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. It's 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.
And good morning, welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning the first day of autumn in Phoenix and the reason I say that is not because of any particular thing going on on the calendar, but I Noticed yesterday at one point in the morning the dew point was 66 degrees and last night as I was going to bed I checked it again, and it was 30 it had dropped 36 degrees in about 12 hours that means it's dry as a bone and Currently only 87 degrees outside which was the low.
Actually when I rode on Saturday, it started at 88 or so. That was before sunrise so and with humidity so in other words the monsoon has broken. It's glorious outside and I saw you know what I saw, you know, the low in my backyard is more than 66 66 degrees and it just sort of skipped the 70s.
It had been in the high 80s, you know, I saw 65. Okay. Well congratulations because the pool probably no actually right now that would be the opposite because the pool is still be pretty warm. Groundwater would probably still be pretty warm right now.
But anyway We didn't have any lows in the 70s. It went it was literally the night before though. It was dropped 20 degrees boom gone like that. It's like yes.
The weather guys were saying that they were having a freeze warnings up north. Yep. That's right.
Hit 32 in Flagstaff. So it's like whoo. Now those you up in Canada. I see some of the part are Canadians like Flammeau de Canada who's in channel right now? And she's going like oh great here comes the negative 40s wonderful and Those of us who are here in Phoenix are like, yes, you can finally go outside without immediately steaming.
It's great. So anyhow, we're we are truly excited about all of that stuff and very very happy and pleased That it's that it's nice here. Um, I Just saw flammeau de Canada see that somebody's get kicked about now.
This was gonna be funny. But anyways If I'm somewhat distracted at times because I'm keeping an eye on the video monitors. I Managed to scare off a car thief yesterday. Man, I'll tell you they knew they're they're going after one of our cars and they knew exactly what they were doing and I watched Them doing it the whole time and as soon as I realized exactly what they're up to We got rid of them real quick man, I'll never forget how fast they get out of that parking lot.
Anyway. So I'm keeping an eye on that even though there's plenty of folks out there today I'm probably not gonna do anything today, but there were folks out there yesterday to there. They're just bold.
They're just brazen. It's it's incredible. The uber librarian Marie Peterson sent me an email this morning and with some links to some articles and We I Am on the air right now and Java man is asking me.
Oh, what's the difference between visits and page views? Well, let me just stop the whole program here right now and explain to Java man the difference between visits and page views. You know, I would love to see Java man Who is also known as Chris Irons and try to do anything on a computer while he's doing his radio program?
That would be such that'd be such a hoot. The man is not a multitasker. But evidently he thinks that I am or more probably has no idea that I'm currently doing anything now someone just went into the Entryway there.
I thought maybe possibly Yes, okay. All right, just Just a little extra vigilant, you know. If they hit the button and scream alahu akbar with that person is supposed to be here, that's good. I'm glad that person is supposed to yes, that person is supposed to be here.
I know who that is. Thank you very much. Anyway Huh? Okay I was anyways the uber librarian sent me some articles this morning some links to some articles on the subject of the Atonement and I Really need to start getting focused on this.
It's a wonderful thing to be focused on. And I was reading through them this morning and I Just think a lot of people are not aware of How far out of the quote-unquote mainstream most of us are? When it comes to What we believe and when they're exposed to the other viewpoints.
They're really rocked because they just don't know those of other viewpoints are out there Most quote-unquote evangelical churches and again We are gonna have struggle with the meaning evangelical today because many of the people who are writing Against the concept of substitutionary Atonement many people who do not believe in substitutionary Atonement and identified as child abuse and things like this are viewed by the world as evangelicals and I said to a Evangelical leader recently, I don't consider myself an evangelical anymore.
Oh, you shouldn't say that. So well, you know if TD Jake's is an evangelical leader I am NOT a part of any movement of which he is a part. So How how can this word any longer have much in the way of meaning and So One of the articles was by Mark Dever and I really appreciated I really appreciated recently I've been listening to some stuff from Capitol Hill A Baptist Church and and so I appreciated what Mark Dever had to say in an article in Christianity Decay Christianity Today and Hey, that's even what Marie said she's what I said Christianity Decay Sometimes Churchianity Today, whatever, you know.
Hey, it reflects the degradation of its audience. Okay, that's just all there is to it the publisher is the same, you know, the major publishers used to have some sort of a Doctrinal standard they don't anymore.
If it'll sell it'll be get published and that's just the way it is and so Mark Dever had an article and it says Christians have understood the Bible's abundant atonement language and imagery by means of various theories Jay Packer in his classic 1973 lecture the logic of penal substitution.
What did the cross achieve? Outlined three sets of theories or visions each vision sees humanity's main problem differently and each theory explains how Christ Death solves that problem. Let me just stop there to say that's a Very important insight to keep in mind.
Is that your view of atonement? will very much correlate with your view of the problem of man and if you have a man-centered Understanding of the gospel to where well man has these felt needs man needs this or needs to experience that or whatever then It's not overly shocking that you're gonna find people who will modify and edit the atonement to Focus upon and to be consistent with that particular That particular concept and so if you don't have a biblical doctrine of man's sin, and if one thing is clear Post-modernism is not overly Good at producing Orthodox views of sin.
