Debates and Open Phones

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. And welcome to another jumbo edition of the Dividing Line, 90 minutes today at the top of the hour, we will open up the phones for your phone calls, haven't taken calls in quite some time.

So if you want to comment on what has been said, maybe if you're that Muslim with whom

I had the Twitter debate this morning before I went on my ride in the dark of the morning, whatever, 877 -753 -3341 is the number you will wish to call then at the top of the hour.

But first, first half hour, we will continue with the Fernandez Comas debate on Calvinism, on the five points of Calvinism.

And second half hour, we will dive into the Roger Perkins, Matt Slick debate on oneness in preparation for also listening to the two day debate.

I'm not sure if we'll do the second day, I think we might, we'll see how much time we have between now and when

I head down to Brisbane for that debate as well. So 90 minutes, the phones will be open in an hour from now, and we'll take your phone calls then at 877 -753 -3341.

Very quickly, before we get back into the Fernandez Comas debate, James Anderson wrote an article.

I forgot to bring it up on my screen, I apologize for that. I've kept it up in Chrome now for three or four days,

I'll just transfer it over and I never got around to it. But basically, he was taking exception to my stating that he was a

Roger Perkins student. I apologize for that. That's where my recollection of what was said in the chat channel when

I was given the URLs to the various debates I listened to, and I was also, since that person provided me with that information, and I also heard that James Anderson was involved in that debate with Mr.

Reeves as a moderator, and as a UPC minister, then I just sort of put it all together. He says he's not the student, maybe the term is protege, but evidently that's not the case either.

I certainly have never heard Roger Perkins utilizing Jimmy Dunn as a source.

And personally, from my perspective, I sort of wonder what the result, the long -term result will be of Oneness Pentecostalism being exposed to the kind of higher criticism that Jimmy Dunn practices.

I just don't see how the two can fit together for any lengthy period of time. But anyways, that's another issue.

We might get into that at some time in the future. I don't know. But he wanted to correct that in regards to the topic of his relationship with Roger Perkins.

According to what I heard today on my ride, I was listening to him introducing

Mr. Perkins for the second day of that debate with Mr. Reeves. And in his introduction, he said that Mr.

Perkins is a moderator of one of the forums on his own website. So I know there's a close relationship.

I just find their arguments to be very, very different from one another and their positions to be different as well on a number of issues.

But we'll get into that. And so I wanted to make that correction. There was one other item.

Oh, I did want to mention one other thing. I was listening again to the debate between Roger Perkins and Mr.

Reeves, Brett Reeves, I believe is the name, the Church of Christ minister. And I listened to an entire rebuttal period at one point today.

Well, I listened to most of the entire day. So obviously, I'd hear a whole rebuttal period. But I was thinking to myself, you know,

I don't know that I would have said anything differently than what Mr. Reeves said here. I might have chosen a couple different texts, you know, a few things like that.

But I was very impressed with Mr. Reeves' self -control.

There were a lot of places where he would have been, I think, well -grounded to have – let's just say

Mr. Perkins threw a lot of fire on the flames, a lot of gas on the flames, shall we say.

And he remained quite calm. There were a couple times, and I'm going to really suggest to Mr. Perkins don't even bother with this with me, where you could tell he was trying to get

Mr. Reeves to start talking during Mr. Perkins' part. That's not what a debate's about. You don't do that. Why don't you look over here?

Why don't you answer? No, you don't do that. I've had a few people do it like that. Trust me, I know how to make that backfire on you very, very badly.

He was doing that to Mr. Reeves. Mr. Reeves did not give in to that. So the reason I mention all of this is

Church of Christ folks love to have – I think this was a four -day debate. I only heard

Monday and Tuesday. I don't know what the rest of it was on. They love to have these long, every night –

I don't know what to do during the day, but there's big, long debates. And I'm thinking, you know, here's a guy – and during the

Tuesday debate, it was mentioned that – in fact, Mr. Perkins says, in your debates against Calvinists, you know that all means all, and he was making some point about all.

And so a thought crossed my mind today. You know, I think it would be a really good idea if sometime in the future we –

I've never debated Church of Christ guy on the doctrines of grace. And if we could do, you know, like a three -night debate or something like that, we could actually cover a fairly lengthy –

I did debate one guy, but it was only one night, and it was only on the subject of election, but not on the doctrines of grace.

You know, do particular redemption, do the sovereignty of God, do perseverance of saints, you know, something like that, or divide it up so at least we could cover the majority of the issue.

Yeah, Paul Barber, that was just on election. It was a brief one for one night, and I was coughing my head off the whole time, too, as I recall.

So I was real sick on that trip. Number 488. Thank you very much, Rich. How many times can you put that on the screen for me?

488 is the order number at Haleman .org. We're going to debate with Paul Barber.

So we'll have to figure out maybe if – we've got a lot of people listening to this program anymore, and maybe someone who knows

Mr. Reeves can contact him and drop us a note and see if we can arrange something. I think he was down in Texas or something like that down there.

At least I go down to Texas, I can go shooting during the day and have myself some fun. It's not like going to Spokane, Washington or something like that.

It would be a little bit different. Okay. We've taken about five minutes off of our time here. Maybe we'll just tack that on to the – because that was all about the one -nose thing anyways.

We'll just sort of shift it over there. First debate to get to, the Fernandez -Comas debate, most recent one.

I need to find out when that other debate took place. I would like to know. Maybe someone could

Google that. Since you came up with his name, if you could find out when that debate with Roger Perkins took place between Mr.

Reeves and Roger Perkins, that would be interesting to know as well. There wasn't a date on the URL that I saw.

But this was just last month or a month before that. The Fernandez -Comas debate, we've picked back up. We're listening to Brother Fernandez in his opening.

He had just been saying that you can't tell anybody that God loves them, and we were again pointing out that our

Arminian friends tend to miss the distinctions that we recognize in the subject of God's love, the different kinds of love that God has, just as human beings have different kinds of love.

How do we get that ability? Because it reflects our Creator. I remember last week I had asked the question, if you don't think

God has distinctions of love, if you think that he has only one kind of love for every single creature, not only do you have the idea that God is going to be eternally bummed for eternity – yes, they debated twice.

Actually, there were supposed to be two other days. Oh, two different separate debates? Okay. Anyways, but you also would have to explain such things as how there was a disciple whom

Jesus loved. A disciple whom Jesus loved. Well, he loved all the disciples.

Yeah, but what then does that mean, the disciple whom Jesus loved? That would have to mean he didn't love the others.

So February of this year. That wasn't all that long ago. Okay. That's good to know. Nature of the Godhead, February of this year.

So thank you. That's very up -to -date, and so that also helps. I knew it was after the

Matt Slick debate, because he mentioned that. In fact, interestingly today, Roger Perkins said to him, I know you've been listening to that James White debate, too.

I'm like, well, I'm glad to have been of some service somewhere along the line. All right, let's jump back into the

Fernandez -Comas debate. If Calvinism is true, we do not know this. The Bible clearly teaches that God loves all mankind.

John 3, 16 -18, Matthew 5. Now let me stop right there. Loves all mankind.

Okay. In what way? Is the love shown for John the disciple the same as the love shown for the high priest of one of the various religious cults of the

Amorites, to whom no prophets were ever sent, and who were wiped out by the

Israelites, man, woman, child, and beast? I think that's a fair question.

Do we describe that as the same love? Now, if that high priest of that cult was allowed to live life and to experience happiness and joy, then he has received something from God's hand, but it's not the same kind of love as John the apostle experienced, is it?

