May 25, 2006

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Opening Comments and Recent Reading on the Quran and Hadith

Good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number, 877 -753 -3341. If you have questions, comments on a wide variety of issues, we had a lot of folks trying to get in. Last week we had Tom Askell on and you may want to continue with that.

I did get an interesting response to my rather humorous reply to Tim. What is your name? They call me Tim on my blog. Don't ask me where I dug up that mouse with the helmet on, I thought that was great.

But the fellow who saw through all of those devious Calvinist traps and I just don't know how he did it. I mean we worked so hard to come up with those things. I tell you, I don't know what to say about that kind of thing, but it is sort of humorous at times at how people read things.

But also I forgot that I hadn't, last time I wanted to read to you a particular quote from Salih al-Bukhari. Volume 6, the discussion, I sort of summarized some of what was said there. I wanted to read that for you to give you the actual citation.

Then I tracked down the other source that I had been looking for finally and wanted to read something from that. It's always good to provide the resources that you are reading here. I'll just read this whole thing, especially since very few people today are actually talking much about the Muslim Hadith, the traditions that are so important in understanding Islamic teaching.

You hear a lot about this stuff on radio and television, but not many people really are actually discussing much about it and giving you much information. One of the things that is important is to understand the codification of the Quran.

This is a part of the debate and will always be a part of the debate is because of the contrast between the early centuries of the Christian era and how Christians view scripture, viewed scripture, view it today.

Notice the change in tenses there. How the scriptures were distributed, how they were copied, how they were communicated to other people, and the Islamic way of looking at all of those things. Those first few centuries in regards to the collation of the Quran, the construction of the Quran, the putting it together, how it was put together, why it, for example, is not in chronological order, why you have to read all the way back into the Quran to find some of the earliest sections.

That's why it's such a mystery to a lot of people in the West, very difficult to understand. And when we engage in debate over these issues as this religious conflict exists between these two perspectives, we need to understand how those two books came to exist in the form that they do.

In the sixth volume of Sahih al-Bukhari, which is one of a number of collections, I've got Sahih Muslim, Sahih al-Bukhari, a lot of these are available electronically now, by the way, both online as well as in searchable forms and things like that.

This, like I said before, is volume six of the English-Arabic version of it. There is a discussion concerning those who were the Qur 'an of the Qur 'an, the readers of the Qur 'an, those who had memorized the Qur 'an.

Abu Bakr had said casualties were heavy among the Qur 'an of the Qur 'an, those who knew the Qur 'an by heart, on the day of the battle of Yamama. And I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qur 'an on other battlefields.

In other words, the people who had memorized this, a lot of them died in a single battle. And that was extremely important in getting people to go, you know, we certainly need to put all this stuff together.

If everybody was wiped out, then what would we do? Well, the section that I had specifically mentioned about Uthman in this particular edition, page 425, section number 4987, Uthman is, there are certain things going on here, let me just read you some of the sections here.

So he said to Uthman, O chief of the believers, save this nation, now listen to this, before they differ about the book, that is the Qur 'an, as the Jews and the Christians did before them. Did you catch that?

Save this nation, the growing Islamic nation, the Ummah, before they differ about the book, that is the Qur 'an, as Jews and Christians did before them. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, send us the manuscript of the Qur 'an, so we may compile the Qur 'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscript to you.

And so this process begins, and there's many people involved in this particular process, and in the choosing of which manuscript to use, and there's a lot of discussion that we'll get into some other time at another point, but it is interesting that what drives this is, hey, we've seen the Jews and the Christians arguing about their books.

Now what were they arguing about? Well, I can guarantee you, the Jews were not arguing about what their scriptures said. They were arguing about what their scriptures meant, if they were arguing at all along those lines, or how to apply that.

In fact, by that time, really, most of the Jewish argumentation would have been on things like what we find in the Mishnah, and the development of the Gemara, which becomes the Talmud. That's what they would have been arguing about, and even at that, the Christians, by the time of that time period, also would not have been arguing about the content of the scriptures, what the New Testament comprised.

They would have been possibly arguing about, again, application, understanding, and in that particular portion of Arabia, there were a lot of Nestorians, and so there would have been some doctrinal argumentation going on there, but it wouldn't have been about the canon.

It wouldn't have been about the content. It would have been about the understanding, and you need to understand, for most Muslims, those are all one thing. The reading, that is, what the text says and what it means, are far more closely connected in their thinking, so that you actually have not only the words of the Qur 'an, but the meaning of the Qur 'an being mediated primarily through the Hadith, and primarily through the traditions that are passed on.