Okay, modern man wants to wants to minimize the effect of sin as much as possible. And once you have a church that is simply shot through with humanism Shot through with a non-christian worldview a non-biblical understanding of man shouldn't be surprising that church then begins to entertain all sorts of unbiblical notions of atonement and.
So if you have an unbiblical view of nature of man and the nature of sin and of God. Then your view of atonement has to fit with those particular aspects. So I continue on the first set of theories argues that humanity's main problem is that we are trapped and oppressed by spiritual forces beyond our control.
Christ's death then is seen as a ransom that frees us from captivity his death and resurrection. Defeats the evil spiritual forces. These theories are generally summarized under the heading of ransom theory or Christus victor Christ the victor.
The second set of theories deals with the subjective need of all people to know God's love for us. These theories emphasize that Christ's death on the cross Demonstrates God's love so dramatically that we are convinced of his love and are now able to share it with others.
This set includes the moral influence theory of Abelard among others, and I would put the Arminian governmental theory in that context as well. Quote a third a continuous quote. A third set of theories assumes that our main problem is God's righteous wrath against us for our sinfulness.
Which puts us in danger of eternal punishment? These theories argue that Christ's perfect sacrifice for our sins is necessary to satisfy God's righteousness. Christ's death bore a divine penalty that we deserved by taking our penalty upon himself.
God satisfied his own correct and good wrath against us. Theories in this set such as the satisfaction theory and the penal substitution theory. Emphasize how Christ represents us. The new wave of criticism has targeted this last set of theories.
Especially the view that Christ of Christ as a penal substitute a theory long central for most Protestant groups, especially Evangelicals. The criticism follows a path laid out by others throughout history from Abelard Sosinius and Schleiermacher to CH Dodd all big names I was at Fuller that's for sure in 1955 English Methodist theologian Vincent Taylor noted quote the clearly marked tendency to reject theories of substitutionary punishment and quote.
Roman Catholic dissenters have turned from emphasizing the cultic rituals of sacrifice to the ethics of imitating Christ's sacrifice in Lutheran circles. Gustav Allen's Christus Victor 1931 led the charge to replace a Substitutionary understanding of the atonement with what he called the classical Understanding Christ as liberating us from spiritual forces who have enslaved us.
And then he goes on. Subtitle hearing the critics. Critics past and present usually raise four main objections to substitutionary atonement number one not enough. Many current mainline Christians such as William Plocker Christ takes our place and Peter Schmeichen of His book saving power Erdman's 2005 say penal substitution is at best inadequate.
They say the true focus of atonement doctrine lies beyond achieving forgiveness. For example Stephen Finland represents the stream of Christian thought following Abelard and Schleiermacher that stresses the incarnation rather than any particular understanding of the atonement.
In his dissertation the backgrounds and content of Paul's cultic atonement metaphors. Published by Brill in 2004. In his book problems the atonement liturgical press 2005 He sees the whole framework of satisfaction as medieval coming to us not from Paul.
But from Anselm. Finland acknowledges that sacrifice and scapegoat our images rooted in the Old Testament Images that Paul and the writer of Hebrews use but he says only later Theologizing led Christians to theorize about the atonement.
In the end Finland concludes that Christians should realize that the atonement is secondary to the incarnation. He argues that we should think about the atonement as theosis as growing and godlike Spirituality and conduct thus sharing the life of God for those of you Not familiar with this that is an Eastern Orthodox concept.
Which never goes on to note when he says the Eastern Orthodox have long accepted theosis is the main result of Christ's death. Reflecting on 2nd Corinthians 318 Ephesians 413 and 2nd Peter 1 4 and Other passages.
Many have suggested that God's work in us through Christ is best understood by not by language of penalty payment ransom and satisfaction but by language of love inclusion growth and deification. Seen this way the church becomes an extension of the incarnation of God in Christ and biblical Images the church as the body of Christ take on a more realistic hue.
The second area of critics Basically say it's irrelevant. Other critics concerned with clearly communicating the gospel. I'm not sure how you could even separate this out from the gospel. But anyways with clearly communicating the gospel charge that substitution does not make sense to modern cultures.
Does not mesh with most of what is in the Gospels and glorifies unforgiving abusive behavior. Joel green and Mark Baker in recovering the scandal across intervarsity press 2000 say quote. We believe the popular fascination with and commitment to penal Substitutionary atonement has had ill effects in the life of the church in the United States and has little to offer the global church in Mission by way of understanding or embodying the message of Jesus Christ and quote.
Such critics argue that modern cultures which are far removed from religions that offer blood sacrifices. Find substitutionary theory irrelevant and distasteful. Third Individualistic. Green and Baker also argued that penal substitution has encouraged Individualism because it seems to focus on individual guilt and forgiveness as such say these critics.
It has blinded the church to social issues like materialism racism and nationalism. British scholar James DG Dunn has argued quote. Substitution smacks too much of individualism to represent Paul's thought adequately and quote.
Number four too violent. Perhaps the most powerful criticism of penal substitution has come from a swelling chorus of scholars who decry its violence. Inspired by French scholar Rene Girard many modern theologians have denied the need for divine violence as part of redemption.
They reject God's apparent double standard in doing what he forbids others to do take life. Then there is a discussion about Roman Catholics. Well Roman Catholics, I'll go ahead and read it. Roman Catholic has debated this last point for 30 years.