I think we just—you know, the subject of the love of God. Remember when Peter Lumpkins posted that edited video where he had to change my words to try to come up with an argument?

Remember that one? And remember what I had actually said in that video?

Was that the love of God is a dangerous subject. It's dangerous because people have such traditions, and they rarely have much of a biblical foundation, have rarely been challenged to even think through the nature of the love of God.

And if you don't get challenged to do that, then it's real easy to poke holes in your views, because all you've got to do is look at the reality of the world around us.

This idea of a monochrome love of God that has no distinctions, no differences, just simply can't stand up to examination, and I would think especially for Dr.

Fernandez, who is an apologist, that's not something you want to do. He desires that all be saved, 2

Peter 3 .9. So here we have the big three, or at least part of the big three, 2

Peter 3 .9. We will not get any exegesis. We will not have any response to the exegesis that I've offered in The Potter's Freedom and have repeated in this program over and over again.

If you want to disagree with the exegesis, that is your right.

But once you understand that Peter, for example, is distinguishing between the people he's addressing and others, and it's you he's addressing, he's identified his audience, he's spoken of them, they, he's not talking about them, he's made a distinction.

Once you know that and you follow the pronouns, then you have an antecedent for all and any, not wishing that any, any of who?

Any of you, which has been distinguished from others. So you can't turn into universalist perspective, but if you're going to, then you have to answer the objections that are raised by the exegesis that has been offered.

Just simply citing passages and saying, this passage teaches this and though there's counter exegesis,

I will not deal with it and I will not even explain to you why I think that exegesis is wrong.

I will not give you counter exegesis. That's not debating. That's not argumentation. That's not how these issues need to be addressed.

And so you can say, well, I just never heard any other interpretation. Well, okay.

What does that tell you? These issues need to be dealt with. And the exegesis that has been offered, it's there.

You can't just simply say, well, I'm not sure. No, I haven't turned it on yet. I'm going to do that only for the phone calls.

I'm not sure that, you know, that might lead to this or that. That's not responding to exegesis.

I do not believe I have in any way, shape or form been unfair with the context of Peter.

And every time I hear somebody using that text, otherwise I ask, where's their exegesis?

Where is their contextual discussion of the pronouns? Where is their contextual discussion of the audience to which

Peter is right? I don't find it. I just see the text cited. And, oh, there it is.

And that's what it means. And that's not how you do exegesis. First Timothy 2, 1 to 6.

First Timothy 2, 1 to 6. This is going to come up a little bit later on again, and so maybe we'll zero in on it.

But once again, what is the text talking about? It is talking about the work of Jesus Christ.

He's the one mediator between God and man. It's talking about kinds of men. In fact, the thing is, and since he just quotes it here quickly,

I'm going to wait until he gets it a little bit more deeply. He will recognize that it's talking about kings and those in authority.

There's the kinds of men. It's right there. Types of men. You're supposed to pray for all types of men. But how you jump from that to every single human being who has ever lived, that God has a salvific desire that is the equivalent of his decree to save, and it's for every single person, for the high priest, the

Amorite cult, as well as for John the Apostle, they're equal. How do you get there from that?

And what you're left with, if that's the case, is that Jesus Christ intercedes for all men as well.

Every single human being. Jesus Christ is pleading his blood before the Father, and now you have a disruption in the

Godhead. Now you have God, the Father, not decreeing to save those that the God, the Son, wants to save.

Or you can get even worse, if you want, and say that, well, actually it's not a disruption in the

Godhead. Jesus is interceding for all those people. He does provide the perfect grounds for salvation, but it's not up to God whether they're saved or not.

The Father will try, the Son has provided the perfect foundation, the Spirit will come and bring conviction of sin, but it's not up to the triune

God. Every person in the Godhead can fail in their deepest desires, all because of the almighty will of man.

I mean, if that's where you want to go, that's where you've got to go. Luke 19, 10.

Scripture declares that Jesus died for all mankind. John 1, 20. So here again, this was one of the things that really bothered me about the format of this debate, is when you make it so wide, all you can really do is say, here's my point, here are some verses,

I can't exegete any of them, I'm just going to throw them out there, and you have to decide on your own whether these verses actually substantiate what

I'm saying or not. In a sense, this is the fault of the organizers, or those that agreed to do it, this is just way too broad a topic for this time frame, because that's all you end up being able to do.

Here's my point, here's my verses, and is there any need for that? I mean, seriously, aren't there enough books that do that?

Aren't there enough websites out there? I mean, if you just want lists of verses, that one's easy. It's actually demonstrating that the texts substantiate what you're saying.

That takes a little bit more work. That takes a little bit more work, indeed. You know,

I didn't get that previous verse, so... Let's go a little bit farther back than that.

All right, let's at least get that first verse. We do not know if they are of the elect.

In fact, since Jesus has no intention of saving the non -elect, if Calvinism is true, it is misleading to even tell people that God loves them.

If Calvinism is true, we do not know this. The Bible, 2

Peter 3 .9, 1 Timothy 2 .1 -6, Luke 19 .10.

Scripture declares that Jesus died for all mankind, John 1 .29. All right, let's at least take the time to slow these things down, and let's just point out that just quoting verses doesn't necessarily mean anything.

John 1 .29, The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, Behold, Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

All right, how do we understand that? Evidently, Dr. Fernandez thinks, well, there it is.

Jesus has taken away the sin of the world. Okay, why is anybody condemned? Well, unbelief. Unbelief is not a sin.

Either he's taken away the sin of the world, and world here means every single human being, or he hasn't.

Which is it? Is it a perpetuatory sacrifice? What does perpetuation mean? Perpetuation means the sacrifice that takes away the guilt and the reason for the wrath of God.

It is a full sacrifice. So, if he is the perpetuation, the sins of every single human being that has ever lived, if you absolutely insist that in the biblical mindset, there is a modern, western, universal individualism, which

I don't believe you could ever substantiate, but that's the assumption. Well, all means all, and that's all all means.

So when all of Jerusalem went out to see Jesus, there wasn't anybody left. Even the doggies and the kitties came out to see Jesus. I'm sorry, it's just not how the people thought.

You can just find so many examples of where all and every in the

New Testament doesn't mean what we moderns mean by that of every single human being in a given place or given time or anything else.

It's just obvious. But if you're going to assume that, then you have to go all the way with it.

And so, they look at a text. We just heard John 1, 29. Behold the

Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Then that means every single human being's sin has been dealt with.

And what then is the ground of their condemnation? That means the Father caused the wrath that is due to that Amorite high priest who's already dead and under his wrath in hell.

Well, not in hell, in Hades. That Amorite priest has been gone forever. If all the world means all the world, then the wrath that is due him, he put on Jesus knowing full well that he was wasting that substitution because the man can no longer repent.

So, is that what's being said? That everyone already dead because aren't they a part of the world?

Or do we just, they don't get this extra kind of, you know, if it's this peanut butter love and everybody gets loved equally, then what about the people before Jesus?

Did Jesus die for them? Or they have no chance at all? How does that work?

I don't know how Dr. Fernandez is going to answer that. Maybe we'll get a chance to ask him sometime.

But the point is, that man, that high priest, we keep using him.

He seems to be a good example today. Amorite high priest who dies on an

Israelite sword as Moses comes into the land. Okay? Well, actually as Joshua comes into the land.

And God has, do we really understand that God has placed the wrath that is due him, even though he's been experiencing that wrath for 1 ,200 years, at least somewhere around there.

He's placed the wrath due to that man's sins, which are many and manifold, on Jesus, knowing full well that the man never repented.

