginning of the. You know what it wasn't. I need to I need to make it. I need to make a correction here. It was not PC USA.
It was the Anglicans. It was I'm sorry it was the Episcopalians which are in the news anyways. So you know six one half dozen there they seem to be can competing with one another as to how fast they can be become you know apostate and.
It was the 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 hit this little switch. And you can talk back to the 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 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 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?
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 when the medicine men were coming in to do their thing I? Switched on my little microphone.
I said okay guys. Here's what's going to happen. I figure that the roofs coming down, so I figured these tripods are pretty 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 directors like you know you know, but that was that was what I suggested so it was. Yeah, it was quite the interesting whenever you see those guys mumbling something in there 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 there's what the PC USA is up to. Mother child and womb I Just have a hard time thinking too many guys were involved with that one.
It's just I don't 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 lines still working. They look at looking looking like they're okay there.
Yeah, the yep looking good, okay? Don't understand, but Yep, that's a dial tone. I that is a healthy dial tone without anyone connected. Well anyway, I got I got an email this morning. And it was a fella 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 Been five years could it possibly have been been five years since we did that 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 fellow contacted me this morning and was asking about a claim made by Gregory Boyd in regards to John chapter 9.
John chapter 9 and If you recall the 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 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'm in the world I am the light of the world.
When he had said this he spout on the ground and made clay 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 and you know the rest of story he's brought before the Pharisees and they they don't believe that he was the blind man and 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 want to have more of the context than the email provided to me and So I 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 it like I told her.
When we get to be a big like supported ministry with lots of lots of supporters and stuff. She's she is officially in charge of research because if you need something from the uber librarian poof it's it's there and I'd tell you some other stories about the the great successes of the uber librarian, but so we didn't have time anyway.
Yes, it does sound like a superhero uber librarian superhero Superman uber librarian. They all go along the same lines a little different superpowers. However, slightly different superpowers with the uber librarians.
Anyhow, I have on my screen the PDF of of the the page pages in Boyd's discussion and he he quotes from from Calvin and he quotes from James Boyce as well. Let me just give you the 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.
He would find himself sitting in ashes. This is talking about Job be moaning 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 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 here is the the point that I was being asked about in the 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 gonna lose the whole thing here. No, okay good page 233. Storming the gates of hell. God at war. Gregory Boyd.
I was wasn't sure if hitting a 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 what notice how this is said the original verse does not say that he was born blind. So that God's works might be revealed and quote now. That is sort of what I just read in the new American Standard.
Jesus answered It was not 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 and quote the Greeks simply has Hinnah With the heiress subjunctive passive of fun or uh-oh 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.
Yeah, no problem at all but just looking around the pages here and Remembering the fact that open theists for example have glommed on to the King James version of Psalm 139 to try to get around The the teaching that that's our days have been determined by God they they they.
If you listen to the debate that I had with One leading open theists a number of years ago as he has he put it He said look at 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 heiress subjunctive passive of fun or uh-oh.
But When he doesn't go on to then explain why? Telling you that this is the heiress subjunctive passive is relevant. That's when I start getting worried if I'm gonna give you information About what the original text is saying I'm gonna try to limit it to the information that's actually necessary for the proper interpretation of the text or for the substantiation the point that I'm trying to make and The a Hinnah clause in the vast Majority of the times that it is used in the 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 it 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 2nd 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.
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 not 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 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 isn't is near death.
Come and place your hands on her Hinnah Elthone come and place your hands on her that she may be healed and live. Ephesians 533 Matthew 20 33 mark 10 51 1st Corinthians 729 2nd Corinthians 8 7 Galatians 2 10 Revelation 14 13, which he did not mention but.
There are other pot there a couple other possible references listed interestingly enough. Only one and this is listed under possible references is John 1 8 only at John 4 and 14 31 15 25. He doesn't even identify those necessarily being the Falling under this this category and this would probably 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 and 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 it 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 is 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 Karl Keating and and Mark Shea and the conversation between Eric Svensson Roberts and Janice Roman Catholic apologists have gone around saying well, you know a house it look over here.