But only recently has this concern penetrate evangelicalism steeped as it is in the substitution rich language of Watts and Wesley's hymns. Some evangelicals have taken to the work of Anthony Bartlett J Denny Weaver Stephen Chalk and Alan Mann Who decried language of violence and substitutionary atonement.
Two years after publishing his controversial book the lost message of Jesus is on driven? 2004 Chalk wrote. Quote. The church's inability to shake off the great distortion of God contained in the theory of penal substitution.
With its inbuilt an inbuilt belief in retribution and the redemptive power of violence has cost us dearly end quote. Chalk and others say that substitution at worst produces a twisted justification of violence and encourages selfish individualistic abuses of power.
I step out of the quote just long enough to note the chalk in essence identified the substitutionary theory of atonement as Divine child abuse in that book that was mentioned earlier. Green and Baker warning and suggesting that God the Father did something to God the Son in popular church discourse sermon.
Illustrations on Christ's sacrifice and the cross have fueled complaints about substitution. Then there is given a really gross example. For example, there is a story of the railroad operator who learns the bridge ahead is out.
So he prepares to switch the tracks to save the lives of hundreds on a fast approaching train. But that moment he sees his son playing in the gears and he pauses to reconsider. Here many a preacher has meditated on God's love in ways that border on the grotesque.
We're told that the man decided to go ahead and sacrifice his son's life in order to save those on the train. Such an unwitting sacrifice is led to the charge of the atonement is divine child abuse. And of course anyone who thinks that's even semi close to what the New Testament presents as to the atonement.
Well needs to be doing a whole lot more. Studying of the atonement goes on and and discusses Quite properly some of the various texts that need to be examined in regards to the fact that well it's the New Testament that raises these issues the New Testament that uses this language of substitution and the real question is how in the world do you deal with the New Testament and and Not accept the New Testament teaches concerning the atonement of Christ.
One thing that is very very very sadly clear to me is that the vast majority of those who are raising these issues do not believe that the New Testament presents any kind of of divinely revealed truth and Because this has become so widely accepted across all boundaries in in scholarship today in the in the Academy.
Then it has become the predominant viewpoint of most of those who are writing today. That's why I have said that so when you go in the Christian book store Realize you are in probably one of the most dangerous places for your soul in all the world because While you may think That you're in a place where you can sort of let down your guard in essence.
What you need to realize is that as you walk down those aisles? there are coiled snakes upon every bookshelf waiting to strike at you and to infect you with all sorts of nasty bugs and Part of that is because so much of what is published today is written by people who simply don't believe that God has spoken with Clarity.
They don't believe the promises of Scripture. They don't believe in in the supernatural revelation of Scripture. They don't believe the scriptures consistent with itself. They don't believe you can establish a systematic theology.
They don't believe any of these things. They don't believe that you can exegete the text of Scripture and come to any kind of knowledge of what? Paul or James or or Isaiah or anybody else actually meant they have imbibed a form of radical skepticism.
That leaves them unable to say thus saith the Lord about anything In in any way shape or form and yet they continue to write. I don't know why if I was convinced that God had not spoken. I wouldn't bother writing anything anymore.
Why why do so just eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die and but that's not what they do and. So so much of what is out there now published by the you know intervarsity press Erdman's Baker doesn't matter.
They you know, it doesn't matter how heretical it is. They'll they'll publish it today. And it's sitting there on your Christian bookshelf. And how are you supposed to know you used to be able to sort of tell you can't tell any longer whether it is spiritual poison or not.
So Mark Dever continues many critics of substitution get around this problem. That such language and imagery is found everywhere in the Bible by downplaying its importance or reinterpreting it in ways I believe do violence the plain meaning of the text.
Yeah problem is for most of these people there is no plain meaning of the text and as a matter if you do violence the plain meaning of text because it's not inspired in the first place and. So once you have imbibed the majority viewpoint of the Academy today that Paul contradicts Paul that's that the corpus of Pauline writings is much smaller than we always thought it was and therefore you can just sort of dismiss for second Timothy and Titus is irrelevant and and.
And things like that and and of course everybody knows that you can't Interpret Paul in such a way. He'd be consistent with Peter and. You can't there's there's no consistent interpretation. You don't allow scripture to interpret scripture.
That's that's only how how the old folks did it. We are much more enlightened than they and and look where it's gotten us look how good the church is doing. Because of all that you. You look at these things and Scott McKnight for example has put out a book called Jesus and his death Baylor 2005 and He says Scott McKnight for example in his recent book does lots of careful work with the gospel text nonetheless He assumes the last phrase in Mark 10 45 which reads for even the Son of Man did not come to be served.
But to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many reports not Jesus original words. But marks theologizing and while admitting that the idea of substitution is strongly suggested here He finally rejects it now.
I think we just need to stop there because what happens in in much of academia today is. Here's here's how you're supposed to approach something like Scott McKnight's book. You're supposed to talk about how very scholarly Scott McKnight is and you're supposed to talk about how many References and and how much good stuff you got out of Scott McKnight's book.
And then if you happen to disagree with some things then you raise those issues but only after. You have in essence sort of done what? What you had to do back during the days of the Roman Empire. You had to offer your pinch of incense upon the altar and say Kaiser Koryos here you say academia Koryos.