So, it is interesting to read that, and to see what caused people to be very concerned about that. I was looking through the source that I errantly cited. Remember, I gave the story last week about grabbing the wrong source.

Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi's An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur 'an. I've gotten two books recently, and Islamic books are heavy. What I mean is, the paper is so thick. It's just like, you could smack somebody upside the head with this thing, and it would be a dangerous instrument.

It's almost glossy paper. It's quite a nice textbook. I just happened to be thumbing through it, and I ran across this statement, and I found it very odd, but something I think we need to understand, and we'll go to our callers.

Unfortunately, I forgot to open up a window to the person telling me what the callers are about, so I have no idea what they are. There's one of them. Okay, thank you. We use high-tech stuff here to communicate between the massive control center and the highly trained broadcast professional, who is in control of all of those knobs and things like that, and then the studio audience, who is looking.

Actually, I can see the studio audience today, and they're all looking like they're asleep. Eddie looks like he's exhausted, and Buzz is just trying to hide behind the computer monitor, and Rich is falling asleep on the stuff.

So I'm really amazing you all today, I can tell. But anyway, I just happened to be reading toward the end, there is a discussion, the author dealing with the Koran and Orientalists. That is basically non-Muslim people who study the same materials.

And I found this fascinating. Let me just read to you. In reality, this claim can be considered another example of the claim that the prophet was a madman. To claim that the prophet believed he was a prophet while he was not, is to claim that he was insane.

Now think about that for just a moment. The black and white of that is amazing. I doubt that Mr. Kadhi would believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but does that mean he has to believe Joseph Smith was insane?

I don't believe Joseph Smith was insane, I believe he was a false prophet, but there's obviously other categories into which those things can be placed, rather than just, well, if you claim to be a prophet, either you are, or you're completely nuts.

Those are the only two possibilities. I don't see how that really works overly well, but that's what he mentions there. It is very interesting to read and to sense the very non-Western worldview that you're dealing with, with things like that.

Anyhow, just looking at some of the sources we've talked about before, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number that you can call today, and that is the phone number that Mike called. Hi Mike, how are you?

Catholic Apologetics, the Primacy of Peter, and the Aramaic Argument

Hey Dr. White, how are you today?

Doing all right.

Excellent. Is it getting kind of steamy out there in the Phoenix land?

Well, my little thingy on the computer here says 101, and so that's not too bad. It's probably more along the lines of, I think yesterday we got to like 106 or something like that, or is that supposed to be today?

I forget which one it is.

Hey, perfect for a good bike ride, huh?

Well, the humidity is 7%, so that's not too bad. I did get a good bike ride in yesterday. In fact, I chased Captain and Stoker up the hill and really had a good time. So anyway, what can we do for you?

Anywho, hey listen, I had met up with a couple of Catholics here in Cape Coral just a few days ago.

There are Catholics in Cape Floral? Everyone mark that down.

Unbelievable.

The Catholics have gotten to Cape Coral, Florida, yes.

Well, you know, we have two Catholic churches here in Cape Coral, but we have several more spread out in Lee County. At any rate, I was introduced to four of them that were quite unusual from my past encounters.

They were very, very zealous about their faith, took their faith very seriously, and to the point to where they're willing even to engage in the defense of it.

Well, that's not completely unusual. That's exactly what the folks at Catholic Answers have been trying to get people to do since the early 1980s anyway. So I remember very, very clearly standing amongst hundreds of thousands of young people in Denver, Colorado one day, and Rich just started laughing because he was there too.

And the Pope had just landed, and they were watching him speak on these huge projection screens there in some park downtown. I forget what the name of the park was. But we're standing there passing out some of our tracks, and no one was really overly appreciative that we were there, let me tell you that.

And finally this group of young people walked by from the University of Steubenville, which is where Scott Hahn teaches. And I saw them walk past us, and I saw them sort of grab our literature, and I saw this look in the eye.

It's sort of like when you throw chum in the water for the sharks. And so they came back, and they formed a circle around me. And this one guy, you could just tell he was just the ringleader. They were going to watch another fundamentalist get chewed up by the Scott Hahn method of apologetics.

And so they engaged me, and we started talking. And very quickly they went to the early church. And it just so happened that the track we were passing out had a whole selection of citations from early church fathers on the back, and so I pointed that out to them.

And so we started talking about various and sundry things, and things weren't going the way that they were supposed to go. This wasn't the way that they had been trained to do it. And slowly I could see people around the periphery who at first were really excited.

