May 25, 2006

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. 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 and we had

Tom Askell on and you may want to continue with that. Did get an interesting response to my rather humorous reply to Tim, what is your name?

They call me Tim, 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, the volume six, 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 and 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 and 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 and 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 and 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 to, 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 Hafsah 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 dangerous.

It's almost glossy paper, it's quite a nice textbook. And 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 when we 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 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

Quran 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. Khadi 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? Hey, Dr. White, how are you today? Doing all right. Excellent. Is it getting kind of steamy out there in 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. Did we get 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, yeah, 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 anyways, what can I 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 Coral? 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.

All right. And at any rate, I was introduced to four of them that, well, were quite unusual from my past encounters.

They were very, very zealous about their faith, take their faith very seriously and to the point to where they're willing even to engage in a 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, I'm sorry.

Yeah, from the University of Steubenville, which is where Scott Hahn teaches. And I saw him walk past us, and I saw him sort of grab our literature.

And I saw this look in the eye. I was like, oh, it's sort of like when you throw, what is it, 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 sundry things.

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 were, at first, 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, he says, after,

I don't know, it was about 10, 15 minutes, I said something about soul scripture. I forget what it was now. And he goes, have you ever heard of James White?

And not at all. And I just, I get this smile across my face, stick my hand out and said, 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. He was like, ah. 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.

But anyway. 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 is very, 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 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. I 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, you know, 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 is taking place, that you would have books sitting around?

Well, what happened, we were in Hungry Howies. Hungry Howies. Here in Cape... 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, you know, 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 the issue, particularly starting at page 116. And can

I just read into your hearing just the last... Sure. Okay. They have here, 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, you used to support the papacy, they must appeal to a non -existent, 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, it's interesting 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, that's rule number 27.

That's good. Okay, wow. So, you know, basically, and they actually knew my friend from past occasions here in Lincoln when we 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 was 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, pertaining to the

New Testament as 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.

And my question to you is this. What's he going to present to you? Yeah. 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 name. 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 word that is used by Matthew, 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'll 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? Right, right. 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 could 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. And 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 does, 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, I had to, 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 jealous and he's spitting on me.

And I knew it would have been so funny just to go up and just, you know, 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 key's key situation. You may recall that. Sure, sure, you got 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. It doesn't matter. 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 he's, 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 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.

I mean, 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'd 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. 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 them. 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, quiet, quiet, he's coming up behind you, look.

But he can't, you know, he can't get it, 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.

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. 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.

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, but I would love to find out.

Yes, as a rumor, yes. I would love to find out what the topic for the youth camp at the

First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia, is going to be. Now, you know, it's summertime and I remember going to youth camps from the

North Phoenix Baptist Church. I remember going up to Prescott Pines. You've been to Prescott Pines, haven't you,

Brother Rich? That's just that. That's sort of north of town, isn't it? Yeah, no, south town, south town, south of town.

Yeah, that way. Okay, yeah, thanks. I appreciate that. Beautiful area of Prescott, Arizona, which 30 years ago was unspoiled and now it's filled with New Agers and suburbs.

Well, Sedona's got the biggest New Agers, but even they ran out of space. In Prescott, too. Anyway, we'd go up there and it's beautiful and you'd have a youth camp and you'd have that mountaintop experience and you'd sing the songs and you'd get all spiritual and you'd have the fire and you'd sit around and tell testimonies and cry and things like that.

So anyway, they're going to have a youth camp at Johnny Hunt's church.

And I don't know where it's going to go. They're already sort of out in the woods anyway, but there's going to be a youth camp.

And a little bird landed outside my office window and I could not believe what that little birdie told me.

But I need to confirm what that little birdie said. That little birdie told me that Johnny Hunt's going to be going up to the youth camp.

Now, that has happened. I remember when Richard Jackson went up to the North Phoenix Baptist Church youth camp. So, you know, they'll go up there and they'll do their thing.

And they're not up there the whole week, though, because then they'd have to eat the same food that we ate and things like that.

And that wouldn't be good. Yes, and they'd have to sing,

It Only Takes a Spark to Get a Fire Going. Remember that one? Oh, goodness.

Thanks, Rosie. Appreciate that. And I remember that one.

You sway back and forth and eat your marshmallow. And anyway, now, what do you think?