Why would he do that? I suppose this would open up a consistent understanding of that perspective.

Charlie Horse. A consistent understanding. Got a little farther away from the microphone there, because you're stretching that leg out. I don't want to scream.

I don't want to scream. I had to rush a little bit after the ride today to get in on time, so I didn't get to stretch quite as well, so we're going to stretch that leg now.

Sorry about that. So this is what has led, honestly, consistently, to the concept of post -mortem evangelization.

And if you don't think that's popular, do I just simply need to remember the name Rob Bell?

Yeah, unfortunately that's out there too. And there are other people promoting the same thing. Clark Pinnock was a big one on post -mortem evangelization.

So how does all this work? Is that what we are to believe? Now, I look at John 1, 29, and I do not have to in any way, shape, or form argue with the context or anything else.

Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. What's the world? Jews and Gentiles. Anybody in this world,

Jew or Gentile, who turns to Jesus Christ in faith and repentance will find him to be the perfect sin bearer.

And so we can go into all the world. I can go to Sydney and Brisbane and Germany and I was just down a few months ago in Lima, Peru and places like that, and I can say to anyone anywhere,

Repent and believe in Jesus Christ. But it does not follow that I then have to redefine propitiation.

I have to ignore what Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 say about the specific application and the resultant perfection of those for whom

Christ died. I don't have to do anything. I can take everything the Bible has to say. And so when you hear these rapid -fire lists, you have to keep in mind, boy, you know if we went to each one of those.

And at least when I am forced by time constraints in a debate to have to go into sort of a more surface -level mode, which

I don't like to do, but sometimes you're just stuck with it. At least when I list verses, and I know what the counter -exegesis is,

I will try to present in such a way as to at least acknowledge the counter -exegesis and provide at least some kind of response to it.

It is very rare that I hear my Arminian friends even make that attempt.

Second Peter 2 .1 there, Jesus even bought and paid the price for the false teachers who are obviously not elect.

For Second Peter 2 .1, we have discussed a number of times on the program. And once again,

I don't get the feeling that Brother Fernandez is aware of the counter -exegesis to the text, but I would just simply, in passing, ask him, when you say bought, why is this the one place in the

New Testament where no price is mentioned if this is the redeeming work of Christ? Are you sure that Agorazo here is meant in that way?

And when it says despotese there, why is despotese used instead of kurios? If we're talking about Christ here, what's the difference between the two meanings?

What's the relationship to this, to Deuteronomy chapter 32? Again, entire discussion of this in the appendix of the

Potter's Freedom. But it's this kind of, just throw the verse out there, assume a interpretation, do not respond to other interpretations that are exegetically derived, just throw it out there.

That, unfortunately, like I said, it's part of the problem of this kind of format for the debate.

Jesus paid the price for them. Also, other passages that teach that Jesus died for all mankind, 2

Corinthians 5, 15, and 19. And when you don't read them, you know, all people can do is write these down and wonder, well, what did you mean by that?

And, obviously, the question would be, what do you believe the death of Christ, what was its intention, and what is the mechanism by which it accomplishes its intention?

You know, I just, this past Sunday, preached the end of Hebrews 9, the beginning of Hebrews 10.

And it is just so clear that the reason for the manifestation of the

Son of God at the very climax of history was to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. To put it away, to deal with it.

Not on a hypothetical level. Not on a, well, you know, if you do this, then this.

No, this is the whole purpose. 2 Corinthians 5 was just cited as evidence for a universal concept of the atonement.

The love of Christ compels us or controls us, senecae, because we have concluded this, that one has died for all, therefore all have died, and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Okay? So, that sounds like, is that something that the

Amorite high priest could say under Moses? Seriously?

I mean, honestly? Does the love, the us, the love of Christ controls us.

Who is that? Is that the Buddhist? Is that the secular atheist?

The love of Christ controls us? Really? That's the us, isn't it? Because we have concluded this, that one has died for all.

Why isn't it all of us? I mean, why just, well, that's every single human being who's ever lived.

Therefore all have died. Really? Isn't it the Christian confession that we have died with Christ?

Have all people died with Christ? Will people be able to stand on the parapets of hell and say,

Ha! You tried to save me. I died with Christ.

I've emptied the cross of its effectiveness. I'm here in hell. I've undone the work of Christ.

Is that what they'll be able to do? I don't believe so. I don't believe so.

There was a specific people who were united with Jesus Christ and the result of their union with Christ is his death becomes their death, his burial becomes their, his resurrection, their resurrection.

Who is that? Is that everybody? Really? Every single human being, ever lived or ever will live, was united with Christ in his death.

That certainly makes a mishmash out of Romans chapter 5. You no longer have two humanities, but they're co -extensive.

This is the very essence and foundation of universalism, but Dr. Fernandez isn't a universalist.

But why not? Is the question. And he died for all, that those who live, well, who's alive?

Isn't it those who've been made alive in Christ? Those who've been raised to spiritual life? But isn't that the result of regeneration?

So this couldn't be talking about unregenerate individuals, could it? Those who are not going to experience that in their life?

That they should no longer live for themselves, but for him who for their sake died and was raised. I actually think 2

Corinthians 5, 14 through 15, is a very good argument for particular redemption, not for universal redemption.

In the same way, 2 Corinthians 5, 19, that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us a message of reconciliation.

So if, again, you take world here as every single human being, individually speaking, then there is no counting of their trespasses against them.

So why is anyone condemned? Remember, unbelief is sin. So this would seem to mean that God, God's wrath would no longer have any basis to fall upon all of humanity, because all of humanity has already been forgiven.

By the way, could I mention something sort of in passing that's actually relevant to the next upcoming debate?

And we will mention it then, but just in passing, you will hear Roger Perkins more than once cite this text.

God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. ὁσχὰτὴ θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστὸ Κασμὸν κατὰ Λασσον ἐαυτῷ.

And every time that he cites it, he looks at the phrase ἐν Χριστὸ, in Christ, as what's called a locative.

Now, in the Greek language, you have five morphological cases, eight conceptual cases.

So sometimes you'll teach people what's called the five -case system, sometimes the eight -case system, but morphologically speaking, there are five cases, the nominative, the genitive, the dative, the accusative, and the evocative.

Each indicates a different function. Now, I learned the eight -case, so I had a nominative, genitive, ablative, locative, instrumental, dative, accusative, and evocative.

So Mr. Perkins understands ἐν Χριστὸ, which is the dative, in a locative sphere, that is, that God the

Father, as a divine person, was in the Messiah, in Jesus, reconciling the world to Himself.

I don't think that's an even slightly natural reading of the text. It may be common for English readers to take it that way, because ἐν for us frequently has that locative sense, but if, again, and this is where actually reading the language and reading it in general, outside of only those texts that are under dispute, is of tremendous assistance.

And what I mean by that is you would encounter the word ἐν, in, in numerous other contexts that would not be translated as ἐν in English.

Ἐn with the dative is, very frequently, the instrumental, by means of.

And so, I believe the best way to understand verse 19 is that God was, by means of Christ, reconciling the world unto

Himself. Ἐν Χριστό, by means, instrumental. I remember, I'll never forget this.

Small divergence here, but I like diverging, everyone's wrong. And we'll make this the end of our divergence.

Didn't get very far, in the, sorry about that, but, anyway. I had the privilege of taking one class with Dr.

J. Niles Puckett. Dr. J. Niles Puckett taught Greek at Grand Canyon College.

Well, let's just put it this way. Puckett was the direct student of William Hersey Davis. And William Hersey Davis is a direct student of A .T.