You know I've paid my dues and all this is this man's a great scholar. But the problem is if if he doesn't actually believe that we can know what GSN We didn't say and what's inspiring what isn't inspired or doesn't believe these things are consistent with one another.
Then is he really? Supposed to be a leader in the church. Well at least in a sound biblical Church. I don't think so. So why would we offer the pinch upon the altar first? Why don't you start saying you know there's some really dangerous things here, there's some false things here.
Here's where they are and Then you can later say now you know it's shame because he placed obviously spent a whole lot of time on this and and Over here did some good work on this thing but why do you have to start with the with the idea that in essence helps to to tell everybody and to encourage everybody to believe.
That all religious opinions are equal to all other religious opinions or more so as long as you have a certain Pedigree you've you've paid for this degree from such-and-such school, and you've got the you know the big stamp on your forehead.
That means you know. Even if you're promoting heresy It's okay because it's in the context of the Academy and all things are okay within the context Academy this is what happens when the Academy can something exists outside of the context of the church and When those in the Academy think that they are the wise leaders of the benighted Church.
This is really where things get bad and so This is this is not an interpretation. That is driven by the text and in overriding belief in the consistency of the text and divine nature of the text once you don't have those things then.
You're you're you're doomed to this this never-ending cycle of personal subjective opinions as to what you're gonna give the most weight to and not give the way a Certain weight to and blah blah blah you you're stuck with that there.
You've got no place to go if you don't believe that God has spoken with clarity, and I'm sorry. But there's one thing that is not really beyond. It's not possible to argue this. And that is the New Testament writers believe that God had spoken and spoken with clarity.
The Apostle Paul believed the Gospels noble the Apostle Paul believed that everybody knew what the gospel was and therefore you could have true Gospels and false Gospels true brothers and false brothers and The Apostle John promised in 2nd John that the truth would abide with us always and so they certainly believe these things.
But few there be today who walk in their shoes unfortunately and So we have him just basically saying well Yeah, I was to give his life ransom for many that sounds like substitution, but I don't like it.
That's just mark theologizing and since he's theologizing you know and when we hear someone like John John Shelby Spong Doing that we all go. We hear Barry Lynn saying Galatians is over the top ago. But as long as they're teaching someplace It's supposed to be somewhat conservative, and they got that foot at the end of their name.
That's PhD foot then. Well they just get away with it. That's it. That's fine. That's cool. We can't say anything about it because you know that's the scholarship see and that's how it goes. I Continue reading further.
McKnight uses Christ's words To interpret atonement passages in Paul Peter and Hebrews even though the epistles provide the most sustained Discussions of Christ's atonement in other words his understanding of Christ's perspective becomes the lens through which they're everything else to be read.
He again acknowledges that such passages might carry along with them the notions of penal substitution satisfaction. But in the end he says they need not. That is the academic weasel way of saying yeah.
It's there about like it. So I'll just say it does not necessarily need to mean that. Thus he goes to what seems to be great lengths to avoid the plain meanings these passages at one point. He says that Jesus is both representative and substitute.
But his interpretation so transforms the idea of substitute as to rob it of its traditional theological meaning. Stephen Finland also seems to pit one portion of scripture against another. He writes in problems with atonement.
It is a mistake to identify atonement as the central Christian doctrine. Listen to this. This is one of the reasons I decided to address this in the program today. It is a mistake to identify Atonement as the central Christian doctrine although it is central to the Pauline tradition.
To first Peter Hebrews first John a revelation, but these books in their entirety compose only 39 of the New Testament. So in other words since the Gospels are much longer and there's four of them you determine what's central to the New Testament by percentage of which tradition represents what based on bulk words.
I Mean I certainly wouldn't agree with with the dismissal from the gospel text of this emphasis. Anyway, but this isn't how you determine scriptural teaching. He never goes on to say even if one were to grant Finland's premise.
Which I certainly don't. 39 of the New Testament can hardly be swept away or ignored. For those of us who maintain the Apostles writings bear equal authority Jesus words in the Gospels and that they are themselves inspired by the Spirit of Jesus.
Substitutionary sin-bearing language must be accepted as the dominant atonement metaphor in the Bible and he goes on from there if you do a search on the the title of in the Christianity Today article here is nothing but the blood if you want to track that down for yourself.
It was posted actually all the way back in May of 2006. So it's not exactly brand-new breaking news, but it does I think help us to once again recognize that there is there's a lot of Stuff going on that's quite simply.
It's very troubling very troubling indeed and it might help to explain to you Why it is that you can turn on the television and turn on the radio and hear such anemic proclamation but when people are coming out of seminaries filled with anemic professors who refuse to Preach the whole counsel of God and teach the whole counsel of God.
Well, then they're what do you expect? That's that's what's going to happen in in many ways today. When I see somebody going in the seminary, I I pray for their survival. It shouldn't be that way. It should be oh man a wonderful opportunity to grow and to mature and to gain the tools you need.
But for the vast majority of folks Conservative Bible believing Christians who go in the seminary it is going to war. I Mean it honestly it has the same parallel as sends sending somebody off to Iraq today.
You are you are just as much in spiritual danger. In almost every single modern seminary today as the soldier in Iraq. And that's a sad thing. That's a sad commentary, but I've seen it. I saw people back when I was a seminary years ago.