What do you think Johnny Hunt would be teaching on at a youth camp for the

First Baptist Church? I've seen the First Baptist Church. It's big. It's North Phoenix big. It's a big one.

That little birdie, and that's why we need to check out, because birdies are not necessarily the most trustworthy sources.

But that little birdie told me that the topic was going to be how to deal with Calvinism.

How to deal with Calvinism. Now, when you're meeting with your youth and you're talking about that, then you figure that's a big issue.

I am a C, I am a C -H, I am a... No, I am a

C, I am a C -A, I am a C -A -L -V -I -N -I -S -T. I can just see that poor little kid getting...

He's on the first bus home! That's going to be a soundbite. Somebody's going to grab that and make it a soundbite.

Yes, indeed. There you... See, I told you that fellow was crazy.

He's a crazy Calvinist. Doesn't even follow Jesus. That's right. He thinks J .C. means

John Calvin. No one would ever say that in public, would they? I mean, honestly, no one could possibly ever, ever, ever accuse

Calvinists of saying that they actually believe that J .C. stands for John Calvin rather than Jesus Christ.

I'm playing a sound here. The reason I'm on Liberty Mountain, because I've got fellow faculty, brothers and sisters that have a hunger, because I got 10 ,000 kids running around me that feed that hunger.

We believe that God can reach everyone. We believe that God can reach every nation.

We believe that every person with a breath and a pulse is there because God has put them there so that we can go to them and reach them.

But we won't do it if we allow this infection to take over our churches. We won't do it if we become so in love with this system that J .C.

doesn't stand for Jesus Christ. It stands for John Calvin. We won't ever grow a church with that type of doctrine.

We won't ever reach a world with that type of doctrine. Well, I guess people will say that in a public setting.

They will. I'm going to need to come up with a sign. Okay, what sign are we going to use for sound?

Because I was just sitting here, I was waving my arms and pointing at the computer. If I shake the little thingy here that I've got plugged into the computer, is that going to do it?

I'm not sure what's going to do it. Because for some reason, S -O -U, how do you do

N? That's hard to do. N -D -E -S. If we put a live cam on this, no one would actually believe what goes on in here.

It would be just too odd. Especially now, I think what's different today, aside from the fact that no one wants to talk to me on the phone.

Some weeks, fill the phone lines. Now, nobody wants to call. I have my real desk now.

It's a conference table. It has chairs around it with no one in the chairs, actually. We don't have any lights in here yet.

We need to have a light in here somehow. I'm not sure where it's going to go. We need to have light in here. So we've got two little desk lamps on the thing.

I'm actually facing the way I'm supposed to be facing. I'm facing right toward the window. So I really feel like I'm in a radio studio now.

But I know that you don't like it because I got rid of your little short green chair.

I like those chairs. I can tell you like those chairs. Why do you like those chairs? They're square. Oh, never mind.

Speechless there, Rich? Oh, yeah. Uh -huh. He was going to make a comment there.

But then the steam started coming out from underneath the headphones. And he realized it might be best not to do that one.

What are you going to do? Start playing John Tesh music instead of listening to me?

Oh, well, we have something. Ah, that. Oh, that was me. You left it. That was me that time.

Did you want me to turn that off? Well, as long as we can get you to turn it back on faster than 30 seconds.

What's the signal for turning it off? We're going to have to come up with something, though. We really are.

We're going to have to come up with some kind of set. Do you know? Because this is high in talking to deaf folks.

This is high. So we'll have to come up with that. That's how we do the sound.

Yes. Hey, someone is finally delivering us. See, the other thing is he doesn't have the phone in the right place.

The phone is way off to his right. He can't see it ringing. So the reason we're having problems communicating here is that I see the phone in front of me because I've got a console in here.

And I see it ringing, and he's just staring at me. So I start putting my finger up. Line one. Line two. Something like that.

So he thinks I'm talking about the phone. So as soon as I make a gesture, he stops looking at me and looks at the phone. Instead, I'm trying to say, sound.

Turn the sound on so I can play a sound. And we need to get that fixed. And he knows that. He knows that that needs to go up to where it's in line of sight.

So little flashing lights like two is flashing right now. And I'm just making sure he knows that two.

But I'm holding up two twos. It does not mean four is flashing. It's two is flashing, just so you know someone else is calling him.