It's used about me call and she did not have children until the day of her death and obviously she didn't have start having them. Afterwards, ha ha ha ha and everybody chuckles and ooh. Wow. He he knows the word house.
But as Eric Svensson pointed out house isn't in Matthew 125 alone. It's in Matthew 125 with who? House who is there is there significance there? Has anyone bothered to look at house who and the fact that this phrase has a particular meaning we have phrases in English Particular meanings and the same thing is true here.
You have a lot 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 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 for 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 first 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 a omen org this portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.
The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.
The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45. Evening services are at 6 30 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.
You can call for further information at 602 26 grace. If you'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 a omen or other pilgrims progress. It's not an easy way. It's a journey.
And Welcome back to the dividing line. So we got about 23 minutes actually less than that one. She'd throw in you know the closing statement and rich has got to get his stuff in Steve camp has to sing contractual obligations stuff like that, but about 20 minutes left to go in the dividing line and we have invited folks who have been Joining what might be called the feeding frenzy over at the Jimmy Akin blog I suppose last year.
It was the envoy blog and we other times. It's been Well the web boards at envoy and other times. It's been the Catholic answers forums, and it was Wow 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 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 you know posting and running there. I wasn't trying to hide behind the keyboard or whatnot.
Well That's good. Unfortunately, I mean when by the time that you put the 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 lines always open. I mean you later on the 17th posted. Well in fact you're the one that's talked about. Different pronunciations. Sodas passio. 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 the Catholicism. 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 is listen to your own debate.
So I listen to them quite frequently and so As I said I that was a few that was a number of days ago, and so in in posting that debate That was not something that I had readily at the set 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 yeah I just I just want to point out also that um in terms of some of the the points I made on Jimmy's blog about some of the tactics that I accused you of um I Think it's important to note for anybody that might have read your post and not Been able to be aware of this is that in terms of for instance the the statement about pronouncing Greek words differently I said that your opponents do that too I I wasn't trying to say that you're the only one that does anything.
But I I would say if pushed that I think that 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 that all those are part of being a device do that.
Well. We'll shame more often than who? Um well more often than a guy like um Well, I'd say Tim Staples 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 with with with agreeing with this rather He believes what he believed you disagree with him, but he's on fire for what he believes.
And and he's really more concerned. He's not really concerned winning the debate. He just wants to say what he what he thinks is true, and and so I think as a result He ends up he that's one of the primary reasons.
He got killed so Morton him I'd say yes a guy like um like Bobson Janice I mean he's probably closer in terms of the different types of techniques and tactics He uses when 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, Matt station debated box and Janice debated Tim Staples you debated Jimmy once and then you have that Bible answer man program so.
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 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 okay. So you have anything to do with how well they know the language? Okay, I mean I can find it I can find a person and you know this very well.
I go to Gordon Carnwall theological seminary and find somebody that's been teaching theology for 60 years. They might have no idea what they're talking about.
Okay, but so when I'm just I'm just trying to figure out the 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 Yeah, 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 is that oh not at all.
But but let me let me just give you an example for instance. And I won't. I've just just so that I'm not picking on you. I'll pick on. I'll pick on geriatric. I don't know if it's 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 Anamnesis uh-huh. 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 2219 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 pronunciations really enunciated so well. And as I said Jerry and Bob are probably the two Folks that have probably done that in addition to you. I don't know that Jimmy has so I don't know that Tim has but Jerry 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. And have you ever done a debate. 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.
She's giving 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 now.
They're actually just asking that someone they had to substantiate this. This just constant drumbeat of just how terrible and horrible and nasty I am in debates.
And oh, I don't think you're terrible and horrible nasty. I think um I think a lot of times. You're very respectful. You're very courteous. You'll joke around with your opponent. I remember you you shared your timer with Jerry a number of times.
I had to. That's because Jerry can't ever remember to. Well Jerry is a you you know you know where Jerry is right now, and so.
Well you know I actually you know I I don't keep up with all that stuff. I'm not sure who who's still in Jerry's corner it's probably a pretty small group anymore, but the point being the point I'm asking about Shane is is.