They came in they were pretty solid. They seem to know what they believe. They're actively involved and by the time they got their master's degree in theology. They now had a master's degree in confusion.
They no longer knew what they believed and they they were there couldn't couldn't answer any clear questions any longer about about the nature of of the gospel and so. So why so why don't why don't we do that anymore?
Why why I mean you're in there working on on the shopping cart or something? I can tell you're not even listening to me. I know this I listen later. Yeah, I can tell you're sitting there tapping. I've been.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, so you don't even we don't even like I mean people miss the pulpit crimes commercial and stuff, you know.
You know thing. Well, we can run it. But we're planning on making a change to that format so that it's a end-to-end program and it's uninterrupted.
What if I want to like take a drink or something? Well, I I guess we could do something. And who did you talk with about the the format change? Nobody. Oh, okay. So I don't get get talked about that was a benevolent dictatorial decision except.
I'm the benevolent dictator. So We might want to. I mean I can just sit here and stop talking For a minute and then you're left with nothing to do. So that wouldn't really sound very good either. So Let's have to have a little discussion about this in the future.
There you go this. Thanks, really appreciate that Man turn that thing off. Man I'll tell you They stick me in here lock the door and just crack the whip just get it done. Mr Get you know, just just do your work and quit complaining.
Okay. All right, let's we we're gonna we have Shabbir Ali we have Bible answer man broadcast and We also have a phone caller right now. So let's go ahead and take the phone call and talk with Eric real quick.
Hi Eric. Doing good.
Yeah, I was calling. You debate with Shabbir Ali.
Don't just go on and not much of a parallel there. Then they their last names both start with SH. That's the only connection between the two.
I do agree with you on the on your side of the debate on the pseudo-baptism Excuse me a pedo-baptism, but what I disagree with you on is your interpretation of what the new covenant is. I you had said in your Statement on YouTube video.
I didn't get to see the whole video, but. That the old covenant is a mixed covenant and that that anyone who tries to put the new covenant in the future Is not doing so for a contextual and exegetical reason.
Well, you know, you know what the background of that is. I believe so. Yes. And Well that the you know, the referring the covenants made Israel and how to do that that that has not happened yet.
I believe well, yeah, there are there are pedo-baptists. In fact in in the book that was promoted at at the debate the Strawbridge edited volume There are a number of different views on this actually there is it probably at least three I would say Contradictory views of what the new covenant actually is and its relevance to baptism within that one book which is I think one of the problems but one of the Presentations of it and I had heard pastor Shishko make similar comments in his About two dozen part series on baptism that I had listened to was in essence that the new covenant is not yet fully Established in its practice in the idea that yes someday they will all know me but That's that's yet future That's not that's not now and my assertion was that according to Hebrews chapter 8 where the writer is providing an apologetic for the new covenant and For the defense of the new covenant and supremacy of Christ in being the mediator of that better covenant based upon better promises of the better mediator, etc, etc Would be basically ripped out of the text if what was actually being said in Hebrews chapter 8 is someday it will It's gonna be thousands year down the road.
But someday this covenant will be better than the covenant that you are being called back to in the temple sacrifices and that this is the context of the book of Hebrews is demonstration supremacy of Christ and supremacy of his work and that there's nothing to go back to in essence is what the rare to the Hebrews is Demonstrating and so that was context of what I was saying and likewise the mixed statement.
Again you're only looking at a portion of it. It'd probably be a whole lot better to actually watch the whole debate than just maybe the 20 of it that's been posted on YouTube, but In that context what I was referring to is the difference between the old covenant where the covenant signs are given on the basis of genetic relationship and hence you have the same covenant sign being given to David that you have being given to Ahab and One of the interesting things in cross-examination is that pastor Shishko didn't not feel that That Ahab should have been given the covenant signs and that it should have been covenant discipline that took place there.
But most pedobaptists that I know of don't argue that way. They would say that Ahab was appropriately given that covenant sign and therefore having broken the covenant is held Held accountable for having broken it the point being it was a mixed covenant.
That is the covenant signs are given To men like David who have that inward reality as well as to Ahab and others that Clearly do not have that inward reality and that one of the differences Between the new covenant in Hebrews chapter 8 and that of the old is exactly that that the emphasis is made They shall all know you from Jeremiah 31 and That there is there is no mixture that is that is presented in Hebrews chapter 8.
Right, but well, this is where I come from. I come from all that then from the messianic perspective and the fact that the all that's referring to that Jeremiah is referring to you is referring to all of Israel.
Well, that's not how that.
It doesn't matter what background you come from the text is the text and the application made in Hebrews chapter 8 Does not allow for the limitation to ethnic Israel or anything of the kind in fact. That would be the single best way to defeat the apologetic argument of the writer would be to make an ethnic application.
Which and who is and who is and and who is excuse me and who is who is the true circumcision today, sir? Okay, that's the church, right.
I also am Calvin's myself but what I'm saying is that that the fullness of the new covenant has not come until all of Israel was baked and So that future time, but we as believers as part of the elect experience the ramification of the new covenant as first root of Israel.
That we are the sign of the coming harvest of Israel of that future time when both Israel and Judah will be of one Nation and we'll have their sins forgiven and be faithful to the covenant of God. I think that I think that's a distinct difference.