Robertson. And I learned using Davis' grammar. It's not nearly as friendly as the grammar of Mounce, but that's, you know,

I'm old. Dr. Puckett had taught generations of young students the

Greek language. And he was an adult Sunday school teacher while I was an adult Sunday school teacher at a very large

Southern Baptist church here in the Phoenix area back when I was well, much younger.

And one morning we had both finished teaching our adult sessions and they had broken up into groups. And I was just walking down the hall to get a drink and Dr.

Puckett saw me and he approached me. And he said, now remember, he's from Mississippi and he had a very thick

Mississippi accent, still had it, just a wonderful man, just a Southern gentleman.

And he comes up to me and says, may I ask you a question? Now that's scary. When J. Niles Puckett walks up to you and then he says, it's about the

Greek. Now, okay, I'm about ready to faint. Okay? Because, I mean, this guy studied under William Hersey Davis who studied under A .T.

Robertson. He was the one who taught my professor, Mike Baird. Okay? So it is time for a pop quiz.

Here comes the pop quiz. And he says, how do you take in Christo in 2

Corinthians 5? And I said, well, sir, I think that would best be understood syntactically as an instrumental use of N.

God was by means of Christ reconciling the world unto himself. He goes, that's how I take it.

Thank you very much. He was just such a wonderful gentleman. In fact, I think it's actually named the school after him now, the

J. Niles Puckett School of Christian Studies or something like that. I don't remember. But anyway,

I have never heard Roger Perkins even acknowledge the possibility.

He just said, it's just plain language, plain language. Well, you know, there are things in the Bible that are expressed in very plain language, but you need to make sure that it's like the language in which it was originally written because very often our traditions are couched in our

English language understanding and we reflect our English language understanding back onto the original language.

And I catch myself doing that all the time. And I would highly recommend to Roger Perkins that he do that.

In fact, we're going to switch over to the Roger Perkins one. Sorry, I didn't get very far on the Fernandez Comas thing there.

In fact, I think I got about 53 seconds at this rate.

Oh, it's good. We're going to have to do a lot more jumbo DLs if we're ever going to catch up on this one, especially if we have open phones, which we will open the phones and lines up in 25 minutes for those of you who are just itching to get in.

25 minutes from now, we will get to that. But I do have the oneness debate queued up here and the sound quality is not nearly as good.

And I'm not sure why, because there's a couple times when all of a sudden the sound quality pops in really good and then it goes back to house sound.

And I'm going to have to ask Matt Slick, and I'm not sure if anyone's told Matt that I'm reviewing this, but I'm going to have to ask

Matt, what happened to the sound? Because it's not nearly as good as what we were just listening to.

But I was listening, and I'm not sure if we're going to get to it, but I was listening,

I think it was this morning, and I... No, it was yesterday.

It was yesterday. I listened to Roger Perkins, and he was using the text in Isaiah 9, which we will look at very carefully.

And this is a perfect example of what I mean by taking your English language traditions and forcing them onto the original language.

He was... Oneness advocates look at the word, and it's a single word here, avyad.

You have Pele Yoetz, wonderful counselor, El Gabor, mighty

God. And then you have avyad, and then Sar Shalom. Avyad is normally translated everlasting father.

And they assume this is the same kind of name identity that is revealed in the

New Testament. And so, therefore, since this is a prophecy of the one who's come, therefore it's interesting.

Nobody in the New Testament identified Jesus that way. But anyway, I think avyad has to do with Christ as creator, and I'll go into that during the debate.

But what I heard him say was, and this was in the debate, not with Matt Slick, but with Mr.

Reeves. He said, He said, It's the everlasting father definite article,

Mr. Reeves. And I started thinking, and I was on my bike at the time, and I did not stop, and I have not bothered to put a

Bible program on my iPod. I'm not even sure if there is one. Nor would I probably be able to see through all the sweat to be able to utilize it anyways.

But I've done a lot of work on Isaiah 9. It's Isaiah 9 .5 in Hebrew. And I was going,

I don't think there's an article there. There doesn't need to be, because of the construct state.

But it's not even in the English translation. His name shall be called, wonderful counselor, mighty

God, everlasting father, prince of peace. And so you wouldn't expect the everlasting father, because you already have, in the language, you already have the particularity of the definiteness provided by the word name.

Specifically, by the use of, these are names, and therefore you don't need it.

But even in the English translation, it's not there. Now, that was one of the only drawbacks to the

Reeves -Perkins debate, was, I will emphasize very strongly, and we will hear it as we dive into Mr.

Perkins' comments this morning, this afternoon. Yeah, it is this morning, whenever. There is a fundamental hermeneutical disagreement between us, and I don't think that it's really a disputable point.

The oneness argument, it's going to be very interesting. Like I said, this will be the second time I've done a oneness debate and a

Muslim debate. And both times, in the past we were debating the deity of Christ.

That's when I debated Hamzah Abdul -Malik. And I did the oneness debate against Saban. They both used the same arguments to come to a completely different conclusion.

The same thing is going to happen in Australia, and I can tell you why. I think, I think, at least

I've suggested, that the Muslim topic be on the incarnation of Christ. And so we're going to hear the exact same arguments, because both sides assume

Unitarianism. And if I would, again, my hat is off to Mr. Reeves and his presentation.

I thought he did a very good job. But if I was going to strengthen his presentation at all, there would have been a couple of things.

There would have been two things. I would have absolutely, over and over again said, listen to Mr. Perkins assuming

Unitarianism. Not proving it, just assuming it. It is his overriding interpretational grid.

And since that is the subject that we're debating, you cannot assume it, you have to prove it.

And I will be repeating that ad nauseum over the next number of weeks as we listen to these debates, because Mr.

Perkins never assumes, never proves Unitarianism. He only assumes Unitarianism.

And that's why he's rarely really in the debate at that point. And that's what our Muslim friends do too.

They assume Unitarianism. That's what our Jehovah's Witness friends do. They assume Unitarianism. You must challenge the assumption that the being of God, the fact there's one being of God, absolutely necessitates there's only one person that shares that being.

Because we all agree that being is finite and unlimited. And since it's infinite and unlimited.

Did I say finite? Infinite and unlimited. And since it is, then why do you say it can only be shared by one person?

You have to prove that. You can't just assume it. That's the big thing. Hopefully, if you take anything else, maybe your biggest interest is

Roman Catholicism. You're like, oh man, you're going to spend all this time talking about oneness and Calvinism and stuff like that. When you listen to a deconstruction of debates, hopefully no matter what the subject is, what you're learning to do is to hear the hidden assumptions that make up 99 % of most argumentation in debates.

And what you're going to hear from Roger Perkins is an absolutely uncritical repetition of the same assumption of Unitarianism.

And I just didn't hear, what I would suggest to Mr. Reeves is the strongest point to make is we are both absolute monotheists.

Mr. Perkins keeps saying, well, I'm a strict monotheist. What he means by strict monotheist is Unitarian rather than Trinitarian.

But that's where you have to focus. And the other suggestion I would make is the doctrine of the

Trinity is revealed between the Testaments. It is revealed in the incarnation of the

Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament is the document that is written in the ocean of Trinitarian experience.

Every author of the New Testament is an experiential Trinitarian. The Father has spoken from heaven.

They've walked with the Son. They're now indwelt by the Spirit. And so the revelation has taken place.