So anyway, that was the story with all of that. Oh, I need to turn off.

I'm just going to unplug this so it doesn't... I hope this... There. It's gone. So that the...

I just got new mail. And isn't it wonderful? It's spam. I got spam and the whole thing got interrupted by spam.

Isn't that good? All right. A lot of people now are recognizing. Isn't this lovely?

We have 15 minutes left. We have three callers online now. We've been having...

The lines were open for the past 20 minutes. Oh, well, let's go to California. And hello,

California. Is this... I don't... I won't even try to pronounce your first name. How do you pronounce it? My name is

Onik. Onik. Hi, how are you doing, Onik? Doing all right. What can we do for you? I've got a question regarding the position of superlapsarian or infralapsarian.

And I personally was held to this superlapsarian position for a while. But just reading through the

Bible a few times, I've never seen a passage where it talks about one being predestined to eternal damnation.

The word itself, predestined, I'm not sure what the Greek term is, is or was never used for that reference.

Well, obviously, the whole discussion of superlapsarianism and infralapsarianism is a extra biblical discussion, to be quite honest with you.

It is a discussion that has only a certain limited amount of usefulness to it.

And the reason I say that is it is, in essence, a discussion of the logical order of God's decrees and the elements of those decrees.

And temporal beings attempting to put that level of specificity on what takes place in eternity is not the easiest thing in the world to do.

For those who are not familiar with these, I just posted in our chat channel the classic infralapsarian view is, number one, the decree to create the world and all men, number two, the decree that all men would fall, number three, the election of some fallen men to salvation in Christ and the reprobation of others, number four, the decree to redeem the elect by the cross work of Christ, and number five, the decree to apply

Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect. The classic superlapsarian view, the election of some men to salvation in Christ and the reprobation of the others, number two, the decree to create the world and both kinds of men, number three, the decree that all men would fall, number four, the decree to redeem the elect who are now sinners by the cross work of Christ, number five, the decree to apply

Christ's redemptive benefits to these elect sinners. Now, a person can tell fairly easily what the difference between those two is in the order of the decrees.

And it would seem the infralapsarian makes more sense in the sense that it is focused upon what we would see looking backwards through time.

But again, the problem is, again, the whole problem of this whole discussion is we are attempting to understand the thought order in God, and I'm not certain that we as temporal creatures, even if we were highly exalted temporal creatures, would be able to do that.

Dr. Robert Raymond has suggested, I think, a modified viewpoint that makes sense to me.

Because his emphasis, and I don't know if you have his systematic theology, but it would be one you might want to look at in a library or obtain it for yourself, or it's available in electronic format as well.

His emphasis is upon the working out of the purpose of God, that the purpose of God determines every element of this.

And so his modified view would be, number one, the election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ, and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the elect.

Number two, the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners. Number three, the decree to redeem the elect sinners by the crosswork of Christ.

Number four, the decree that man should follow. Number five, the decree to create the world in men. So he puts it in the focus of what

God is accomplishing in Christ Jesus first and foremost. Now, your question, at least the statement that you made, now that I've explained what those views are, the term predestination election,

I wouldn't expect to be found in the reprobation or negative concept of that, because the fact that, as I understand it, especially election itself, but I think probably the way you're using it, predestination as well, is an exercise of mercy and grace, and reprobation is neither of those.

God doesn't have to do anything to cause someone to love their sin. The fallen children of Adam following their federal head will do that naturally.

There's nothing that has to take place. I mean, when you think about all the vivid examples that Scripture uses to describe regeneration and the rebirth, the change of man's nature, none of that has to take place for reprobation.

It's not like you have a morally neutral man, and then God pushes in one direction or another.

That just isn't even a logical category, let alone a biblical category.

So, no, you're not going to find those terms predestination used in that way.

What you are going to find is, in Romans chapter 9, you're going to find one lump and the potter's freedom in determining what to do with that one lump.

If there is a biblical foundation for even attempting to discern these things, that it would be

Romans 9, Ephesians 1, those texts that at least make no bones about the fact that they're talking about something eternal.

They even make the reference that they are talking about something eternal. They take us out of the temple into that realm and then discuss what

God has done along those lines. So, I think that modified statement from Raymond makes a lot of sense.

I'd recommend not just a one -time -through, but a multiple -time -through reading of that section because it's not easy.