I think that's what the point is that the all of Israel will come together and they'll all know him. The end. And knowing is not a necessary intellectual knowledge. But is the knowing the covenant relationship meaning that there will be faithful to the covenant of God as in before.
The covenant which they broke which they were not faithful to the covenant. But now God will write the Torah on their heart and so that they will now be faithful to covenant. No longer break that covenant and they will know him in that sense.
They'll all know well.
That sounds very interesting, but that's not what Hebrews 8 says. I mean it again. You'd have to explain then. You'd have to find some way of explaining the application of Hebrews chapter 8 because he does not limit it the way that you did in fact to limit that way would be to Completely destroy his whole apologetic point his point.
Well the idea first of all the idea of a new covenant is not something that's brand-new that has never existed before. But the idea is Kodesh would have an idea of renewing. It's not a different covenant from Mount Sinai.
But it's the same covenant. But it's been being renewed in the hearts of his elect people. The way if it's an apologetic of the Hebrews 8 is that it's new in a sense that it it's. It actually forgives sins that actually causes us to walk in his ways as before when it was written on stone.
That was external from us without the Spirit of God. It brings forth condemnation. Means we can't keep about the Spirit of God. But because of the ministry of Christ who actually forgives sins and put the spirit of the Torah in us.
By the Spirit of God we actually get to walk in his ways and actually keep his word. That is a difference between the first covenant the second covenant I think that fits right along with the Authors Hebrews is he's trying to make the point that because he's a priest that actually can forgive sins by cleansing the heart.
Then that's how we are able to keep the Torah from our heart from inward out not from the outward in.
And that's true for both Jews and Gentiles. There's no distinction there. So where's the distinction made in Hebrews 8 that you're you're insisting because what you just said is a description of regeneration and that has to do with the elect in the church and so I agreed with everything you just said.
The only disagreement we seem to have is you're saying well, but it's not really Full until it's with ethnic Israel, and there's nothing in Hebrews 8 about ethnic Israel, so where do you find that well?
The original context of Jeremiah 31 is is concerning ethnic Israel. The prophet of Jeremiah is prophesying to Israel saying you know you're going to be destroyed for breaking the covenant. You're gonna be exiled from the land, but God is going to bring you back Both houses together and bring you back as one nation, and he'll cause you to walk in his ways.
That's the context of Jeremiah 31 now from that that the book of the author of Hebrews makes an application from that. But the original context of 30 Jeremiah 31 is in fact concerning Israel. So the the.
Apostolic interpretation of 31 isn't sufficient. It's it's it's not there.
The official thing is that it's for the purposes of us entering into the Covenant. Well. The New Covenant always existed. I mean David was part of New Covenant. Moses was part of the New Covenant. Abraham was part of the New Covenant.
Again because the New Covenant has to do with God writing the Torah on the heart.
Well, how is the New Covenant not like the Covenant which I made with their fathers in a day when it took them by the hand. Leave them out of the land of Egypt. How is it not like well because they broke it.
They didn't have that they didn't have the internal spirit within them to cause them to walk in its way. See the idea of the eye. It's funny. From a Hebrew mindset the idea of writing a Torah on a heart is where the very conscience of the person takes place.
Mm-hmm. So when God writes a Torah on the heart, they The their actions and moral decisions are filtered through the Torah. So they will now when they would do something. They will consider the Torah and they'll walk in his ways and at that point so.
With without that Torah written on the heart then they'll always continue to break the Torah it becomes external from them. So how again.
The writer to the Hebrews is exegeting Jeremiah chapter 31 and he is explaining the supremacy of Christ over against the old way and he does so by the description of what we would call Regeneration that is that every person who is regenerate has God's law written upon their hearts.
Their sins are forgiven. Neither none of them will teach one another saying know the Lord they shall all know me from the least the grace them all their Sins are forgiven. How is that not? Descriptive of what happens to every Jew or Gentile for they're all one in Christ Jesus at regeneration.
Know that why I think Jeremiah is describing regeneration. Absolutely. I'm not denying that as the writer Hebrews saying that Yes, he is saying the idea of the Old Covenant being a mixed covenant where you can be any anybody under the Old Covenant could never be saved is not the elect and.
So well, so that's why I would disagree with you because while David was regenerate David was still a member of the Old Covenant because he bore the Old Covenant sign.
No, what I'm saying that he was a member of the New Covenant the same way we were.
Was he a member. Was he a did he bear the sign of circumcision? Yes or no? Yes, did a have bear the sign of circumcision? Yes. Okay, so. They weren't in the same covenant. Called the Okay, so what is the okay.
Then what is the covenant of Hebrews 8 9 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers. What covenants that?
Well, that was a covenant made on Sinai. Yes, and.
Was that a covenant that Dave was in? Yes, was that a covenant that Ahab was in? Yes, okay.
Well, and that's what I was trying to say before is that the New Covenant is the same covenant. It was the same responsibility made a Mount Sinai. It's just been the same like you have. You have a piece of software you update it to a better version.
It's been updated. It's the same Torah, but it's written on the heart now. It's been regenerated. Oh, it's it's not different in the sense that you know, the Torah's been done away with you know.
Sabbath and all those things have been done. Well, no one's arguing the Torah's been done away with that. Well, at least I'm not. But it just seems to me like like you're. What you're saying is it's not like the Covenant.