Now, can we see instances? Can we see with the light of fulfillment in the

Old Testament these sayings? Sure, John tells us, for example, in John chapter 12, who was seen by the angels upon the throne saying,

Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh. Yahweh sabaoth. Who was that? Well, according to John 12, it was the

Son, not the Father. The Son. And so we can see things like that, but the revelation itself, and so Perkins will say,

Oh, you're telling me Moses didn't, Moses was deceived about God. No, Moses knew God as he had revealed himself up to that point in time.

But you see, the oneness person and the Muslim, both together, reject the possibility of any progressive further revelation of God's being and God's purposes, especially in the coming of Jesus Christ and the establishment of his church.

And that is a major, major problem. So Mr. Perkins always said, Listen, all these

Trinitarians are the same. If you debate one, you debate them all. He said that. I heard it this morning.

He said that. If you debate one, you debate them all. They all go to the New Testament first. No, I go to the

Old Testament and get monotheism. There's only one true God. But then I don't stop there and say, Oh, this is it.

If there's anything beyond this, and that's what my Muslim friends do, how many times have

I had a Muslim say, I'd like to have a debate on whether the doctrine of God in the Old Testament is more consistent with Islam or Christianity.

Why is that? Because they refuse to accept the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, just as modern

Jews do. Now, I don't understand why Mr. Perkins is constantly saying, A Jewish person would laugh at this theology.

They never believed in God in three persons. Well, I am going to point out that there is a whole lot more diversity in Jewish views of the nature of God at the time of Christ than he seemingly has any concept of.

I mean, you know, I had to fight through a lot of silliness in a fuller

Master of Arts in Theology program, but one thing I'm also awfully appreciative of is that they forced you to read a whole lot of literature.

Wide variety of stuff. And I know enough about intertestamental Judaism, especially their views of the

Memorandum and the Devar and things like that to know that there is a whole lot wider view than Mr.

Perkins seems to think there is. But be that as it may, that's not the point.

And the Jews didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and the Jews believed that it was

God that was going to come. And he's assuming Unitarianism there. Really? Wow, that one's easily challenged.

I mean, I agree. Read the Old Testament in that way, but that's what a modern Jewish person...

Yes, we think God, the Messiah is going to be God. Honestly? All the Jews believe that?

Interesting. We'll seek to challenge that, too. So there's lots of things, as you can tell, lots of things going through my mind, getting into debate mode.

But let's actually get into the debate. Now, once again, you've got to listen a little bit more carefully because the sound quality just pops up and down and isn't all that great.

But this is right at the beginning. This is right after, and he repeated this twice.

Mr. Perkins falsely accuses Matt Slick of unorthodoxy because he uses the term separate.

Obviously, Matt Slick does not mean separate as in each one possessing a third of deity or being a different deity or something like that.

Matt affirms that there is only one being of God that is shared fully by three divine persons, not that they have one third of the being of God.

God's being cannot be divided up. It's simple, not compound, etc., etc.

He's just using the term separate as in the sense of not to be confused with one another because that's exactly what oneness does because you end up in oneness theology with Jesus being two persons where he's praying to himself.

And every time he brought this up, it's interesting. Mr. Reeves brought this up and said, you know, the prayer life of Jesus is something that oneness

Pentecostalism— it is its downfall. I mean, there is no consistent oneness Pentecostal understanding of the prayer life of Jesus because you have one person praying to himself.

You have two persons, I'm sorry. You have Jesus who's two persons, and half of Jesus is praying to the other half of Jesus.

The non -deity half is praying to the deity half, and it just doesn't make any sense at all, and it makes a mishmash in the

New Testament. That's why this type of modalism was rejected long, long, long ago. But when that's brought up,

Mr. Perkins' response is, so you've got one deity praying to another deity. How do you have one God? That's not an argument.

It may be for oneness Pentecostals, but it's not for someone who's actually seeking truth. That's not an argument because we're not talking about two deities, first of all.

We believe that there are three persons and that they communicate between one another. And so we don't limit the being of God, and so you don't have

God being limited in some ways to where this can't happen. You have one person communicating with another person, and there has to be communication.

It's recorded for us all through Scripture. So just simply going, how can I have just one? That's not an argument because you're assuming what you've yet to prove.

What's the assumption? Well, God's unitarian. Well, aren't we debating whether God's unitarian or trinitarian?

So just assuming, it can't be like that because I'm right. That doesn't accomplish anything.

That's not an argument. And the question I'm going to be asking Mr. Perkins all through this is, who are you debating for?

If you're debating just for your side to sort of get them to go rah -rah, because during this debate, clearly the camera which is recording this is right next to the oneness group.

So you get all sorts of... they didn't realize that you get all this whispering and stuff like that and that sort of little cheering squad in the back.

And if those are the people you're debating for and you just want to get them to all rah -rah it up, okay, that's not why

I do debates. I'm not... I don't want to fly all the way up to Brisbane and have a conversation about this with somebody and just try to get all the

Christians going rah -rah. I want to engage what

Roger Perkins believes. That's why I've already listened to these debates twice each, three times for one of them.

And I'd listen to others if someone would direct me to them because I want to interact with what my opponent is saying, not what

I think he should be saying. So anyways, let's dive back into the debate.

Now, first it's important to acknowledge and to understand the different starting points that both of us have.

One that starts out with the Old Testament pointing out the numerous passages of Scripture that point out the emphatical oneness of God.

We understand the New Testament distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in light of these foundational

Old Testament teachings. We comprehend the New Testament distinctions as arising in the

Incarnation in which God acquired a human consciousness that He did not have under the

Old Testament which would explain why we never see Father -Son dialogue under the

Old Testament. I want you to notice that everything that he brought up of the New Testament did not go to the

Old Testament because it is not there in the Old Testament. So here's, as I said, his assertion that well, you start with the

Old Testament. Well, of course you do. And what do you derive from the Old Testament? Well, unfortunately, what

Mr. Perkins derives from the Old Testament is not just monotheism, but something that goes beyond what the

Old Testament teaches, and that is Unitarianism. He thinks that the Old Testament is teaching

Unitarianism. He will try to, I think in the second debate, he gets into Elohim, Eloah, and so on and so forth, and again misuses lexical sources to say it means one person, because he finds one use with a word where it can mean one person, therefore everywhere that's what it means, including when it talks about God.

That is a very, unfortunately, off -repeated error on Mr.

Perkins' part, and I think it's just part of the system itself. But here you have the idea, we start with the

Old Testament, but what they're actually doing is they're starting with their understanding of the ramifications of monotheism in the

Old Testament, and therefore not allowing the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ in the

New Testament to determine the categories of fulfillment. The Old Testament becomes the norm at that point.

And of course,

I would say just the opposite. I think they're doing the theology backwards. They're taking, they're inserting an unwarranted assumption, a presupposition, shall we say, into the nature of God in the sense of the concept of Unitarianism, and then really making mishmash out of the clear distinction that is made between the

Father and the Son and the revelation that the Son is a divine preexistent person. They come up with just grossly unnatural readings of those texts because of that errant presupposition that they insert into the

Old Testament. Now, I'm not sure what the relevance of pointing that out is.

Would it be relevant for me to point out that the arguments against the Trinity that I will be facing are the same from a

Muslim or a Oneness? Does that make the Oneness have a commonality of doctrine of the

Muslim? Yeah, they're both Unitarians. Is there a direct genetic relationship? No, don't think so.

But that's how it works. And I would point out that my belief in the

Trinity is derived very differently than most Roman Catholics today. Most Roman Catholics today believe in the

Trinity because the Church tells them so. I'm a biblical Trinitarian, and most people know that if you really want to get me upset, then as a

Roman Catholic, parallel the Trinity to some unbiblical, ahistorical concept like the bodily assumption of Mary as a dogma.