They just sort of started walking off, and they sort of got bored, and others were really confused. And finally the guy I was talking to says, after, I don't know, it was about 10 or 15 minutes, I said something about soul scripture, I forget what it was now.

And he goes, have you ever heard of James White? Not at all. And I get this smile across my face, stick my hand out and say, that would be me.

Can I invoke the law of identity?

Yes, yes. And when I put my hand out, it was like I was offering him a snake or something like that. And all of a sudden all their fun was ruined, and pretty soon security came over for some odd reason.

I don't know why having a nice, calm conversation about the early church fathers would cause security to come over, but you know how that works. So anyway, that's my little story, but it's probably not as exciting as yours.

Well, you know, I'll tell you, like I said, things are pretty flat here in Lee County. And for me to stumble across these people, believe me, is very unusual. And to the point where I was, obviously we had like a three-hour discussion.

And I said, you know, I said, guys, help me out here because, you know, you guys must be a very, very small percentage in doing something like this. I said, I just don't come across people of your ilk within the Roman Catholic community.

And they had basically agreed with my comment because, you know, they said this is what's bothering us within the Catholic community here. No one seems to be interested at all in proclaiming the faith nor defending it.

So with that, one of the ladies that was with the group, she's an ex-Franciscan nun. And she said she was trained in apologetics. That was part of their, I guess, curriculum. And I was like, oh, that's rather unusual.

So she had commented and so forth. And, by the way, she did mention Scott Hahn's name.

Don't doubt it.

Don't doubt it, right?

No.

So with that, they asked my background. I told them I was raised Roman Catholic, born and raised. Went to Catholic high school the whole bit. And just gave them a short testimony as to how I come out of the Catholic church.

Well, upon saying that, they didn't mince in their words. They made it very clear that they are out to convert me back to Rome.

Oh, yeah. I was going to say, as soon as you said that, they're going to view that as chum in the water. As far as you just weren't catechized properly, you haven't heard the right answers. If you just heard the answers that we've heard, we'd be able to help you with all your questions.

What were the things that bothered you, et cetera? Oh, yeah, sure. And I can respect that. No problem with that at all.

Yeah, that being said, that led up to the issue, of course, primacy of Peter and all that jazz. And I said, you know, I need to obviously bone up on this. It's been a while since I've had to deal with this.

So I pulled out your book, The Roman Catholic Controversy.

Now, where were you when this conversation was taking place that you would have books sitting around?

Well, what happened, we were in Hungry Howies.

Hungry Howies.

Here in Cape Horn. Hungry Howies.

Okay.

And you keep books at Hungry Howies?

Well, no. Actually, what I do is I do carry around certain books. So if in any event I happen to stumble across something, I have some books at my access that I can pull out and start poking through.

Ah, okay.

So you're that guy carrying the big backpack around.

I do that sometimes, too.

Yes, okay.

So at any rate, what happened was I had gone to your portion here in the book, actually the chapter dealing with the claims of the papacy. And you really knuckled down on the issue, particularly starting at page 116.

Can I just read into your hearing just the last...

Sure.

Okay.

You go on to say, Much has been said by Roman Catholic apologists about what Matthew 16 and verse 18 would read in Aramaic. Some have asserted with complete confidence that they can tell us exactly what the Aramaic would be.

Yet, it is not strange that when dealing with the central passage used to support the papacy, they must appeal to a nonexistent, unknown Aramaic original. That no one, no matter how great their scholarship, can possibly claim to be able to recreate with certainty.

Right.

And you have a little footnote. And the footnote is quite valuable. So I read the footnote, and I said, Boy, that makes it very, very clear.

Now, how are you doing this while keeping the conversation going? Are you a real good multitasker?

Well, essentially you say, because I have another buddy of mine who is also an ex-Catholic.

The old let-the-buddy-distract-them-while-I-read routine.

Oh, yeah.

Keep him busy. Rule number 27. That's good. Okay.

Wow.

So, you know, basically, and they actually know my friend from past occasions here in Lincoln when we've had pro-life events.

Oh, yes.

Of course.

So that's how they met up. So, basically, what I had brought up is this issue of the Aramaic. And the Catholic fellow is absolutely cocksure that, hey, it's the Aramaic. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

So I said, I'll tell you what. I said, here's the problem we have. The matter, obviously, pertains to the New Testament. It's the Greek. There's no Aramaic here. So he said, no. He said, it's the Aramaic.

He said, I will give you information next time we meet. I said, oh. Now, this ought to be quite interesting to find out what he, in fact, can deduce. My question to you is this.

What's he going to present to you?

Yeah. Oh.