How do you know that on any one of our parts there is some there is some dishonesty in the pronunciation of a Greek term. Let me let me assure you in a debate. You know 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 Saddest passio you say the frequency with which he uses this word in his debates is absolutely astonishing.
You know you know where I got that from right I?
Know where you got the word from. Yeah, you know where I'm normally quoting.
I'm you you know that I'm. I'm. I'm quoting from a Roman Catholic source at that at that point I've not made something up. You aware that this is a term used in Roman Catholic theology in regards to.
What I'm just saying is that when There 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 fast passio.
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 saddest passio.
The idea of suffering of atonement the idea that that is not The application of Christ 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 glorying 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.
And quote. So I would disagree with your assessment of that, but. Back up the name of that particular document from Trent is what I believe that that is the decree on and. That's not about purgatory is it?
No, but it's talking about satisfaction and satis Pacio is a component of satisfaction.
Yeah, it is. And the reason that a person can undergo Satis Pacio 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 status Pacio is the application of Christ merits in our behalf in purgatory. Is that is that how cleansing takes place. I.
Would not be able to comment on that because I I did a little bit of preparing for this call by Going over some of the debates, but I didn't prepare in that specific matter. And okay, I don't think you don't think that if you were into 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 satis Pacio, 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. And so I just list.
I just listed off the examples as I could and as general a term that I could. Yes. However, you did 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 okay. And you weren't doing this. I'm willing to accept that I put that on the boat, 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 I 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 terms of those that I've heard anyway, and the vast majority.
Let's let's let's think about the relevant debates where status passio would come up. It would come up in regards to solo scripture in regards to traditions. It would come up with the mass in regards the atonement it would come up with justification it would come up in purgatory.
It would come up in what other 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 solo 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 have a 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 that's really the thesis for a whole other debate. When you're dealing with solo scriptura the theses of those debates have pretty much been Does the Bible teach solo scriptura and so it shouldn't involve trying to figure out whether or not? status passio or or solo fide or solo gratia or whether or not the Sacrifice the mass or anything.
Because if the debate is does the Bible keep solo scriptura? Whether or not a particular tradition is contrary to the Bible has nothing to do with it.
I'm sorry, that's where you're wrong. And 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 that I've tried.
I can't get them to do it. I can't get them to take the opposite of solo 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 think but when you want a Catholic apologist to take the affirmative and go first in a debate.
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 solo scriptura with 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 are trying to bring it forward now.
We're almost at a time Shane, but I did want to quote you in 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's much they would like to say and they don't have time for that is 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 there 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 the matter is. Especially in debating Jerry matatics. Okay, 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 gonna hear from Jerry matatics? And I we're sitting in a diner in Long Island a couple hours for the debate.
I said well if he does what he's done the past two or three debates. He's going to come rushing in about ten minutes before the debate. He is going to get up and he's gonna 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 the way we did the four doctrines. You know that that's exactly what he said almost word-for-word and 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 gonna 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 solo scriptura. I think this was 97 about right. I faxed Jerry and Amazingly enough he got it because most the time you can't get hold of him.
But I faxed Jerry a note and I very 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 all the rest of 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 and all my books are packed up. But when if I ever you know I may have said something along the lines of something that says you know.
This is a huge topic. Oh, there's no way to get all that. Why is that a trick?
That's not a trick right there. That's what I was talking about. Um 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 get 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 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. Well, this is just what I can tell you you know right now.
He might not be doing this. I don't know him. Well just examples. I can think about nothing.
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's an ingenuous.
Okay, you're right ingenuous, and it's in its subtle and ingenuous trick. That's even worse because at least the other one gave me some some credit for coming up with me. 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. Okay, there you go. Well I'd like to find out what it was in the staples debate. Shane if you could if you look into it. What was it. Look at now before you before you back this up may I suggest there are some some resources on my website you?
Might want to look at because we documented everything that took place in regards 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.
Maybe it's a group that's a Jimmy that's a 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 The crossroads.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries. If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks.
Join us again next Tuesday morning at 11 a .m.. For the dividing line.