And then that generally gets my juices flowing just a little bit. And I believe that they didn't modify that trinity that they easily broke into with the invention of the word persons.

Now, it's interesting. Well, before I forget this, with the invention of the word persons, one of the things you hear from Oneness advocates all the time is, we just use biblical terminology.

We don't use all this extra theological stuff that you guys throw in here. The problem is, they cannot possibly talk to us about the relationship of the divine and the human

Christ, even in their own theology, without utilizing this language. It just can't be done. One of the things that is going to be discussed in this debate, and by the way, if you want to get a phone line, if we don't get phone calls here in the next five minutes before the break,

I'm just going to continue on with this debate. So if you want to get in, there need to be phone calls in and waiting, or we're just going to press on.

So 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341.

One of the things that came up in this debate that I don't think was necessarily useful, was, yes,

Roger Perkins Wallace will constantly make the accusation of tritheism, polytheism, and things like that.

And Matt Slick's response was, we don't believe that. Okay, that's true.

There's no question that we don't. But you have to deal with the argument that, well, functionally, you may say conceptually you don't believe it, but you functionally do believe it by your application.

This is the natural result. So I do believe that we have to provide a rebuttal to the assertion.

And, of course, for me, it's just very simple. Easily 95 % of Mr.

Perkins' arguments are based upon mixing category errors, logical errors that are very easily identified, and functionally refusing to allow the distinction between the being of God, between the terms being and person, to stand up.

Now, he has to use those distinctions in talking about Jesus. Has to. But then when it comes, when

I come to dealing with the nature of God, well, then those distinctions aren't allowed to stand.

And we will be calling for consistency at that point when we meet Down Under.

You said, why is it called, why do you call it an invention? Because the Bible never once acknowledges three persons in the

God name. Never mentions three persons. And so he exceeds the written word. And Paul says in 1

Corinthians 4, we're not to exceed the written word. And so they are guilty of eisegesis and in violation of what is called sola scriptura.

No, it's obviously not a violation of sola scriptura. We are not seeking to add any authorities outside of Scripture.

We're not seeking to add other, some type of tradition or something along those lines. I think that's, again, didn't we just recently have, what was his name?

Jack. Yeah, remember Brother Jack and his attack on Calvinism. Those Calvinists don't believe any of the solas.

They don't even believe in sola scriptura. Well, believe me, I believe firmly in sola scriptura.

Additionally, my opponent has employed many logical fallacies such as the fallacy of assumption and the fallacy of hypothesis contrary to fact.

I don't have time to go into what all of them mean. You can look them up. I'm sure my point is familiar with these phrases.

For example, he says that Christ prayed as one person prayed to another person.

The Bible never acknowledges the Father as a person. John 4 Christ says that the Father is spirit.

Now, there's an excellent example of, I think, just the incapacity of the oneness perspective to even interact meaningfully with the historical arguments and the biblical arguments.

The Bible never acknowledges God as a person. Really? Does he speak?

Does he have a will? That makes him a person. Oh, but doesn't use the word. Doesn't matter.

And so, to say God is spirit. Oh, he's an impersonal spirit?

No, he's a personal spirit. Uses personal pronouns? Yeah. Has a will? Yeah. So he's personal.

So he's a person. Well, not like a human person. No, I didn't say he was a human person. But you see, it's not a meaningful form of argumentation.

The Bible never says God is a person. When you then have to admit, well, okay, what we mean by that is a self -conscious being that recognizes his own existence over against others and has a will and communicates.

Well, yeah, okay, all right. So why even waste the debate time to say the

Bible never acknowledges God as a person if what you mean by that is the Bible never uses the phrase God is a person?

Then, yeah, but then again, it's sort of like the Muslim argument. Jesus never says,

I am God, worship me. Therefore, he's not God and we can't worship him. It's not a meaningful form of argumentation.

It really isn't and should be recognized along those lines. Well, didn't get very far there either, but actually sort of did.

Covered a lot of foundational ground there. And so we already have three folks online. Still have one line open at 877 -753 -3341.

We've already got one person, I believe, on dividing .line on Skype. And so it looks like we will be able to take our open phones.

Interestingly enough, none of which have anything to do seemingly with the topic we're discussing.

Oh, well, we'll be back with your phone calls right after this. So many stars strong and true

Quickly fall away 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 930 a .m., and the worship service is at 1045. Evening services are at 630 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.

Pulpit Crimes The criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James White's most provocative book yet.

White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week, as he seeks to leave no stone unturned.

Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture, one crime after another is laid bare for all to see.

The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from His Word. What has happened to this sacred duty in our day?

The charges are as follows. Prostitution using the gospel for financial gain, pandering to pluralism, cowardice under fire, felonious eisegesis, entertainment without a license, and cross -dressing, ignoring

God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women. Is a pulpit crime occurring in your town? Get Pulpit Crimes in the bookstore at AOMEN .org.

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 AOMEN .org.

And welcome back to Dividing Line. We go to open phones on this jumbo edition of the

Dividing Line, 877 -753 -3341. Dividing .Line

via Skype is the number, so let's talk with David. Hi, David. Hey, Dr.

White. Yes, sir. Pleasure to talk to you. Yes, sir. And I do apologize that this has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Nobody cares what I'm talking about. It's okay. I'm used to it. Well, Rich let me on, so let's just both blame him together.

I do that all the time. I'll leave it to you. That's his job.

He's whipping himself in the other room now. Actually, he can cut me off, too. We have a group called

Opus Riche, so anyway. Very nice. Well, it was a question about apologetic methodology, and it had come to me from a couple of conversations you had had, and this goes back a few months now, when you were talking to Open Air Atheist.

And right before you talked to him, like a week or two before you talked to another atheist, and they both said something that was almost identical, and I think in the conversation it kind of went off in a different direction, so it didn't circle back to that.

But they both kind of started the conversation with you by saying something like this. I have read the

Bible. I know what you, James White, believe about Romans 1, about me suppressing the truth and unrighteousness, and I am here to tell you that that is not what is going on with me.

I am not suppressing the truth and unrighteousness, even though I know you believe I am. I do not go to bed with my conscience screaming at me that I am wrong.

I do not have this beach ball of truth in a pool that I am trying to keep down. It keeps popping up.

I am not wearing myself out by doing this. Which is why you're calling a Christian webcast to deny that you're actually doing that.

Yeah, go ahead. Well, there is a bit of oddity to that. It is a sort of evangelizing of their happy not suppressing of truth.

But anyway, it's just interesting that even though many people don't voice that denial, these guys at least knew their

Bible well enough to say, I know what you believe, and I'm here to tell you you're wrong. Your presuppositions are incorrect.

You're going to have to try something else. And so I was wondering, as you deal with something like that, do you usually just sort of continue on with what you're doing, knowing that Romans 1 is in fact correct, and you're just going to continue operating on that assumption?

Or do you stop sometimes and say, you know what? You're absolutely wrong about that.

You are suppressing the truth, and I'm going to demonstrate that for you in such and such a way.

Yeah, I mean, that's what you have to do. The parameters of apologetic methodology define how we do apologetics.

And if we want to present the gospel to someone with absolute clarity and without compromising its biblical content, then we have certain limits.

And so even if someone starts off saying, look, I've run into enough of you crazy

Christian Calvinists on the Internet. I know what you're going to tell me.

I'm not doing all that stuff. Well, what's the first step that you go? You demonstrate that they are.