Well, it's not difficult to find any number of scholars who will take a wild guess at what the Aramaic would have been. In fact, I think you're probably referring, I don't know, I don't have the book in front of me, but the footnote, is that the one where I refer to the other possibilities for what the Aramaic could have been?

Yeah.

The footnote actually touches upon an individual named, I think it's Chris?

Yes. Karagounis.

Karagounis.

Thank you.

Yep.

Right.

And is it Limna that he suggests as the more probable Aramaic? The point is that there is no way of recreating without being able to obtain manuscripts of an alleged original that no one has ever seen.

And so it is very common and very, very easy to find scholarly sources that will speculate about what was being said, for example, well, give an example, on the amount of transfiguration. And you have in the Synoptic Gospels, in fact, I was looking at this in preparation for the Shabir Ali debate.

When you look at the words used by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all of them use a different Greek word. When Peter says, Lord, Master, Leader, whatever, it is good for us to be here. Each one of them uses a different word.

Well, why would they do that if Jesus was speaking in Greek? Well, because he wasn't. And so he's probably speaking in Aramaic, and therefore they are giving a Greek rendering. They're giving all three of the words they use are synonyms for one another.

But be that as it may, that's why you have the variation between them. And so it is very common in New Testament commentaries and scholarly writings and things like that for people to say, well, you know, we are reading here a recording, or the author is giving to us the conversation that would have taken place in another language.

And therefore, we can speculate, and that's the best you can do, we can speculate on what the original Aramaic would have been. And so you find all sorts of that stuff, but the problem is, it's always just that.

It's always speculation. It is not something that you can be dogmatic about. And especially when we're talking about the very foundation of the infallibility of the Church, the very foundation of what makes the Church what it is from Rome's perspective, the primacy of Peter, the Petrine foundation itself, to have to go to a source that even Rome itself cannot reproduce, that Rome itself, in fact, did not canonize.

I mean, let's even take their perspective. What did they canonize in Matthew? Was it Aramaic, or was it Greek? Well, of course. So the inconsistency there is striking. So you need to be careful as to what's provided to you.

There's going to be all sorts of stuff that can be presented to you where people will say, well, Jesus was probably speaking in Aramaic. That's not even an issue.

I mean, that's not even presumptive evidence.

Right.

Okay.

Exactly. So they can give you that, but what you need to be able to say is, okay, no one's arguing that. In other words, the problem here is what you're going to have presented to you is proof of an argument that's not taking place.

And what you need to do is say, no, what I need proof is of an argument that is taking place, and that is that you can tell me without question what Jesus said there in a different language in manuscripts we've never ever seen.

That's what you need to be able to prove to me. Not that we can speculate about what Jesus might have been saying at a particular point in time. You're talking here about the foundation upon which you believe.

When you boil it all down, why do you believe the Church of Rome is infallible? How has God demonstrated that infallibility over time? What is the external safeguard? And in modern Roman Catholic theology, it is the idea that the Bishop of Rome will not mislead the Church.

Now, there are Roman Catholics who want to take different views of that, all the rest of that kind of stuff, fine, wonderful, but you go back to Vatican I and that's where it's coming from. And that's what you need to ask them to provide to you.

And the fact is they can't, but they can give you all sorts of stuff about Aramaic, but not that we can reproduce the Aramaic text and make that a substitute for the underlying Greek. And of course, I also like to, in that situation, and I've found very few Roman Catholic apologists who know what in the world to do about this, I like to point out that in Matthew 16, the verb that is used there, and I will give to you, if they want to make this Peter, they love to emphasize the word you in Matthew 16, 19.

Soy is singular, and it is. It is not a plural. It is not I will give to you guys. It is I will give to you Peter. He's still talking to Peter. There's no question about that. But the problem is that the verb is a future.

Doso is future. I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Now, the question then becomes, when did that happen? It can't be happening here. And so many of them will say, ah, right here. This is where Jesus establishes Peter as the head of the church and all the rest of that stuff.

No.

He says, I will give to you. So when does that happen? When is the fulfillment of this? And they have to, they're limited to one of two answers here. The first answer is, well, that's Matthew 18, because there Jesus gives this authority of binding and loosing, but the problem is there it's plural.

He gives it to all of the apostles in equality, and that's not going to work to create Petrine primacy. Or they basically have to say, well, it's not recorded for us in Scripture, which is an amazing admission to make.

Here, the very foundation of the church, not mentioned to us. The fulfillment of it isn't even given to us in Scripture. And so I like to ask them, you know, why is that future? And I can't help but remember in a debate that took place somewhere in the mid -90s at Boston College, between Rob Zins and I debated Robert St. Genes and Scott Butler on the papacy.