Let's face it, most evangelicals today are not really accustomed to having to commit a tremendous amount of concentration and discussion of things like eternity and decrees and eternity, and so it's really easy for us to turn those things off and go another direction.

But I would highly recommend Raymond's discussion of that because I found it very, very useful myself. And that's

R -E -Y -M -O -N -D? Robert Raymond, R -E -Y -M -O -N -D,

A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, published by Thomas Nelson. Alrighty? Appreciate it.

Okay, thank you. God bless. Bye -bye. Let's talk to John. Hello, John. Yes.

How are you, sir? I am fine. What can we do for you? Well, I had a question. I was reading your last blog on...

What was it? Kim Guthrie? Kim Guthrie, yes. Yeah, I mean, it's kind of interesting.

I'm going to have to read back the thesis statement you were... Yeah, go back to the discussion of the

Canner correspondence, and you'll see that one of the primary issues that is currently up in the air about the

October 16th debate is the fact that the Canners are insisting upon a thesis statement that I suggest is not actually even written in proper

English grammar and syntax and could be just as easily defended by Unitarian Universalists as by the

Canners. And so we're just simply seeking a thesis statement that makes some sense.

And so Mr. Guthrie wrote through the website and basically said, well, that thesis statement is so clear and so obvious that my 13 -year -old could explain it.

And I haven't yet gotten the 13 -year -old's explanation, but I'm looking forward to it because... I'm sorry,

I don't... Obviously, I was trying to be humorous in my response, and that's where the mouse, the helmet came from.

But still trying to make a point in the process, and that is that if anybody reads the

Canner correspondence, the idea that we are somehow trying to trap people and things like that just doesn't make any sense.

Well, the general point I read about just the thesis statement was just really,

I want to say really straightforward, but like you said, it could be defended by anybody. I mean, that's the problem.

Yeah, you need to have a thesis statement that has a sufficient amount of clarity to allow the people in the audience to understand what it is the two sides are attempting to accomplish and whether they have, in fact, managed to accomplish what they're supposed to be doing in the debate.

And if we can't have that, all I'm going to do, and I've said this on the program, all

I'm going to do is I'm going to get up and I'm going to say, all right, the thesis statement is

X, Y, and Z, and you don't know what that means, and I don't know what that means, and no one else is going to be able to explain to you what that means.

And therefore, and in fact, I looked it up for you, here's the thesis statement that they are promoting.

That God is an omnibenevolent God to all of humanity through salvation and opportunity.

That God is an omnibenevolent God to all of humanity through salvation and opportunity. And my proposed thesis statement in response was,

God seeks to save every person equally and without distinction. Now, which one of those two is easier to understand?

I would say yours seemed to be a little bit easier to understand. Well, not only that, omnibenevolent to all of humanity.

Omnibenevolent is not a verb, and so omnibenevolent to all of humanity doesn't make any sense.

And then through salvation and opportunity, through salvation and opportunity, you've got a noun to all of humanity, and then through assumes another verbal concept that isn't even expressed.

I mean, there's all these issues, and I've just been asking for some clarity, just been asking for some honesty in dealing with this, and evidently,

I'm just waiting for an explanation from this 13 -year -old as to what this is all about.

So that's what I was talking about in that. Yeah. Well, another thing that got me was when

I was reading down, you said how many times have I pointed out that God has to exercise grace to elect someone unto salvation, but he doesn't have to expend any energy at all to justly condemn those in Adam.

Mm -hmm. I mean, this might be a nice jump, but I mean, what does it mean by justly condemn those in Adam?

Romans chapter 5 presents to us two humanities, those who are in Adam and those who are in Christ.

Those who remain in Adam and only have what Adam can give them receive condemnation, because he is their federal representative, falls in the garden, and they receive from him that fallen nature and the result of that sin, which is death.

A person who is in Christ receives from him eternal life. So does that help you understand?

Yeah, okay, okay. Now I understand that, because I mean, I don't know why that just, you know, I was reading along there and then boom.

Yeah. Yeah, well, it's just a way of... Yeah, Romans chapter 5 is what we're talking about there.

All right? Okay. All right. Thanks a lot. Yeah, thank you too. All right, God bless. I'll call you sooner next time you have the phone.