And they're not going to be able, if what we're saying is true, they're not going to be able to discuss almost anything without providing you with the very evidence you need to document your case.

You could go to almost any moral or ethical discussion. You could do anything to where we would be applying the law of God to their life, which we know is written upon their conscience, and provide ourselves with all sorts of ammunition, shall we say, all sorts of evidence that they cannot live consistently with the assumption that they're making and with the presentation they're making.

So the wonderful thing is that the point of contact with the unbeliever is the fact these create an image of God.

And it's always there. You can always go there. That's the only ground you can stand on. There's no neutral ground you can stand on.

They're always going to have that mark of the maker upon them.

And in fact, the more they try to escape that, the more obvious it becomes to the observer that they are purposefully attempting to escape that.

I mean, what is it that makes even the hardened secularist not want to be on Main Street during a gay pride thing?

They know. They know in their own worldview, oh, we should just be celebrating all this, but most of them don't want to be there.

And there's a reason for it. And so, yeah, I think it's actually both.

I continue on, but I continue on to utilize the fact that they're creating the image of God as the very mechanism of demonstrating that they are suppressing that knowledge and that they cannot live consistently within their own worldview.

They will keep having to borrow from my worldview to prop theirs up.

And I think you did you hear the story of young Eric from Illinois? Apparently not.

It's a story I've told a couple times. I didn't want to bore you with it. You've already heard it. But I was speaking at a university in Illinois, and I thought

I was speaking to a Christian group, but I actually ended up just being a campus group where they had put out flyers that said, Stump the

Chump. Stump the Christian. Yeah, Stump the Chump is what it was, and then advertised free pizza. And this atheist showed up, and I think he was dressed all in red with blue hair, as I recall.

But we had quite a long conversation, and I never got anything eaten. But I just let him talk and talk and talk until finally he gave me what

I needed. He made a statement about how he knew he should do better in living consistently with what he had come to understand to be his worldview.

And as soon as he said that, I had him. And it was not difficult to show him the incredible inconsistency in what he had just said and what he was doing and what he was going to do when he walked out of that place and how he was going to live the rest of his life and how

I was going to pray that every single time he violated his own principles and borrowed from my worldview,

God would convict him of that. Now, I don't know whatever has happened to Eric, but that's just the example that I like to use where you can be in almost any situation and make that kind of application.

So to connect the dots on that, he said, I know I should be doing better with what

I say I believe. And you then said, what, why do you need to be better at all?

I immediately nailed him on why he had any type of consciousness of failing to hold to these standards.

And I started pointing out things. He had gone so far as to say that he could not actually affirm epistemologically the existence of his coat.

But he'd be mad if you took it away. No, I said, well, it was about 21 degrees outside. I said, let me tell you something.

You may not think that coat exists, but I can guarantee you, you're taking it and putting it on when you leave. And he did.

And I said, you're going to walk down the right side of the road. You're not going to walk down the middle of the road. If you can drive a car, you go on the right -hand side, not the left -hand side, because you know that your radical epistemology doesn't work in the real world.

You're going to be borrowing my regularity of nature and my worldview, and you're going to keep propping yours up until you finally realize that it just gets really boring putting out all that energy to create this silly worldview that doesn't exist.

And the only reason you're doing it is so you don't have to deal with my God. And he just looked at me like, wow, where did you come from?

Obviously, I don't speak like the professors in the philosophy department did at that particular university.

So you can always find a way to do that. So my answer would be both of your responses, actually, but I find a way to demonstrate the inconsistency of the way they're living.

Okay. I was thinking back over your second Dan Barker debate, and it's been a while since I listened to that, so I couldn't remember how, if you got into it in the question and answer section, or if you did you do that?

That would have been more of the first one. The second one was more on the issue of Christ allegedly being the result of mythology and stuff like that.

Yeah, right. That was the one where it got kind of weird. Yeah, it did get weird. You're right, it was the first one that was better.

But did you get in with that on him? Well, I certainly tried to use it. I certainly was trying to make my presentation consistent with that.

But to be honest with you, I don't recall what the audience questions were, so I'm not sure how much of that actually came out there.

Yeah. Okay. Pretty good. Okay, thanks, David. 877 -753 -3341.

I believe we're going to go to our Skype call now. All right, and let's talk with Landon. Hi, Landon. Hi, Dr.

White. How are you? Can you hear me okay? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you for taking my call, buddy.

I had a quick question about a Christian response to naturalism. I was listening about a month or so ago to a

Whitehorse Inn, and it had Mike Shermer, the skeptic magazine guy, on there. He was giving a defense of his naturalism, why he rejects the

Christian message. He made a statement in there that he subscribes to free will, as he was discussing the mutation and evolution of species into humans and whatnot.

He was saying that he subscribes to free will. I was thinking of a lecture that Ravi Zacharias had given where he quoted

Stephen Hawking in saying that everything is determined, and we don't know all the variables, so it's kind of irrelevant, but he believed everything was determined.

So given these two kind of opposite views of both being naturalistic and evolutionary, how do we as Christians respond to each one in regards to one says we are completely free and the other says we're completely determined?

Well, you have to find out where that person is, and unfortunately the majority of the folks you're talking to have taken their cue from just whoever their favorite author is and may not even be aware of the fact that there's great disagreement amongst even the new atheists as to the nature of libertarian freedom or what kind of freedom that we have.

And very few of the people who tout Neo -Darwinian micromutational evolutionary theory actually really understand what it entails, and they're always coming up with some new theory, a theory based upon a theory based upon a theory based upon a theory, and as long as you've got a big name behind it, then all is well,

I guess. But the basic idea is you have to find out where this person is coming from.

If they take the free will perspective, then, yeah, you have a strong basis for saying, well, you're being inconsistent with your own naturalistic materialism because I would think that if you really are a

Darwinist and you really have bought into the concept that we are nothing more than what we are made by our genetics, we're nothing more than a, as Dawkins would put it, a container to carry our genetic code and pass it on to as many in the next generation as we possibly can, and that's pretty much the highest transcendental value of mankind,

I don't really see why you would even be thinking about such things as free will or transcendental meaning to anything, and I really think that the reason that the

New Atheists are trying to, you know, I listened to that Mexico City debate that took place a few months ago, and it was very clear the

New Atheists were desperately trying to say to the world, well, we can find a ground for meaning, and so they're trying to distance themselves as much as possible from the rather dismal, bleak, this is just the way it is, there's nothing special about you, there's nothing special about life, we're heading for heat death, there's no transcendent meaning or beauty in anything of the

Dawkins variety, the rest of them are really trying to sort of separate themselves from that, and what

I would do in light of the last call we had is use their desire to separate themselves from that as one of my lead -ins, in the sense of demonstrating the inconsistency, from a naturalistic perspective, of their position, but recognizing, you know what,

I'm glad you have that feeling, I'm glad you recognize the desire to do something more, to have something more, it's not just, as Dawkins says, a wishful thinking type thing, there is a reason why all of us, if we've ever experienced transcendental meaning in life, and most of us have, in the birth of a child, in our marriage, at the side of a loved one as they pass away, you know, being a

Scotsman with no emotions, I was amazed last weekend when I gave my daughter away in marriage, man, there was something there that connected me with all the fathers that went before me, and I now had experienced something that I could not have understood beforehand, and there's something that goes beyond just simply the synapses in my brain firing, and coming to those experiences, and so I would use that with those people, and say,

I wonder why you're even going there, because your worldview doesn't provide you with a reason for even trying to do this, and you seem to be desperate to be doing it,

I wonder why it is. Now, with the other person, they're not going to, even Dawkins, Dawkins has a wife and kids, he doesn't live consistently with his worldview at that point, and so with the pessimistic, no free will, everything's just determined person, you can,

I think, pretty easily show the inconsistencies, but they're going to be much more hardened to it, in my experience, it's the ones that are trying to find some way, those are the ones that I would think would be a little bit more open to maybe seeing what it is you're talking about.