But it is like the Covenant.
They broke it that the difference between the new and the old is that the old they continue to break it. Yeah, but notice notice notice.
Notice one little thing and I I wrote a fairly extensive around 20 ,000 word exegesis of Hebrews 8 for the Reformed Baptist Theological Review that goes into a lot of depth here. Notice that there is a textual variant in Hebrews 8 9 where the septuagint differs from the Hebrew and the Hebrew says even though I was a husband to them, but the The septuagint says and I did not care for them says the Lord knows actually not a lot of difference between in the Hebrew terms look very very similar.
But the point is that what you have in Hebrews 8 is is not well I tried to make really good covenant with them, but they they broke it and so I've renewed it in a new way but instead it says I did not care for them says the Lord and then it says For this is a covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days says the Lord.
I'll put my laws in their minds. I'll write them on their hearts so on and so forth. It seems every time we start dealing with what the covenant actually involves we agree, but I don't see how. This there is anything whatsoever in the New Testament anyway, maybe it's just some sort of a Tradition from some other perspective, but anything in the New Testament that would allow someone to say no.
All we have is a portion of the New Covenant now, or we enjoy the ramifications of it. But it's not actually going to exist until. This can be said of all of ethnic Israel and I.
Believe it exists. I mean, I believe that you and I are part of the New Covenant. Yes, it's pointing to the fullness of the New Covenant is not until the end the same way that our salvation is we have.
We have have a foretaste of the redemption of our bodies. We haven't been redeemed yet. The fullness of that has not come yet, but we have a taste of it. We're experiencing it now.
Well, then now yeah the now and the not yet of policy ology normally has to do with adoption and Glorification not with any of the things that are mentioned in Hebrews 8 specifically in regards to writing the law upon the heart of Forgiveness of sins.
Those are all things that are that everyone who is in the New Covenant has experienced. I I guess part of what the disagreement here is is that there is in your theology a Continues to be a strong distinction between Israel and the church.
No. Yes. Well again. When you ask who is a member of the New Covenant and how is a person sins forgiven? There is clearly those under the Old Covenant who are forgiven they are part of the elect. The difference that we have here and maybe and this is difference that I I have with my faith about paid of Baptist brethren to is that while the elect Exist within the Old Covenant in that dispensation The Old Covenant number the number of the Old Covenant is not Coterminous with or equal with the number of the elect.
In other words, there are many people and I see this for example in Abraham's Sons by Keturah who have no promise. There is no promise given to them. They bear the covenant sign they bear circumcision, but they do not have the promise and.
So you have what's called a mixed covenant you have individuals in that covenant who bear the signs like Ahab. But they are not forgiven so they the difference it between the two is that in the New Covenant you have a coterminous number between those who are in the New Covenant and those who are of the elect and In the pedo Baptist perspective at least in some of them that have been expressed.
I realize there's all sorts different views but but in most of them there remains a mixture to where you properly give the New Covenant signs individuals who you admit unless you're into infant regeneration Are not regenerate and you hope that these signs will come to fruition in them.
But you are admitting that you're giving the covenant signs to individuals who at that point in time or enemies of God. And that makes the difference between the two so the elect God has always had and he has saved them all in the same way.
But the difference being than the Old Covenant. The elect existed side by side. Properly in that covenant because the sign was to be given to all the male children. And but it did not necessitate the spiritual regeneration of those children.
Look at David and Absalom for example. Yeah, but I'm not sure that it's. I'm not sure the term renewal is is really really appropriate there, but Eric I appreciate your comments. We need to keep moving on we spent about 18 minutes there.
So that's I think it's good good portion of time. I appreciate you listening. Alright, thanks. God bless. Bye. Bye. All right. Well, that was some interesting excursus. Into another direction there. But that's what happens when you have open phone lines and people can call in and it's amazing to me that There are just so many folks out there who think that I'm just you know one of the dullest knives in the pack, you know and They're just constantly out there on the web talking about how how dull I am.
But the one thing they won't do is pick up a phone and actually call and demonstrate that so anyway Where in the world are I am I are I here? Okay, yes, that's why he is pretty dumb you can't even speak to English language.
Which one shall we do here? Shall we go back to Jimmy Akin or to Shabir Ali? No, we're gonna Shabir Ali because actually I think as of today. Let me see the date today is the 18th. So yes 31 days 31 days and I just saw Rich's eyes get big because Do you have anything to do between now and then.
No nothing at all. Yeah. He's got he's got things to do between now and then and honestly, I'm not even thinking of the stuff He's got to do because I'm the one that's got to stand up there and do the debate part.
Okay, and I I'm teaching the class on the ship and I've still got so much work to do and we've got 31 days. I think it would probably best to focus upon those things that are would be helping us with that and so the debate between Shabir Ali and Mike Lacona on the resurrection and the crucifixion is obviously a good place to go.
So it's been a while since we played portions of this debate from Regent University in 2004 you may recall that one of the last things that we dealt with was where Mike Lacona had I think really scored a big Point which surprised me a little bit not that he would score a big point, but it surprised me that Where Shabir went when Lacona pointed out appropriately the academic historical sources in regards the nature of crucifixion the use of nails things like that remember Shabir basically, he doesn't really come out and say it here, but he has said another context basically sort of holds the swoon theory.