All right, thanks a lot. Yeah, bye. Bye -bye. And one more real quick here. David, how are you doing,

David? Hey, Dr. Mike. Were you concerned that I was gonna start singing, like, John Denver songs or something? No, that wasn't the concern, sorry.

Oh, but would that concern you if I did? Oh, I don't know. I have other concerns that are occupying my mind at the moment.

Okay, what's up? Well, a few things. Based on some of the conversation that I've been posting in chat and all that other stuff,

I was curious about your Pulpit Crowns book and some of the things that you're dealing with and the misusing of the pulpit, misrepresenting

God's Word, among other things. Do you prescribe anything to do, like what a person in the congregation might be able to do with actions possibly to take if his or her pastor is embarking upon said crimes?

Yeah, that's gonna be one of the toughest things to deal with because it is, especially as an elder myself, it is easy to recognize that one of the most common meals on Sunday afternoon is fried pastor and fried elders, and so it's very easy for people to get to sort of wrapped up in the flesh, shall we say, and because of personal issues, hide personal problems behind alleged theological issues.

That very, very frequently has been what I have seen take place in various churches. But what does a person, if a person has very seriously examined what's going on in their church and they have spoken with the elders, if the elders or if there's even elders,

I mean, let's face it, in a lot of church situations, I was in a church situation once where I couldn't have spoken to any elders because there weren't any elders to speak to.

There was an unbiblical form of church government that existed there. Not even a pastor?

Well, there was a pastor and you had pastors, you had a pastor, then you had a quote -unquote staff, and you had deacons.

You didn't have elders. You didn't have anyone who could hold the pastor to any level of accountability. It was a monarchy, an utter monarchy, and there was no way whatsoever that there was any parity or anything like that.

And besides that, you would never get to the big pastor in a church as 21 ,000 members.

And so that person just was beyond your ability to communicate with that person anyway.

So what do you do in that type of a situation? I do know the pastor in this case.

Yeah. Well, if you have the opportunity of communication, then you seek to find out just what the level of commitment to a biblical theology is.

I don't know the exact extent of what the pulpit crimes would be, but it is very difficult, especially for people in whose lives the

Lord ignites a fire for his truth, to be in a situation where the pastoral staff is much more concerned about keeping peace and about the number of people in Sunday school rather than what's coming forth from the pulpit.

And that can be exceptionally frustrating. And in the vast majority of instances that I know of, those individuals eventually had to, out of a desire for consistency and simply the continuation of their own spiritual life, find a like -minded fellowship that was frequently farther from home and smaller than where they found themselves initially.

I know that's what happened to me. It did not happen overnight. I did not simply run out the door.

I think leaving a local New Testament church is a very major decision, and it should not be taken lightly.

But especially for me, I had to have consistency. I could not continue every

Sunday morning trying to teach in a Sunday school class, wondering whether what I was saying was going to be contradicted by what the sermon was about or whether it was going to be confirmed.

And sometimes it would go both directions. That's what was driving me right up the wall. And so it is something that has to be taken exceptionally seriously.

It has to be something that is going to take time. There has to be dialogue and communication. And a very serious self -examination.

What are my motives? And if a person can honestly say, I've gone to the Word of God. I know what my motives are.

Here's the situation. It's been long -term. There's no indication that there is going to be any improvement in this.

In fact, it seems to be indications could go the other direction. That's when I think only after doing all that that a person starts looking at going elsewhere and seeking to serve the

Lord in another fellowship. But it's something that has to be done very, very seriously. And since we're already 29 seconds over the entire time of the program, maybe it's something we can discuss a little bit more in depth in another call and maybe in channel as well.

All righty? Thanks, Doc. Okay. All right. Thanks a lot. God bless. All righty. Thanks for listening to The Dividing Line today.

Went a little bit over there, but we want to get all our callers in. And you know what? There's no network picking us up, so who cares? We can do that if we want to.

That's the wonderful thing about the webcast. Thanks for listening. Not going to be here next

Tuesday. No, I'll be landing back in Phoenix about this time next Tuesday.

So, oh, and I'm not here Thursday either. So maybe we'll try to sneak one in on Wednesday if we can.

Keep the natives happy. Something along those lines. We'll blog it, let you know. Talk to you later. God bless. We need a new

Reformation Day. Brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org. That's a -o -m -i -n -dot -o -r -g where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.