And I have that, so I have to go back and watch it.

Yeah, and that's where Scott Butler just about blew a jugular in his closing statement. I mean, literally, he was red and veins were popping out all over the place. If he started turning green, I was going to run.

And the thing was, he was spitting. He was so angry, he was spitting. And I had to keep, I had to consciously keep from reaching up and wiping my face, because he was turning to me and he was yelling and he was, show us!

And he's spitting on me. And I knew it would have been so funny just to wipe my face off, like, oh my goodness. But I kept myself from doing it, even though it would have been okay to do, I think, in that situation.

But I remember Robert St. Genes in that situation. I kept pushing the fact that Revelation 3, 7, Isaiah 22, the keys, key situation. You may recall that.

Sure, sure, I read that in your book.

Yeah, and if you recall, Robert St. Genes' response was, key, keys, it doesn't matter. And you're just like, oh my goodness. Oh, the inconsistency is just absolutely amazing. But of course, Robert St. Genes now is off on his own, you know, neo-centric anti-Jewish stuff, so a lot of that stuff isn't overly relevant anymore as far as that goes.

But be that as it may, it was quite the interesting encounter.

Yeah, next time bring your spit shield.

Yeah, that would have been, take the little thing from Wendy's over the salad bar and just put it between me and the thing.

Very good.

So, anyways, well, if they come back with something, feel free to call.

I will.

We'll see what's going on. Thank you for that pointer. Appreciate it.

All right, thanks a lot.

God bless. Take care. Bye-bye.

877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341. You know, someday we ought to put together a DVD, and we'll set up a couple cameras in the office when it's done. And, you know, the backdrop will be those beautiful shelves when they're done with the books on them, which are done.

And we'll sit down there, and what we'll do is we'll play portions of these. You know how long we've been doing debates now? We've been doing debates 16 years now. And we started videotaping them at least a decade ago.

And there's almost always a funny and interesting story about what's not on the video. And so I love to play Scott Butler blowing a fuse at the end and spitting all over me. And then we can cut back, and I can tell the story about how during the break, because, see, Protestants wait until the break to go use the restroom.

But a lot of Roman Catholics just go while we're talking because what we have to say is irrelevant anyways. And that's what Robert St. Genes did. You know, he just sort of left while I was talking. I know what these people believe anyways.

I don't need to listen to what they're saying. And so during the break, I was actually going to use the restroom. And I remember going out the side door, and I'm walking down this hallway. And up ahead of me, facing away from me, is the Roman Catholic priest that was very instrumental in arranging this at Boston College.

And then Robert St. Genes is facing toward me. But the Catholic priest, I could give you his name, but won't for the moment, the Catholic priest doesn't know I'm walking up behind him. And I can hear him saying very loudly, Scott does not know how to handle this kind of information.

He's given St. Genes an earful, and he's quite, he's obviously very unhappy about how this debate's going. And I see St. Genes doing this, mind you look, but he can't, you know, he can't get, you know, communicate it overly clearly.

And all of a sudden, the priest turns and sees me, and I just sort of smile as I walk by. And he looks mortified, because he knows I've heard what he's saying. He knows, I know he's upset, I know that he's angry about what's going on.

And that generally is an indication, when you're only halfway through the debate, that things aren't going quite as well as you would hope that they would be going in that particular situation. So anyway, that was, we could do that.

I mean, there are so many of those debates. You know, we could do the Father Pacwa debate in San Diego, and the famous Pacwa hug incident. And, I mean, there's just so much stuff that we could do already that would just be a blast.

So we'll have to think about doing that, because we wouldn't have to pack the cameras up. We wouldn't have to buy an airline ticket. We'd just be able to just right through there. That'd be the way to do it.

That'd be fun. That'd be a lot of fun. Well, anyway, 877 -753 -3341. We're going to take our break while you people blow the phone lines out. This is your opportunity right now. And we'll be right back, right after this.

Calvinism, the Bookstore, and the Church Announcements

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen but Free, A New Cult, Secularism, False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant. In his book, The Potter's Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler,. But The Potter's Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very Gospel itself. In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the Gospel preached by the Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.

The Potter's Freedom, a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at aomin .org. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the Gospel of the grace of 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 aomin .org.

Youth Camp, Calvinism, and the “J.C.” Remark

And welcome back to The Dividing Line, 877 -753 -3341. I cannot verify this, so I will put this under the whole total concept of, it has been reported, a little birdie has told me, someone just sort of mentioned in passing.