Which is not normative amongst Muslims and that sort of bothers me a little bit. I would rather deal especially on the subject with one with the most mainline things but there are other Muslim apologists deal with but he really there takes the idea and promotes the idea that Even though the text says he was not crucified or killed that he was crucified.
This wasn't killed. I would imagine he would defend that by saying well crucified implies killing. And you remember that in his opening argument? He was saying well I just am not convinced that what Jesus went through in that period of time would have killed him as if basically The Romans who are really really really good at killing people Couldn't get this one right and didn't didn't figure this one out.
And so we're in the what should have been the cross-examination period and You know, I've been straightforward in saying to Mike Lacona. You gotta speak up buddy. Come on, brother I haven't sat down and actually timed things out, but very clearly Shabir predominated here and There you know, I realize I've got a lot of experience in doing this stuff and I know I can so I've sort of got Clock in the back of my head, you know I sort of have an idea how long somebody's been going and then when someone's starting to sort of, you know, take over I will find a way to pop in between syllables if need be and To to get things going but that's where we are is in the cross-examination period and Shabir is making a point.
Because John wants to make sure that everybody knows that there's no Simon of Cyrene here to deal with. It's just Jesus. He's strong throughout. He goes up to the cross by himself. Nobody arrests him.
Nobody can take his life from away from him. He gives it up of his own accord He lays it down and he has the authority and power to take it up again. A very different Jesus a very different gospel a very.
Different story and you can see the evolution. So what you have to deal with now again if you've just tuned in recently that is the Spin that is the current modern perspective of Islamic apologists. Well, they've actually read anything in the field or not Shabir has.
But there are a lot of wannabe Shabir's. There are a lot of people who who who will take what he says and repeat it though. They themselves have never read Anything that would actually allow them to say that with any kind of meaningful background behind it at all.
But here you have a different gospel different perspective you're. There is a constant effort to make Matthew Mark Luke and John not united but separate. Different from one another and it's very easy for them to go into unbelieving.
Quote-unquote Christian Academia. When I say unbelieving that is that is descriptive of those who would say well, you know I'm religious. I believe in Jesus, but I don't really believe that we can know anything that he actually said.
I don't really believe in inspiration. I don't really believe it was God's intention to give us a completed can of scripture. I don't believe it was God's intention that we should actually know. Be able to know things like the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the resurrection of the gospel and things like that.
I Refer to those folks as unbelievers. They they may be religious. But they don't believe the message of the Christian faith. They substituted with a more humanistic version thereof.
If it's that evolution and you have to show that the evidence for the actual death and physical bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead is There in the earliest strata. It is not enough to say well, you know, the later strata says this.
But that's not my argument. That's my argument. Has been it's in the earliest strata. That's what I've been emphasizing. Keep going to the Gospels. I'm saying you who I'm over here on this hill.
No, but I'm still waiting for you Mike. In fairness I have actually addressed you over on that other side of the hill, but all I'm saying is the Gospels say this.
It's kind of like your argument is all right, the Gospels contained legend therefore the Sources that existed decades prior to the gospel must be cut from the same cloth.
Well, and you know, the problem is and and I I criticized from the start I said I would just never make the statement that for the purpose of arguments tonight. We can say that the Gospels are filled with legend so on so forth because upon what basis do you really complain?
I I mean if if you've got a bunch of legendary stuff that has become combined together with non legendary stuff. How can you really complain. I mean isn't isn't part of the argument that if there's all sorts of legendary stuff in the Quran.
That that means that all of it partakes that nature, you know. That that's that's where I think I might be a little bit more consistent in saying I would never make that statement. I would never even start from there.
Because I just don't see how it can consistently be done and that doesn't necessarily follow.
See the earliest stage in the belief in the resurrection of Jesus was that God Somehow raised Jesus back to life even though people had seen him dying. That God rescued Jesus and raised him to himself.
That's the earliest product.
Rescued him. I mean, there's nothing in the early strata that says rescue him. I mean you presented the rescue theory, but there's no evidence for it. It's contrary to the eyewitness testimony. It's based on a single source written 600 years after Jesus with no contact with the eyewitness and it's ad hoc that is because it's a Supernatural explanation with no evidence that's contrary to the evidence.
It seems that it was constructed not so much in an attempt to rescue Jesus as it is to rescue Islam.
No, I'm not speaking of rescue here or more specifically. More specifically you have the idea that it's a rescue of Muhammad that is really the issue that that needs to be dealt with there. I have said many many times the entire viewpoint of Muhammad and of Jesus found in the Quran has to do with making Jesus into an argument for Muhammad and you're gonna hear what Mike Laicona said in 31 days because.
Fundamentally when you boil it all down the only reason in looking at the historical sources that are available to us today That a person would reject that Jesus Christ died upon the cross of Calvary and was buried Is surah 4157 based upon what comes 600 years later.
Wow, are we out of time? Wow. I hadn't I wasn't even watching the clock. I'm having to having too much fun here. We will continue with the dividing line and religious topics Whatever they might be that happens when you turn on the microphone and open the phones.
We'll see you on Thursday. God bless.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries. If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at p .o Box 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 this Thursday afternoon at 4 p .m. For the dividing line.