Yeah, because especially after listening to your dividing lines about a month ago with the

Michael Brown stuff, I know this homosexual agenda is coming out pretty strong, that we're born this way, we're not choosing it, this is just how we are.

Well, Lady Gaga has proven that for the current generation. That's all they need is a costume and a fancy beat, and that'll proclaim the worldview.

I know as Christians, we're going to be attacked from this at different angles. That's one perspective of saying,

I'm not culpable for my choices, yet I understand the inconsistencies where, well, why would you incriminate a murderer?

Wasn't he just born that way to want to eliminate life? Yeah, you know, it's funny, just this morning, I almost never do this, but I turned on the

Today Show, because I happened to look over at 7 o 'clock, and I wonder what the response to all the debt ceiling stuff is.

So I happened to pop it on, and I forget what it was.

There was some news report about somebody had done some horrific thing, had killed somebody or something.

And these news reporters that I know would just be as liberal as the day is long, boy, the comments they made on that made it very clear they didn't have any problem with stiff and strong penalties in this situation.

You know, the inconsistency was striking to me. And so, you know, the situation you have with both of them, both of those groups, what you need to recognize, you're actually calling them to a higher view of man.

Because while we believe in total depravity, what makes total depravity what it is, is the fact that we've been created in the image of God, and that we know right from wrong, and that we can communicate with Him, and we've been gifted by God with these tremendous capacities and abilities that my cat does not have,

I assure you. I have attempted to reason with my cat many times on a moral basis. It does not work. And we have that capacity and ability.

We're actually calling people to something higher. And I think a lot of people are looking for that.

Their secular education has robbed them of transcendental meaning. And I think they're looking for that.

And the cults know that, and the cults will give them falsehood. We just need to give them truth in regards to these particular matters.

Now, in philosophical categories, am I wrong in saying that, you know, the

Mike Shermer type or those that are advocating free will and trying to find meaning, is that just a reintroduction of existentialism, or is there another word to describe the philosophical category that they try to jump into?

I don't know. I do not call myself a philosopher. I look at it more from a biblical perspective.

They recognize that it is a philosophy of despair and hopelessness, and they recognize that that's not going to fly.

And I say that's because we're creating an image of God. So what terminology might be applied to it

I think depends on the form of meaning that they then seek to present, whether it's just phenomenological or whether it's something that's created in the mind, whatever.

I think that would determine the actual term that would be applied to it. Hey, Landon, thanks for your phone call today. I've got two more to sneak in in the next couple of minutes, so thanks for your call.

Thank you, brother. Thank you. Bye -bye. All right, two more to sneak in. I think we can get to both of them here. Let's talk with Brian.

Hi, Brian. How are you doing, Dr. White? Doing good. Well, speaking of moral standards,

I had a question on maybe your understanding or position of Bonson's theonomic thesis.

I've read basically everything he's written on it and heard many of his lectures, and I've read your book that you co -wrote on the same -sex controversy, and I've heard you kind of allude to theonomy, and I don't get the impression that you're completely against it, but I want to understand your position and possibly the new reformed positions that are being kind of raised up against it with, like, the two kingdoms and natural law type stuff coming out of Westminster West.

Yeah. Theonomy, for those who are not familiar with it, just simply means God's law, the rule of God's law.

It has been associated with a wide variety of perspectives, Greg Bonson being one of the most sober, going back to, obviously, he was very familiar with and depended upon R .J.

Rush Dooney for certain of his understandings as well, but had his own nuances. And then there have been others,

Gary North and others, that have other forms of theonomy. Theonomy is normally, I think, misidentified as just this wild -eyed idea of the

Christians need to take over and kill off all the homosexuals and so on and so forth. That obviously is not what theonomy is.

And it very frequently is associated with a post -millennial perspective in the concept of the gospel growing in a particular culture until it becomes the majority, and therefore what the majority therefore want is going to be that which is reflected in God's law.

I liked the fact that Bonson recognized there was much work to be done in this and the identification of what is ceremonial and what is moral, how we derive what is moral from, say, the holiness code and things like that.

I think he was right when he concluded his book in saying there's much more work to be done here. I think he recognized it wasn't a black and white issue, and that there was much to be said there.

Now, as a Baptist, of course, I am extremely concerned about any kind of governmental intrusion into the church.

I do not see the

New Testament teaching the church to take over the realm of the magistrate.

I do think that there are two realms there. I do think the magistrate will be judged on the basis of God's moral law.

I think that you see that in Matthew 25. I think you see that in Revelation. I think you see that in the

Minor Prophets and the fact that other nations outside of Israel are condemned for the way they treated widows and orphans and all the things associated therewith.

So I think that there is an appropriate, you know, you're not going to hear me ever speaking against God's law because God's law represents

God's holy nature. What you will hear me speaking against is anyone who thinks that God's law is intended to be the means by which we bring about our own salvation.

The very clear teaching in the New Testament is that it functions to show us our sin and then point us to the

Savior. It is our schoolmaster to lead us unto Christ. And so, unfortunately, a lot of very shallow -thinking evangelicals have just simply dismissed

God's law. They don't even read the Old Testament because they don't see that it has that great value to us.

So I would be a Reformed Baptist and hence would be very, and as an

Amillennialist as well, would be concerned about some of the concepts of making certain religious rules mandatory within a culture, especially because that then opens the door for the culture then to make things mandatory within the church.

I do see two different spheres at that point. But I don't go nearly as far as the—so

I don't go to that extreme of theonomy. I would call myself a theonomist in the sense that I honor

God's law and I believe that every nation and every leader of every nation will be judged by God's law and that God's law is just and holy and it demonstrates

God's holy will. And Jeremiah said that I will write my law upon their hearts and that I only know of one law that reveals

God's holy will and therefore that gives us that use of the law for the Christian. That is how we honor God.

But at the same time, I don't go so far as this Two Kingdoms stuff where you have such a radical distinction that I've actually heard people saying,

Ah, you know, this homosexual stuff, so what? You know, that's just the world, you know. Don't have to worry about that.

That's just the world being the world. And as if we somehow have already been taken out of the world and are not to use the freedoms that God has given to us to be salt and light.

So I try to, you know, stay out of the radical extremes as best

I can, and I don't know that I'm always consistent on that line. And I do think

Bartholomew would have agreed with the separation of church and state, as he makes clear in a lot of his works, that there shouldn't be one ruling over the other.

But he also does, you know, looking at maybe Romans 13, 1 -7, seeing that the law should be the standard by which the civil magistrate should be enforcing or avenging

God's wrath. And I don't know, it's interesting to me. I've kind of gotten myself into trouble talking to people because it was kind of a new thing with me.

And I find his thesis very compelling. I can see how it could kind of have a broad spectrum within itself, but I don't think...

I hear you, Brian, unfortunately. I also hear the theme music. Yeah, I'm pretty much there with you, and I appreciate much of what

Greg had to say, and thankfully knew him before his death. And I do appreciate that, and I appreciate your phone call.

Hey, Vincent, sorry I didn't get to you today. I honestly just didn't see it coming.

I thought it was 21 after, not 28 after. 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 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.